Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Daily Bruin

I want to know if this source is reliable. Here's the link of one of the reviews from Daily Bruin. [1] Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Camilasdandelions, WP:RSSM cites this thread for a discussion that kind of mirrors what you asked, there was also a similar thread here as well. There hasn't been an RfC on using student publications but it's probably usable with other sources being preferred. If there's a long review section already and if some of the sources duplicates what is being discussed in the linked article, it's probably better not to include it. There's also editors in that thread that believe that it's better not to put student reviews and professional reviews in the same section as it would be giving them undue weight or that they're not sources for professional criticism and should just not be used. The Daily Bruin seems to have editorial oversight and a reasonable history without much controversies. Justiyaya 02:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Can I ask how to find whether this article is a student-published? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions, sorry for the late response. Daily Bruin! There's also usually an about page associated with any news site. (please ping on reply) Justiyaya 13:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Glitter Magazine, Atwood Magazine, Cosmopolitan etc.

I'm trying to improve this article, and I found some sources about it but I wonder if they are reliable. Below links are what I found, and not linked websites are frequently-discovered when I try to improve music articles.

1. Glitter

2. Cosmopolitan

3. Atwood

4. Flaunt

5. Notion

6. House of Solo

7. TotalNtertainment

8. pm studio Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure Cosmo generally meets the requirement of being an RS, since it's been a print magazine for so long. That said, mesic music isn't really their specialty, so they probably wouldn't be a great authority for anything controversial or contentious. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for response. But I don't understand the word "mesic". Did you mean "music"? Also, then I'll not to cite Cosmo on music genres then. :) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant music. Disappointing autocorrect didn't catch and fix that. Sorry for the confusion. But yeah, I think you're generally fine to use it. What I mean is, if you come across 3 reliable music sources that say "this is a pop punk release" and Cosmo comes and says "this is definitely not pop punk", I'd put much less weight/importance on their stance. (Just a hypothetical example, I have no idea what genre this artist is.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thank you again, and it's totally fine about your typo XD. I hope other websites that I suggested can be RS, because most of them are frequently discovered when I search for music sources. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to the last two? Thanks.

Glitter seems to be an online magazine with some kind of team, but the About Us and Our Team pages go to parked GoDaddy domains. So it can't be accessed and thus I'd say unreliable, for now.

Atwood Magazine has a big writing team. I'm assuming that some are the editors and site runners, but it doesn't say under the bios and it's a lot to sift through. Since you're proposing the source, maybe you could look through? So that one is a maybe.

Flaunt has been running since 1998 and it has a staff team, I'd say that's a longstanding online magazine source. Note that it's more geared toward fashion and culture, so that's the area where I'd find it most useful for notability and significant coverage.

Notion is self-advertised as a promotional and marketing resource. I'd say that this gives them serious conflict of interest problems. The "Opinion" section might still be reliable for independent coverage, but I'd say to approach this source with caution and to check for conflicts of interest.

House of Solo has a staff team, but I don't know who the editors are or have any indications of how the oversight works as they don't provide any of that information. I'd avoid it.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@3family6: Hi! Thank you for the reply, your reply really helped me.

Here's the link of pm studio and TotalNtertainment.

[2]

[3] Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. With pm studio, there's no page outlining the staff for the site, and all the articles I've seen have the same byline. I think we're looking at a blog.

TotalNtertainment does have some by-lines to other writers, and says that they want content writers, but there's no description of who the editor(s) is/are and such. And they do also accept sponsored content - I don't know if they label it as such or not.

With both of those, I would not consider them reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought (and hoped) both are reliable. It's sad to hear that, anyway then I'll try to find other sources or delete it. Thank you for telling me! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Glitter is owned by Soeurs Media Group. I can't find published editorial standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@3family6 @Sergecross73 @Voorts: Thank you for y'all responses. Could y'all check Outnow Magazine too? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Source reliability check: The Believer

This looks like a RS to me, and covers music. quote, "The magazine is a thirteen-time finalist for the National Magazine Award", it's published by McSweeney's (founded by Dave Eggers), writers include notable journalists such as Erik Morse, etc. Any objections if I add this to the list of sources? Popcornfud (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

None here. Seems like a pretty strong case for reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree, seems a good quality reference, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'll add it. Popcornfud (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mariah Carey (album)

Mariah Carey (album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:The Loveliest Time

New talk section is opened. Please share your opinions on this talk page, whether to determine the single or not. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 13:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

spectrum culture listing

Per the results of these discussions in 2021 and 2024, is it safe to say Spectrum Culture can be listed on albums reliable sources (since it isn't and looks like it should be by now)? Chchcheckit (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the 2024 discussion, it looks like there were multiple editors in favor of its use, and the only one opposed is an editor who is currently indefinitely blocked, so I'd say you're probably in the clear. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

wait idk what im supposed to do w this info Chchcheckit (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought you were asking to if you could add it to the WP:RSMUSIC list, and I was essentially saying "Yes, you can". Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Added it based on this and previous discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mashinalno

The article Mashinalno has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Common title makes it impractical to search online. Run of the mill, small label record.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Feels like it could probably just be a redirect, but its daily average of 2 page views per day, likely inflated from 1 prior to this nomination, makes me think that it doesn't really matter either way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains (album)/archive1

Hey all, if you like rock music I would appreciate any and all help with reviewing my FAC. It's been open for three weeks, but my FACs often struggle to gain interest and I am once again at risk of archival. I would be open to helping a music-related FAC or GAN in return. mftp dan ^oops 23:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Source Reliability Check: Metal on Tap

Hello, I'm seeking community input on the reliability of Metal on Tap for use in album review citations, specifically for heavy metal articles. This stems from a recent edit discussion where concerns were raised about the site’s editorial transparency. Below is my case for consideration, per WP:IRS and WT:ALBUM protocols:  

Publication History & Scope

- Metal on Tap has published album reviews since 2024.

- Focuses exclusively on metal subgenres, with detailed analyses of composition, production, and lyrical themes (e.g., their review of Whitechapel’s Hymns in Dissonance].

Editorial Standards Evidence

While no editorial staff is publicly listed, their reviews exhibit:

- Structured critiques: Consistent scoring systems (e.g., 10-point scale) and sectioned analysis (vocals, instrumentation, etc.).   - Interviews with artists: Demonstrating industry access. e.g. This interview with Burton C Bell (formerly of Fear Factory)

- Fact-checkable claims: Reviews reference verifiable details (e.g., album release dates, producer credits).  

Comparable Precedent

- Similar niche metal outlets like New Transcendence and MetalSucks are routinely cited on Wikipedia despite not always listing editorial teams.  

- Metal on Tap’s reviews are cited in non-Wikipedia contexts (e.g. The Destroy All Lines press release surrounding the Sleep Token album Even in Arcadia).  

Addressing Concerns

- Lack of named staff: This is common in niche music journalism. Per WP:RS#Context_matters, specialized sources may still be reliable if they demonstrate consistent editorial oversight.

- "Surprisingly professional" quality: As noted by the reverting editor, the site’s depth of analysis aligns with established outlets like *Blabbermouth.net*.

I propose a partial reliability status for metal genre album reviews only, given their focused expertise.

- Sample reviews for assessment:

Sleep Token - Even in Arcadia  

Ghost - Skeleta

Would appreciate feedback on whether this meets the threshold for WP:ALBUM standards. Thank you! Casseross (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using LLMs for discussions? Rambley (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I will admit to using an LLM to dress up my points, I’m still new to a lot of this and didn’t know what level of formality to go with. Formal isn’t a writing style I’m confident in so I used an aid to do so. It doesn’t make any of the points less valid though Casseross (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable - no editorial staff, editorial policy, writers with professional credentials, or any sort of history in the industry. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  As for "writers with professional credentials, or any sort of history in the industry"

  The main writer is one of Australias largest heavy metal Youtubers, with traditional media shifting away from print and more towards non traditional forms in my mind this would count as professional, but I would agree that with no staff it does make that harder to understand, there is also precedent for sources being cited without published editorial teams.

  As for history in the industry, worldwide there may not be a lot of history but has one of Australias fastest rising and leading sources via youtube and now his website since mid 2024 Casseross (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:RSPYT - being a YouTuber isn't helping the argument. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  So YouTubers can't be writers and writers can't be YouTubers?

  We're talking about album reviews here, your link from my understanding is referring to citing YouTube as a source, which is not what is happening here. The content on the site is written album reviews, not referencing a YouTubers opinion on what is happening in current or historical events. Casseross (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  We're talking about a website that their only credential appears to be your claim that they're a popular Youtuber. I'm saying that's not a good credential if we don't find YouTubers to be reliable sources either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If there's no editorial staff listed, and no author bylines, how on earth can you claim that it actually has editorial oversight or professional staff?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Their About Us page has gone live listing the staff. There are some reviews that do in fact have bylines e.g Hidden Intent - Terraform but not on all reviews Casseross (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

So, they've been around since last year, but just posted their "About Us" listing today, coincidentally, at the same time this discussion started? And it looks like majority of your edits are related to this website. Do you have a connection to the website? Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I second Sergecross73's suspicions. It's fine and well that the About Us is up now. I think the site being up since only 2024, and the About Us only going up today, means it's too soon to ascertain a reputation for the site being reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Unreliable. ResonantDis_tortion 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

How convenient. My vote is too soon to consider reliable based on the evidence listed above, with perhaps the exception of interviews, in which case this would not be preferable but I might accept if we're hurting bad for content in an article. mftp dan ^oops 17:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nebraska (album)/archive1

Hey all. I currently have a peer review open and was looking for some more feedback before I take it to FAC. It's on Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska, a stark solo effort considered one of his finest. I'd greatly appreciate it and would be happen to return a favor. Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC on bonus and alternate track listings

What guidance, if any, should be included at MOS:ALBUMS regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Definitely against 100% omitting them. Not sure where to draw the line though, as I know its ridiculous to list off these scenarios where an album has 8 alternate releases that are just barely different from one another too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

After the previous discussions, where I started off in a sort of middle position of inclusion but with some significant restrictions, I came around to the position of generally include, with some discretion against being excessive with them in cases where there are numerous re-issues and bonus issues. In those cases, we should be more selective.

Variant sequences of tracks can be noted in prose as they don't need multiple listings.

Regardless of where we end up landing on the inclusion or exclusion criteria for these tracks, there should be some technical and style guidance for how to display the tracks using the template. 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The first concern should always be with page size, because there's no justifiable reason I could think of to split track listings into their own article. I think so long as the additional TLs are sufficiently small (such as deluxe albums that include an additional handful of songs) and there aren't too many of them, their inclusion shouldn't be an issue. I would say prioritizing prose over lists/templates would be good; there are plenty of cases where the explanation is much simpler to put into words than to display, such as Damn (Collector's Edition) which is the exact reverse track order of the original album (under the Release and promotion section, this is explained in just two brief sentences, and that's really all that is necessary). Of course, there are cases where the difference is too complicated to briefly explain – I added two tracklists for Angels & Queens for that express reason – but in most, it is probably as simple as a sentence in a bulleted list and should be expressed as such. And if there are cases like Serge suggested with several barely different variants, it could even be useful to put them under a subheading the same way lists of samples in articles like Damn have. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No guideline. Editors should follow WP:DUE/WP:BALASP and only include track listings that have received coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a database, and not everything that's verifiable needs to be included in an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts what about situations where a track might not have receive coverage but has charted significantly?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

How often does a bonus/alternative track chart? And if it does, I'd say summarize it in prose with due weight. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how often, but I know of one. Thanks for that input.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's an example.

While it's not currently listed in the article for Sound-on-Sound, its remastered and expanded version Art/Empire/Industry (named after one of its tracks) charted in the UK indie album chart. Is this sufficient for inclusion, ignoring whether or not it had anything written about it? Fundgy (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I would just mention that as prose, since it's the entire album, unless there's agreement that the additional tracks are worth including. I'm thinking of specific tracks themselves, like "Fuego" from the iTunes version of Gravity, that charted on the Heatseekers.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Earlier this year, at the RFC that occurred on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, I supported a position that would allow for the inclusion of bonus tracks released within a year of the original album. I've thought about the issue more since then, and my stance has moderated over that time. I still think it's best to avoid too much "bonus track bloat"—(here I'm thinking about albums with numerous regional versions, or deluxe editions with entire discs' worth of alternate takes and instrumentals)—but on the flip side, I think there's also merit in avoiding the WP:CREEP of saying "here's a laundry list of rules about which bonus tracks should be in or out."
  My current opinion is that we should encourage editors to be conservative about what tracks to include (probably encouraging them to use prose over full listings, for situations such as the ones QuietHere describes), but that keeping our guidance broad and general will be more productive than enumerating a detailed rule set. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

For transparency, I notified editors who participated in previous discussions and who are still active.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Some kind of compromise is probably in order. This information (in some form) is genuinely useful (as a reader rather an editor, I make frequent use of it). However, we obviously do not need to reproduce near-identical tracklist tables for variants. What I would suggest is this:

• For any album (or EP, etc.), provide a tabular tracklist, showing the orignal release.
• When the album is simultaneously or near-simultaneously released on different media (or online release channels) with variant track listings:
  • Give the longest track listing in that table (and indicate the medium or release channel), then note (by medium or release channel) any missing tracks, or variant-version tracks, in one or more footnotes under that tracklist table. Formatting is left to editorial consensus at an article, and could take take the form of footnotes directly under the table, or a subsection for the variant release, or some other style.
  • Where there are multiple additional tracks in a release variant, it is okay to provide them in a short table matching the style of the original, without repeating the contents of the original.
• When the album is much later re-released in a form with a variant track list, treat it likewise, unless it is radically different:
  • When reasonable, handle this with footnote(s) under the original tracklist table.
  • In the case of a bonus disk or otherwise greatly extended track list, added onto the original, note that the original tracklist is included as well as additional tracks, then provide a tabular tracklist of the bonus tracks that matches the style of the original table, without reproducing the original table.
    • Example: There are near-innumerable "anniversary edition" reissues that consist of remasters of an original album with a bunch of bonus tracks added (sometimes multiples discs of them) such as demos, live takes, remixes, single edits, and single B-sides.
  • When releases by the same title are radically different (e.g. in two different national markets) but marketed as if the same album, treat them as separate releases (though not as separate articles, unless both are somehow independently notable).
    • Example: the UK and US versions of Goodbye by Dubstar. The US version is actually an anthology of songs from the UK Goodbye, from the previous album (Disgraceful), and from various singles, and has a separate listing in the article on the album. Sensibly, the Japanese version, which is the same as the UK one but with bonus tracks, is simply annotated with regard to the bonus tracks, without repeating the UK tracklist table. [Rather unhelpfully, it does not actually name them, just says they're B-sides from a particular single, and doesn't even link to the single. That should be fixed one way or another.]
  • When two completely different albums coincidentally have the same title, treat these as separate encyclopedia subjects.
    • Example: Tim Rose has two same-named but unrelated albums from two different labels, without tracks in common: Tim Rose (1967), and Tim Rose (1972). If articles are written about these albums, they will be separate articles.
  • Do not treat remaster re-releases differently. Simply note that a remaster was released in a particular year by a particular label, and annotate any significant alterations – tracks added, removed, or replaced (entirely, or with longer or shorter versions) – as we would with variant versions released simultaneously.
• In summary, keep tracklists as concise as possible without losing key information. In particular, do not duplicate tracklists (e.g. tracks 1–10) when listing additional tracks on a variant release (e.g. bonus tracks 11–13).

That's just off the top of my head, and some of you can probably refine this better. We need to strike a balance between being useful and informative of basic information about notable releases and their variants, versus wallowing in the sorts of geeky details to be found on a release's Discogs.com page. It's similar to the issues involved with WP articles on actors and movies/TV shows, versus their pages at IMDb.com.

PS: I don't think we need to have any "within a year of the original album" rule. Keep things simple.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

PPS: The above isn't proposed guideline wording. For that purpose it could be squashed down considerably, since most of the concerns about re-releases also apply to [near-]simulatenous variant releases, and we would not need to provide long-winded examples. The above material is intended for helping come to consensus on what the best practices are. How to put them into guideline wording comes after identifying what they are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Regarding how to avoid duplication, SMcCandish, what do you think of this that I drafted in a revision of MOS:ALBUM? It's based on the given example, Ctrl, above in the guidance on how to format tracklistings:

When adding the track listing of a deluxe edition with bonus tracks or additional discs, it is not necessary to repeat the track listing of the original album. Instead, add the track to the bottom of the listing, with its own headline, numbered with its position on the album (see the example immediately below). Avoid adding track listings on multiple media formats that are either identical to the original or merely reordered, such as 8-track cartridges.

Deluxe

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Producer(s)	Length
15.	"Love Galore" (Alt version)	Henderson	ThankGod4Cody Lang Scum	4:33

3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I've always preferred that approach, though it seems like there was some sort of opposition to it (not by me.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sergecross73, do you mean, opposition to how I've rendered the listing?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, looks like the indent didn't work right, but I was trying to respond to you. I've adjusted the indent. I like your rendering of the listing above. That's generally how I do it when I'm writing a creating an album article and its strictly up to how I want to handle it. I want to say someone's said there's WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, but I'm not sure. (I could be missing up formatting options too.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always favored the format of not repeating the full track listing for bonus tracks. The only objection to it I can think of is that people might find it confusing in those cases where the bonus tracks appear somewhere other than at the end of the album. But a short prose explanation would suffice in such cases so far as I'm concerned. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's an example to consider: Gratuitous_Sax_&_Senseless_Violins#2019_BMG_Remastered_and_Expanded_Edition

Is there a way to remove CD 1 entirely while making it clear that it's just a remastered repeat? If not, then perhaps it's a necessary evil that should remain. Fundgy (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I've gone through it and edited out CD 1 completely. It doesn't seem particularly confusing to me. Fundgy (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as reordered track listings go, I agree that in general, yes, it's best not to include those, but there are some exceptions. One that comes to mind: Days in Europa

In this case (talking about the 1980 release), the album was quickly reissued, remixed, reordered, and had a new cover. Part of that was due to the nature of the original cover and decisions made by the record label, and it has received significant coverage because of this. Fundgy (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fundgy yes, if it's significantly covered, inclusion is usually warranted. I think on that there is universal agreement.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Christian music sources

I took a stab at updating and curating the list of Christian music sources; I added some that had been agreed on but never formally listed; I linked to past the discussions or rationales that I could find for particular sources; and I tried to add archived weblinks to sites that were taken down or usurped; and put links to back issues (where applicable).

The Christian music WikiProject seems to be on last legs. Most of the editors I've worked with are now banned/blocked, retired, or inactive either from the project or Wikipedia entirely. This includes nearly everyone other than myself that helped create and curate the list in the past, and no editors other than myself seem to watch that page or implement edits - the last editor to do so retired last month. If anyone wants to take a look and check it over, so it's more than just one editor's opinion, please feel free. Thanks--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is really good. Especially the track record of discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I skimmed through their list, but it looks like any of the websites I was familiar with were already linked to discussions from this Wikiproject or RSP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Preserves Uncanned or Uncanned Preserves?

The article with the title Preserves Uncanned currently begins, "Uncanned Preserves is a compilation album of songs by Strawbs." Is the correct album title Preserves Uncanned or Uncanned Preserves? The album cover seems ambiguous. I don't know the best way to resolve this ambiguity, but it seems to me that we should pick one or the other for consistency. If there's actual real-world ambiguity about this (i.e., both forms of the title are found in reliable sources), perhaps we should explicitly mention that ambiguity in the article. —Bkell (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The more glaring issue here is that this article doesn't have any sources. In any event, AllMusic says Preserves Uncanned, as do random Google Books sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Related artist infobox chronologies

I'm surprised this issue didn't come up in the discussion of multiple infobox chronologies from a few years back, since in my experience this is one of the more common sources of multiple infobox chronologies. For those who don't know, many articles use infobox chronologies which incorporate both the album's artist and related artists. The article on Ram, an album by Paul and Linda McCartney, curiously incorporates both a chronology which follows the related artists approach and the one-artist approach. The Paul McCartney chronology has as its next album Wild Life, the debut album of Paul McCartney's next band, Wings, instead of his next solo album. However, the Linda McCartney chronology has as its next album Wide Prairie, which is her next solo album, even though Linda was also a member of Wings and Wild Life came out decades before Wide Prairie.

While I can certainly understand the appeal of this related artists system, I also see two problems with it: First, if a general reader sees an album listed in an artist's chronology, their natural assumption is that the album is by that artist, not by a band the artist was a member of. In fairness, some of these chronologies address this by identifying the artist in parenthetical text, but that such clarification is needed seems wrong to me. Second, this seems like it can easily lead to several chronologies per infobox in cases where a band's output overlaps with its members solo careers, as with Genesis and Utopia, for example. And limiting this system to a single chain wouldn't make sense, because then you'd frequently have the chronology for an artist's solo album pointing to a solo album by a different artist.

Thoughts? Martin IIIa (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Track listing: what qualifies as "simple"?

See the discussions here [4] and here [5]

I updated the Track listing section on Drastic Plastic to switch to the template format because I thought it was a good way to concisely and neatly place the tracks "Visions of Endless Hopes" and the US alternate track "Japan" on the same line (see here [6]). Simple edit, so I thought. It was reverted, which is fine, but when I asked them why, they referred how "It has long been WP album consensus that three templates are acceptable," but

• (1) what does that precisely mean?,
• (2) is there actually a consensus?, and
• (3) if so, where is this consensus?

It's quite clear that this has a history of being a contentious topic, to the point that, in my case, seniority is being pulled, and when I can't find any supposed consensus, they just wont tell me where it is. All I saw was a seven-year-old thread that had editors complaining the template was too hard to learn (as supposed to infoboxes or wikitables? strange).

These reverts are also being done in sitations that, in my view, moreso justify the use of the template than mine due to split album authorship (e.g. [7] and [8], same user). The user also claimed the edits might be considered disruptive, but these reverts that give the vaguest of explanations are fighting debatable disruption with more disruption.

I am a relatively new user here, but I seriously can't make heads or tails of this. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any clear-cut policy or guideline, past the tiny part in Album article style advice#Style and form that only makes a generalization for "simple" cases, which I would assume to mean track listings that are either too short or purely a list of track titles and lengths. Or is the notion of "simple" being applied to everything but the most complex of cases? Fundgy (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been here forever, and I still don't understand why people waste time on this sort of stuff, for what it's worth. I thought someone was working on revising the guidance, but that must have fallen to the wayside or hit a roadblock or something.

I always use the template in my article creations, because I think it looks more professional. But I also don't usually fight it if someone changes it either. As long as the info is there and readable, it doesn't matter much to me. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sergecross73, regarding revising the guidance, it's gotten derailed on the question of inclusion of bonus tracks, and discussions stalled. In the discussions about this section, I don't think "simple" was ever defined. I actually thought that somewhere, using multiple templates, duplicating tracks, had an expressed consensus against it, but isn't, currently. I think, Fundgy, that you are correct here. The entire tracklistings do not need to be duplicated. A formal description of this is actually being discussed right now, in the above RfC on bonus and alternated tracklistings. Also at issue there is when to even include alternate and bonus tracks. I'd suggest, Fundgy, that you bring this up above, with your thoughts on the questions.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Fundgy (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue isn't about bonus tracks or alternate track listings (as noted above, one can use prose, one can append more numbers) ... it's about the fact that three styles are acceptable, with many editors preferring the numbered list. In the recent failed RFC discussion, many editors noted that the template style is best used for more recent albums, where songs may be written or produced by many individuals. There seems to be a recent influx of relatively new editors who are "correcting" or "fixing" or "updating" (red flag terms) the style, resulting in an inaccurate edit summary description. As I informed Fundgy, I almost always use the template, as it's the most popular. And we have a simple solution to this disagreement: make the most popular style the only choice. I consider "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed and have been in place for years to be trivial and disruptive editing, and I think it's a little weird that such a new editor got so concerned about this small matter, especially as I indicated in my remarks that it was not an important distinction to me. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

To this point, still, no one can articulate what "three styles are acceptable" means and where it comes from, and I don't understand why me being relatively new and asking, in my view, warranted questions is a bad quality to have. My "update" was ultimately moving the alternate track to the same line, without pointlessly mentioning a record catalogue ID. The template was the vessel to do so. I didn't just change to the template.

My argument was never "make the most popular style the only choice". It is to make it recognized as the standard in sitations that need to be defined based on a less vague definition of "simple". I am fully aware that I am not the sole arbiter of this, and that's why I haven't reverted back your edit until the WikiProject can come with a real consensus.

Where all of this animosity on this subject is coming from is beyond me, and it's horribly discouraging. You told me earlier that you didn't personally find my edit disruptive, but now you are. Ultimately this whole thing boils down to me saying "what consensus? I can't find it" to getting the response "you're new, so trust me, it's there". I wouldn't have responded if you hadn't mischaracterized every little thing I've said. Fundgy (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fundgy: Hello. My understanding of a simple track listing, for which a numbered list is generally better than a track listing template, is one that includes the song title, the songwriters, and the track timings -- like this. If a track listing has a fourth field -- for example, "originally released on", or "featured musician" -- then either a numbered list or a track listing template would probably work. Beyond that you'd probably want to use the template. Others might not agree, but that's my view. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Melodic Magazine and mxdwn

[9] I can't find the content about advertisement or something. However, I'm still not sure if this magazine is reliable or not.

mxdwn, this website is frequently used on music articles. I checked About Us page, and they said:

mxdwn.com is an established online entertainment magazine that focuses on news, original reviews, features, photography and interviews. We are a leader and innovator in providing dynamic entertainment content.
Over the past 12 years, mxdwn has established itself as one of the most credible, reliable and forward-thinking entertainment publications in North America. What began as a music magazine founded by Editor in Chief Raymond Flotat has evolved into a valued resource not only for music but also for movies, video games, television and pop culture.
Our readers rely on us to provide timely and relevant entertainment news, thoughtful reviews, up-to-the-minute event coverage, and to accurately report on all that matters in entertainment.

For my think it's reliable, but I want to listen others' opinions before citing this source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 04:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I convinced source reviewers for this featured article that mxdwn was reliable, for what it's worth. Go ahead and take whatever comments from that thread you like for your argument. mftp dan ^oops 02:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I came here to link to that discussion. It's reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

go muckrack deep diving here. Chchcheckit (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Melodic Magazine is a print magazine with a full staff (so not a one-person fanzine). That's typically a slam dunk for reliability unless it's a notably gossip rag like Daily Mail or National Enquirer. Thus I'd say, reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)