Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Active discussions
WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Pebbles (series): notability of individual albumsEdit

Hi. Is anyone familiar with the Pebbles series of compilation albums, and its companion Highs in the Mid-Sixties series? I noticed that every single individual album from these series has its own Wikipedia article - roughly 70 of them. Over 50 of these are completely unsourced, and all these articles consist of is generally a tracklist and some original research trivia. While I have not examined every single album but picked a few at random instead, I haven't been able to confirm that any album individually passes WP:NALBUM; the best it gets seems to be Pebbles, Volume 3, for example, which has a dedicated review at AllMusic, which by itself is not enough to establish notability. At the same time, I realise that if there is significant coverage for individual albums, it's probably hard to find, especially if it's not online. So basically I'm wondering if anyone here has some insight in this - any input is appreciated. Lennart97 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Shocking Blue who created those articles (many years ago). --Muhandes (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd say the vast majority are not individually notable. Even the overall container article is largely original research and self-referenced to the liner notes of the albums, but the series is definitely notable as a whole. Richard3120 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Most are probably not notable, but the early Bomp ones, for example, are reviewed in the Spin Alternative Record Guide. A lot of coverage was tied to Greg Shaw's death. I've seen random articles in CMJ, Billboard, and stuff like the Tampa Tribune. Like Have a Nice Day, there are random reviews throughout the years. There are mentions in grunge histories, as, again, the early ones were influential. Psych and garage histories. I think they were enough of a novelty, coming after Nuggets, that there would be late '70s and early '80s music periodical coverage. It would involve a lot of digging ... which I ain't doing.  ;) Caro7200 (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Here I am. In a nutshell, the Pebbles albums were the first series of compilation albums of garage rock and psychedelic rock after the release of the original Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965–1968. In fact, the original 1978 release of the Pebbles, Volume 1 LP was subtitled: "Artyfacts from the First Punk Era". The Highs in the Mid-Sixties albums were a somewhat later series that concentrated on specific regional scenes. All of them were released under the auspices of Bomp! Records, though the name was licensed to others in a few cases. I hear you about the articles being "completely unsourced", but the Pebbles and Highs albums were released in the pre-Internet era and consist of songs by groups and artists that were almost completely unknown at the time and are mostly unknown even to this day. However, a sizable number of the bands now have Wikipedia articles – all of the bands do with respect to the Nuggets album, and a clear majority of those on Pebbles, Volume 1, with the percentage generally declining over time. So there is really no information to cite other than the liner notes which are pretty good as garage rock compilation albums go, to say the least. Greg Shaw was unparalleled as a music historian in that time period, so if he didn't know who these bands were, then nobody did.
Someone started deleting the individual Pebbles album articles some years back, but I believe that they were rescued by a kindred soul, probably TheGracefulSlick. I don't know all of the various Wikipedia rules; I put these articles in when there were barely a million English articles, so I am sure they have changed. I DO know that Wikipedia has become much more impenetrable; I would guess that two-thirds of changes that I have posted in the past two or three years are reverted right away, so Wikipedia isn't much fun for me anymore. And I certainly don't feel like fighting over whether something is "notable" or not; I have done enough of that over the years.
However, how "the series is definitely notable as a whole", as stated above, but the individual albums are NOT is difficult for me to understand. Why the hell is the series notable except because of the individual albums? Are similar value judgments made about bands, with early albums being notable, but later albums that everyone ignores not notable? Shocking Blue (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Because the series has been reviewed as a whole, but not every individual album. I suspect there are other sources in print talking about the series, too. Same as the Now! That's What I Call Music series... that series is notable as a whole, it has been discussed in many reliable sources, but the individual albums are not particularly notable. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, what Richard says. The key part is that notability is not inherited, in this case neither from notable bands appearing on the album, or the notable series that the album is part of. An album must individually pass WP:NMUSIC to be notable. Lennart97 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Uh, yes, it's probably unnecessary to remind Shocking Blue--who was here in 2006--of this. To carry on from Shocking Blue's comments, it's alarming that "I can't find anything in 12 Google pages" is always a legitimate rationale, but "This late '70s and early '80s coverage must still mostly be in undigitized print" is not... Or we could, you know, consult actual books. Caro7200 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Uh, sorry, but ShockingBlue themself literally stated that they find it difficult to understand that the series is notable as a whole, but the individual albums are not and then explicitly asked why this is, so I'm not sure why it's "unnecessary" to answer that question. As for your other comment - anyone who has access to offline coverage is very much encouraged to add it to the articles, obviously. But "there might be sources out there that might someday be found" should not be a reason to keep an unsourced article around for years. Anyway, if you or anyone else wants to save these articles by adding this coverage, that would be by far the best outcome, so please do. If not, I will start nominating some of these album articles for deletion, or rather for redirecting. Which of course preserves the page history, so if significant coverage does surface later on, it will be easy enough to restore them. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, although WP:INHERITED, as everyone likes to mention, is an essay. It is also something that's most useful when debating articles about people who may not be notable, not articles about art ... let alone art where parts add up to a whole. And there's always the tinge of "YOU better do this before I start doing x, y, z, that is unfortunate; I again echo Shocking Blue by stating that housekeeping has become more important than conveying information (which is not to say that articles don't need reliable references; more than 90% of my editing is adding reliable references). If you're gung ho on this, I ask that you start after Volume 12--the first 12 are at least rated and reviewed in the Spin Alternative Record Guide, which was published in 1995. And Volume 3 is not the only volume separately reviewed by AllMusic. Caro7200 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That's alright, no need to touch those first 12 then. By the way, while INHERITED links to an essay, WP:NMUSIC in fact states specifically that An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. So it's definitely also a guideline in this case. I also don't think that caring about notability makes me 'gung ho' about anything, but that's of course a matter of opinion. Lennart97 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Cool, I'll look Tuesday, when I'm back at the library. Caro7200 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll try to nominate them in small bundles of closely related albums. The first nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pebbles, Volume 1 (1989 album). Lennart97 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - I voted at the one AfD started by Lennart97 so far, in favor of redirecting those four album articles to the series. Overall, I recommend a bold redirect of all the albums in both of those series to their respective series articles: Pebbles (series) or Highs in the Mid-Sixties series, except for any that really did get noticed in their own right. While doing so, inspect each one to see if it got any pro reviews, and if so add that to the series page. For example, "Volume 852 received positive reviews in the Chattanooga music press." Meanwhile, in addition to WP:NOTINHERITED as already discussed, I would also cite WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We don't need to have an entry for every album that ever existed. I admit that these album articles contain Wikipedia's only mentions of dozens of obscure bands, but they are obscure for reasons that can't be solved by us. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If my massive redirect idea catches on, I can join a team effort or even do it myself. It would take a while though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Doomsdayer520: Thanks for the input, here and at the AfD. I certainly agree that boldly redirecting these albums would be a lot more efficient than putting them all up at AfD. Redirecting was my original plan, but then the discussion above made me think doing so might not be altogether uncontroversial. I guess it depends on whether Shocking Blue and Caro7200 (and everyone else, of course) find this approach acceptable. If yes, I would certainly appreciate your help! Lennart97 (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer a redirect as well... and it's a shame that TheGracefulSlick got themselves banned, because they could have been very helpful here. I do have sympathy with Shocking Blue and Caro7200's point of view – I think Caro is correct in saying there will be coverage of the series as a whole in bits and pieces over the years, and maybe of early individual volumes in print from the late 70s/early 80s. Not sure where you would find it in US publications... possibly Rolling Stone, but Creem might be a better bet. From my point of view as someone from the other side of the pond, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that the earlier Pebbles albums could also have been reviewed in NME or Melody Maker in the early 80s. These albums were obviously an influence on the garage punk and psychobilly scenes of the time, and there was plenty of coverage of this kind of music in the UK music magazines. The Cramps were very popular on the UK alternative music scene, as were the first couple of B-52's albums, and later came acts obviously inspired by them such as the Meteors and Guana Batz, and the Rev Horton Heat in the USA. So it's entirely possible that the UK magazines would have reviewed the early Pebbles albums as the inspiration for this music that was popular on the underground scene at the time. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, you modern Wikipedians are the ones behind the times: In addition to, there are dozens of Allmusic reviews of individual Pebbles albums; here is a sample: , , ,, , , etc. It looks like just about all of them at least have a listing, if not an actual review; here is what comes up on an Allmusic search of "Pebbles, Volume": . I am sure that other reviews of these Pebbles and Highs in the Mid-Sixties albums are going to come along; they remain very popular among collectors. Plenty of unquestionably notable rock bands have albums with only an entry, not an actual Allmusic review. So, is this enough to satisfy you? Can you please keep your meathooks off my work a little while longer?
After I got disillusioned with Wikipedia, I created a series of nearly 100 Facebook posts on what I call "Under Appreciated Rock Bands and Artists", i.e., those who did not yet have an article in Wikipedia. Most are pretty obscure, but some are well known enough: The Rip Chords, Wendy Waldman and even The IguanasIggy Pop's original band, and the one from which his stage name "Iggy" is derived. All three have Wikipedia pages now, but they didn't at the time I did my posts. I created a database for these posts in Google Sites – – that I am now in the process of transferring to a permanent home. I can always stick these album reviews in my database, but I would prefer that they remain on Wikipedia. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Now that I have you all assembled, maybe you can answer a question that I posed with one of my recent, immediately reverted changes. I was trying to make a few simple changes to an article on The Singing Brakeman, and I noticed that a couple of the footnotes on Jimmie Rodgers were directed to Wayback Machine entries, when the original link to, say, was still active. Surely you are not going to start using Wayback as a primary source; I can promise you that the State of Mississippi is going to be around a lot longer than Wayback Machine. Just curious. Shocking Blue (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The state of Mississippi may not go under soon, but none of us can be sure some hip wonk in Jackson won't decide to "update" all of the state's web presences, making countless URLs invalid. The Wayback Machine copies are fallbacks for the day when the page stops being where we once saw it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
AllMusic is a database, so a mere listing doesn't mean anything, much like a Discogs listing. An AllMusic staff review however, while not establishing notability by itself, certainly does count towards it and should be taken into account. (And again, an unquestionably notable rock band's discography does not per se consist solely of unquestionably notable releases. If an album is notable but doesn't have an AllMusic review, certainly it will have been reviewed elsewhere.) Lennart97 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Haven't forgotten about this, I'm checking out some books to take home. As Richard said, without Creem, NME, Melody Maker, etc., this may be a lost cause for the vast majority of the semi-later and later volumes. Caro7200 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: it struck me that perhaps much better sources may be Goldmine in the US and Record Collector in the UK. These records would be more up their street. As ever though, it's a problem finding the time and opportunity to look through them... there are collections of both magazines in the British Library, but I'm not in the UK right now, and the Library isn't open anyway. But I'm not personally in any desperate rush to delete these albums. Richard3120 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I found a few things in books, which I'll add this afternoon. Unfortunately, a lot of book info was along the lines of Lou Barlow recommends Volume X, or Simon Reynolds loves Volume Y, or Mudhoney says that they're all super... Caro7200 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I'm in a desperate rush, either, so if anyone needs some time to try and improve these articles, that's fine with me. While doing so, perhaps it would be a good idea that if you come to the conclusion that sufficient coverage really cannot be found for a particular album even offline, you redirect it yourself? Lennart97 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lennart97: I appreciate it, but without access to those early '80s music periodicals, it seems like a lost cause for now. I think it would be a lot of scrounging for reliable sources to merely substantiate basic facts; I think that the critical reaction plays into the notability a lot. I know many editors feel that too many short and stub album articles overly rely on reviews, but ideally there are both the development/composition/production and critical reaction sides. Some of the AllMusic reviews are better than others, but I don't really want to get into an "AllMusic wrote that Volume 7 is a little better than Volume 6" sorta thing. And my library has gone through some recent pandemic-related subscription and database losses, so ... perhaps redirecting is the best option. Shocking Blue is, of course, free to weigh in again, but I really only "cared" about the first 12... I added what I could for now to Volume 1, and will continue to look for that entry. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

An update, just in time before this discussion would have been archived: after some delay, I've now indeed started, and will continue in the coming days, to redirect some of these articles; starting with the most clearly non-notable ones, i.e. unsourced + zero coverage found online, AllMusic or otherwise (and not touching the first 12 in any case). If I find myself needing any help or advice, I'll post here. Lennart97 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick album title/disambiguation checkEdit

I just wanted to do a quick check with the knowledgable folks here before moving an article. I've been expanding The Lilac Time (The Lilac Time album), but I think it needs to be moved to The Lilac Time (album). Currently, that latter page is a redirect to the Pelle Carlberg page, who it seems released an album titled The Lilac Time in 2008. This Carlberg album appears to not be notable enough for its own article though. Since there is only one article about an album called The Lilac Time on Wikipedia currently (the one I've been working on), shouldn't it be located at The Lilac Time (album), with The Lilac Time (The Lilac Time album) as a redirect? Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the correct location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes... looking at the Pelle Carlberg article, it's doubtful even that is notable, even less his album. But the British band are 100% notable, and so is their album – I remember this getting a decent amount of press at the time in the UK, given Stephen Duffy's previous solo hits. Absolutely certain this would also have been reviewed in NME and Record Mirror, probably in The Face and in British newspapers as well. Richard3120 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the confirmation, guys. I'll go a head and relocate the article then. Also, thanks for the suggestion of searching for contemporary reviews in the NME, Record Mirror, The Face etc, Richard3120. I'm trying to find more reviews from back in 1987/88, but so far I've only been able to quote the Melody Maker and Time Out. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see the Pelle Carlberg article, because it wasn't linked. Yes, he is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Does that mean the article I'm working on shouldn't be moved then? I can't move it myself anyway and will have to put in a request at WP:Requested moves. Surely as the only album with that title on Wikipedia it should still be located at The Lilac Time (album)? If someone creates an article for Carlberg's album in the future, it can always be moved back, right? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
His album of t he same name does not have any reviews, so I don't think that an article will be coming anytime soon, but if one does come, we can deal with disambiguation at that time. You could add a hatnote to your article though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, great. Thanks for your help. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kohoutek1138: for information, back issues of those magazines are in the British Library. But I don't think it's reopened yet, and even when it does I expect numbers will be limited. Richard3120 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: thanks for the tip off. That's really useful. I hadn't ever thought of visiting the British Library for Wiki purposes, but I like the idea of doing that. :) Can't wait for places like that and the London museums to re-open again. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Chronology linksEdit

I was reading through Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_62#Multiple_infobox_chronologies today because I wanted to understand exactly what it meant (as I realized I’ve sometimes been citing it in the wrong situations), and I’d like to get clarity on one thing. At the end of the thread, Isento pointed out that pipe linking to a discography page in an Infobox chronology would leave the reader stranded without the next destination. I agree with this completely. As well, I was doing some thinking, and came to the conclusion that having black/red links in a chronology would also leave the reader stranded, and would require them to manually navigate to a relevant discography page and find the link they were looking for.

I am proposing that we make album chronologies a chain of blue links that don’t link to a discography page (i.e. a chain of standalone articles). I would like to get a consensus on this, and see what other people think. In particular, I am curious to hear Lil-unique1's opinion on this, because they were the one that suggested piping to a discography page in the first place. Anyone who wants to add their opinion to this thread is encouraged to do so, as the more viewpoints, the better. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that links to the next album are nice, but not necessary. If the next album doesn't have an article, I favor a nice non-linking black text. Users who want to follow up with the next album can go to the artist page and follow up that way. I dislike excessive hand-holding. I especially object to a chain of stand alone articles for the purpose of linking along the chain of released albums. If an album article does not exist, someone can create a redirect page if they want, but it should redirect to the artist or the discography page. Creating a page just for the purpose of place-holding an album for the purpose of making an infobox chronology chain seems against how Wikipedia should be used. That is a feeling, as I do not have any project pages direction to support my argument. Mburrell (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree - I think linking to the discography where an article isn't available provides the next best thing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:EASTER suggests that if the reader was expecting an article about the album itself, and they land on a different article, and has to search, may be surprising. Linking to an article that may not have details about the album is not the best option. The reader can already link to the band (or artist) article, and that should have a link to the discography, so maybe no link is best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mburrell, Lil-unique1, and Walter Görlitz: Considering all of your opinions, I would like to follow up. Lil-unique, your point was debunked by Walter, as they pointed to EASTER, a policy that contradicts your opinion, so I would like to know where you stand on that, just to check in and see if your opinion has changed. Mburrell and Walter: you two both mentioned uses of either redirects to artist/discography pages if articles don't exist, or no links at all (plain black text), with Mburrell stating that they dislike excessive hand-holding. I have found a compromise of all three of your opinions that I can get behind, and I would like to hear your thoughts, as well as any uninvolved users' thoughts. If an album doesn't have a standalone article and there is a plausible redirect that either points to an artist page or a discography, we link to that. If no plausible redirect exists, we can either create one that points to an artist page/discography, or we leave it as a black link. This combines Lil-unique's idea of linking to a discography page, but Walter's EASTER concern is also met, and Walter/Mburell's suggestions of redirects/black links are the main part of this idea. If you could let me know your opinions on this idea, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I still stand by what I said in the earlier discussion. The chronology parameter/template functions as a navigation bar, for which there are guidelines like WP:EXISTING. In the case of album articles, the only examples that come to mind are EPs that make so little impact that not enough sourcing exists to establish the topic notability, which I believe is how I arrived at this topic in the earlier discussion. Albums, unless by really obscure artists, should have enough out there to make an article with. So this doesn't strike me as an important issue more than an occasional fall thru the crack of the rules. isento (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Only actual album articles should be linked and not redirects to artist or discography pages. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
In lite of WP:EASTER, which I had never heard of before, no link is probably better. Although personally, if the infobox links are navigational I would argue that piping to the discography aids navigation as it takes you to the chronology of singles and albums. But EASTER says what is says so support that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"The album was well received."Edit

In a brief, recent back-and-forth with User:Krächz at Talk:Back to Base X#Verfifcation, a question was posed: If an article contains multiple album reviews with positive assessments/scores, would it be fine to conclude that an album was "well-received" (Or "poorly received", etc., in relevant cases), as is the case in the lead of the Back to Base X article? Or does such a statement constitute original research? Does one need an exact quotation from an external source in order to include that kind of language in an article? QuietHere (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I generally use the phrase if the reviews section resent are generally positive. It's not original research to write an introductory sentence for a paragraph. That said, in times where it's being disputed, you can often default to the summary provided by aggregators like Metacritic too. See this from the music sourcing page on how to handle wording when doing it that way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I prefer this wording to "mixed to positive reviews", which I see in some articles... by definition, "mixed" means some positive reviews, and some negative reviews, so any use of the word "positive" or "negative" afterwards is just repetition. If the positive reviews outweigh the negative ones, then we can say "generally positive" instead. I agree with Sergecross73, if a reader can see a ratings table and read a selection of unbiased review prose, I don't think it's OR to summarise that in a sentence. Richard3120 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We even had the "mixed-to-positive" wording "outlawed" on the Wikiproject Video Games Manual of Style for that same reason, though I'm not aware of any hard consensus on that matter beyond that subject area. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I slightly disagree--I think it's better to go with Serge's Metacritic example than just a blanket statement...I've edited many articles where such statements exist, only to find contrary reviews to render the assertions inaccurate. I think, also, that many editors consider, for example, 2-star reviews (whether out of 4 or 5), or "C"s, to be "poor", when often according to those publications they are actually "fair" or "average". Caro7200 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: oh, totally... I've seen many articles which say "the album received positive reviews", and it's based on one review, from a non-RS. I'm definitely not advocating the use of any kind of general statement in that case, and I tend to remove those statements when I come across them if they aren't backed up by multiple RS. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Go with wording from Metacritic. Unless the phrase "well-received" or "critical acclaim" is notably cited, its WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS as we only include a subset of reviews on Wikipedia. In a lot of cases, articles may also have incomplete coverage so its inaccurate to assume that Wikipedia has the fairest, most accurate or most complete critical coverage of a body of work. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: seeing as Metacritic has only been around since the early 2000s, are you suggesting that no album articles before this time should contain the words "reviews were generally positive" or "the album was universally acclaimed" or similar? Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Richard3120 no and you bring up a good point. I did suggest using subsequent coverage. You may find articles from reliable sources where critics talk about a project being received well. I think the word "generally" might help if there isn't a specific source that supports the phrase. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
That's okay, I just wanted clarification of your position. Obviously subsequent coverage would help a lot, but it tends to only be available for big name artists or albums whose reputation has grown over the years... the average album doesn't tend to get revisited for a reappraisal later on. Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantano RfC closedEdit

Hi guys, I thought I'd just let you know that the Anthony Fantano RfC has closed: The result is per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Needle Drop:

There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop are self-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article.

Essentially nothing changes here. While Fantano is no longer blanket banned without secondary sourcing, you are still free to argue that his inclusion in any particular article is undue. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeesh. A month of discussion to come to this conclusion? Great, now we get to have an argument every time someone tries to add him, which will inevitably include how that review is somehow an exception and should be used. What a disappointment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Genre sourcingEdit

Would someone else like to try to explain WP:EXPLICITGENRE and genres in general to BestDJofAllTime (talk · contribs), who thinks that explicit genres in prose is a "crock of crap". I don't seem to getting anywhere with the editor and the repeated addition of genres to a single article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So he claims to be "more of an expert than anyone else is", but Walter is the one with the massive ego... okaaaaay... Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I left him a note/warning. Let me know if he continues to be difficult. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks y'all (and I'm not a Southerner, so I don't know if I'm allowed to use that pronoun!). Despite a long explanation about EXPLICITGENRE, the self-described genre expert restored the content again. I pinged Sergecross73 on the talk page, but I'm not going to continue to try to apply GWAR to the edits any longer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: I found it ironic that we finally concluded that we should not use Fantano for genres, and he has better credentials than BestDJofAllTime has provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Our editor just called reviewers and writers for Rolling Stone, Spin, Billboard idiots, and he "as a freelancer, since I knew I'd do things better" and having a degree in music journalism makes him an expert. Still not comprehending what RS is or anything else we tried to explain to the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I've given him a final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, missing the point. We're ignoring reliable information "out of hatred". <sarcasm>Yep, we hate successful, freelance reviewers who add their own opinion and claim to speak for musicians here on Wikipedia.</sarcasm> Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
With some of the things he's saying, I would think that it's an April Fools joke, if not for the fact that he appears to be expending about 5 times the effort of anyone else involved with his wall-of-text responses. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not that I was in the running, but this a good reason for why you're and admin and I'm not. I would have blocked him about a dozen edits ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I was right on the edge of blocking last night. I probably could have, but he seemed like the type that would drag things out with lots of unblock requests. Luckily, his ANI meltdown secured him a pretty solid indef block. Let me know if you see him block evading. I'll block any DUCKs on sight. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Turns out, the editor was a sock. If he comes quacking, as he promised, I will mention it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Review scores for these booksEdit

I've recently acquired Rickey Vincent's book Funk: The Music, the People, and the Rhythm of the One (1996) and Dave Thompson's own Funk instalment of Third Ear: The Essential Listening Companion (2001), both of which are sourced in many contexts on Wikipedia and beyond. In addition to analysis of albums in biographies of the artists, both books also rate the albums - Vincent's on a 5 scale with little descriptions for each, Thompson's on a 10 scale with a full paragraph for each a la some of the shorter Trouser Press website entries (this being the general format of the Third Ear series). Would these ratings be appropriate for album ratings boxes and perhaps more to the point, if so, what would be the correct way to list these books - both books are essentially called Funk, but the full names would perhaps clog things up (which I assume is why shortened names like Encyclopaedia of Popular Music and Rolling Stone Albums Guide are preferred over the slightly longer full names). Or is it best to leave analysis from the books to the prose only?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I like both, I've used both. My preference is prose only, which is how I've added their criticism. I can't make a strong argument for excluding them from the ratings box; with respect to isento, Thompson is probably better known than Tom Hull... A lot of older album articles, unless they're BIG ACKNOWLEDGED CLASSICS, still lack sufficient prose (not that one can't use both the rating and the prose), so that would help there...although there have been many days when I've only felt like adding pretty little stars. To your second point, I think it's best to use the actual, factual title--I always add the "The" for Larkin or Rolling Stone if it's not there...we're not saving a lot of space by excluding it. They are factually, for example, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, The Rolling Stone Album Guide, but Spin Alternative Record Guide, MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thompson is certainly a widely published author and biographer (I'm familiar with his Bowie biography Moonage Daydream), I can't speak for Vincent. I tend to agree with Caro7200 here: in general I prefer to use the ratings from contemporary reviews in the ratings box, rather than filling it with legacy ratings which are influenced by the benefit of hindsight and indeed established "groupthink" about a particular album. That said, I guess we're talking here mostly about albums from the 1970s, and very few publications used a rating system at the time – in the UK, Sounds and Record Mirror used five-star ratings from the mid-70s onwards, but in both the UK and US, almost every other music publication or newspaper only adopted ratings in the mid-80s. So it could be useful to use the ratings from these guides. Caro7200 has brought this up before and again above, and they are right, many R&B/soul/funk album articles are badly lacking in detail simply because specialist magazines from the time like Blues & Soul, Ebony and Black Music aren't available online, so any prose that can be added about these albums would be welcome. I can't speak for US music magazines, but I think it's very likely the UK publications would have reviewed many of these records during the 1970s... it's a case of me getting back to the British Library at some point to dig out back issues of NME, Melody Maker, etc.
Incidentally TangoTizerWolfstone, I've seen some of the articles you've created in recent months for Britfunk artists (Hi-Tension, Linx, Central Line, etc.) – as a Brit, and old enough to remember these albums when they first came out, it's great to see you've done such a good job on them. I'll try and find and add more contemporary reviews in due course, if you like. Richard3120 (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I agree that it could be helpful to include the ratings given the general lack of scope for 70s funk albums. The articles I've worked on in this field mostly rely on AllMusic, different editions/spin-offs to Colin Larkin's EOPM and maybe the other odd thing when it comes to rating boxes, whilst in the prose its mostly reviews without scores. I've been lucky with the various Smash Hits and Record Mirror scans online, and Rock's Back Pages offering up stuff I can't imagine I'd see anywhere else, but yes the shortage of available commentary, particularly contemporary, for so many older funk albums is a nuisance and has stopped me from creating articles for more Britfunk acts like Freeez and Light of the World (thanks @Richard3120: by the way, glad you like the articles I have created - if you do have any more contemporary reviews on those that'd be great; particularly Hi-Tension was a bit of a problem on that front and I'd love to rework that article a bit if there's more stuff around). My inspiration (beyond personal interest) to buy the funk books was to flesh out the articles in any way (RV's book I'd already used a bit for Brass Construction but in time I'd love to do Brick, Slave, Crown Heights Affair and maybe others).--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

VideoStatic reliabilityEdit

I noticed that VideoStatic was used in a few music-related articles as a source for music video credits. However, I am hesitant about its reliability, especially since each post is written in the style of a blog, which can be uploaded by any registered user. The website's creator Steven Gottlieb is also credited as an author for the majority of posts, which also questions its validity since there is no 'about page' documenting the credentials of each author. VideoStatic also interviews music video directors, which are used in articles, although this may be acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. Regarding the contents of the website, can it be consistently used in articles when discussing music video credits, or only as a primary source for interviews? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have used it before, they seem accurate and on top o new music videos and always got the credits correct. They also have some articles on interest such as those interviews. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - its an industry orientated resource and I've yet to see a situation where the credits don't match those published on YouTube. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


We never got to a consensus here regarding the website I mentioned above. However, after a long discussion with a user regarding it being or not reliable on a Good Topic. The user presented the following arguments, I would like for those to be taken into consideration so we could add said source, if we reach a consensus. These are mostly from interviews, calling them for best blog and other recognitions from reliable sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Still CrewEdit

Would this source [1] be considered reliable? ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You might have trouble getting that accepted – it's hosted on Medium, which is generally considered unacceptable as a source. Although it does appear to have some sort of editorial team, rather than accepting contributions from anyone. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Medium has been deemed as unreliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Albums".