Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Dig!

Wondering if Dig! (owned by Warner Music Group) is reliable. Here’s a link to check for reliability: https://www.thisisdig.com/ Newtatoryd222 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a PR site for Warner's music. Notwithstanding that the writers are legit freelancers/music journalists, it appears they're being paid to write about Warner IP in a flattering way. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Wired

Is Wired reliable for reviews? Here's a link to check for reliability. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/weird-al-sports-song/ Newtatoryd222 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they're generally classified as reliable. They're listed as reliable at WP:RSP and the Video Game Wikiproject does too per WP:VG/S. I imagine the only reason they're not listed here is that I don't believe they have the biggest presence in reporting on music/album related things. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't Dig!, a music news website listed here? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As explained directly above, Dig! seems to be a vehicle for Warner Music to promote their releases, not an independent outlet. 19h00s (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This list documents our consensus on past discussions on whether or not a music-related sourced was generally deemed usable/reliable or not. If a source isn't listed here, it probably means 1) its never been discussed before 2) it was discussed, but we couldn't come to an agreement on how to classify it, or 3) it's not generally seen as a music-related website. I've personally never heard of "Dig" before, and I've been helping with these discussions for over a decade now, so I'm guessing its scenario #1. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Infobox for albums: Release day - actual first release, or most recognized first release

I have a question and a possible proposal. The Template:Infobox album defines how each piece of information shall be entered in the infobox, and one of the defined listings is the album release date. I have generally used the guideline "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." to limit the listings in album infobox to the first known release date.

On the Coldplay album Mylo Xyloto, the first release date is in Japan on 19 October 2011, per the release history. Then there was the Australian and German release on 21 October 2011, and then next but not finally there is the worldwide release on 24 October 2011. A couple times I have changed the release listing in the infobox to the first known release date of 19 October, and added the hidden note of "Japan release. Do not change from first release date, see Template:Infobox album#released, infobox MUST show first release date, not release date from band's country of origin."

One time User:GustavoCza has changed the release history back to the worldwide release date of 24 October, and changed the hidden note back to what it stated before I got involved, which states "United Kingdom release. Do not change to the date from other countries.", then yesterday, changed the infobox release date to a dual listing of Japan release date and a worldwide release date, with an edit summary that states "24 October is referred to as its global release day nevertheless, acting like it came out only on 19 October because of one country will only confuse readers"

Now, I could change it back to just the Japan release date, and cite the template rules again, but this is beginning to feel like a slow edit-war. So what I would like to do is two things. First, I ask, do people agree that infoboxes should only show the first known release date, or could a release date recognized by most sources be considered to be an acceptable alternative. Second, I suggest a proposal, to change the infobox release requirement to allow additional date listings.

All that said in what I hope is a neutral voice, now I will state that in my opinion, infoboxes should only show the earliest known release date, or we will start getting involved in debates about whether only the country of origins (the band's country) release date should apply (which would be challenging on split nationality bands like Fleetwood Mac). I prefer a clear cut approach, because it has worked well for years. Second, I am opposed to allowing the infobox to show multiple release dates, to allow for clean listings, and because lead paragraphs and release history tables are for additional listings, but this I do not have as firm a belief. Mburrell (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, allow me to put my two cents: I was a bit defensive on my edits because Coldplay's release dates, specially from A Rush of Blood to the Head to Mylo Xyloto, are a hot mess. I'm in several online communities dedicated to the band and some anniversaries get particularly tricky to celebrate. Take "Viva la Vida" for example: I had to lay out every single detail of its release so things could make sense. Anyway, in hopes to solve this problem, I prioritised the United Kingdom release date since they are British, something that tends to be adopted in the fandom as well. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to use the (what you call) most recognizable date since it is generally a UScentrist view on the subject. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering how 99% of the world got the album on 24 October, I'm pretty sure branding it as 19 October makes the article Japan-centric. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand these sort of debates when the differences are huge, but we're literally arguing about a few days here, some of which probably just depends on time zones. It simple doesn't matter, and I wouldn't spend time on this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

While the guidelines say we should use the earliest date, I don't see why not making an exception. Most media material currently refers to 24 October for Mylo Xyloto and will probably continue to do so, avoiding confusion seems more important for an encyclopedia. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not "Japan-centrist", that's a ridiculous answer. If you want to "avoid confusion" because it is "more important for an encyclopedia" (this is not one of the goals of an encyclopedia, by the way), then a Release section has to exist, if one is not already there. If people cannot read beyond the infobox or the first paragraph of the article, then that's their attention span problem, not Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia published what the sources have stated: that the album was first released in Japan on a specific date. If the album is released subsequently (which always happens), then it is mentioned elsewhere.

If you want to apply an occasional exception, as you said above, the you have to present arguments on the respective talk page explaining why the rule has to be ignored. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The reception section being made up of 80% Japanese reviews would be a "Japan-centric" problem. Not a single release date that's a few days earlier than the rest of the world.

How we handle differing dates in the video game world: Use the earliest date in the infobox, a generalized date in the WP:LEAD (October 2011), and outline the specific differences in date/regions in the "release" or equivalent type section. That's more than enough to clear up this minor issue. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd use the earliest date. GanzKnusper (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic date change

Never seen this before, but in this most recent edit to Aethiopes, an IP user updated the Sputnikmusic rating. And it turns out, some time between when it was published and the present day, that score was indeed changed. I had no idea they could do that. The review is the exact same (the reviewer changed their display name but it's definitely still the same person), but now I'm wondering if they ever retroactively edit those too. How do we feel about this? Should the rating be kept up to date like this IP editor has done, or should we preserve the original rating when possible? Does this kind of malleability invalidate those ratings? I'm really just spitballing here; I have no idea how I should feel about this, but it certainly seems strange to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I would just update the rating. Critics are allowed to change their minds. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I know some of the video game RS's occasionally change the date if they make an update to a preview or review, but that's usually just for updates or clarifications, not usually changing scores. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd use both. I'll note that I'd swear that I've seen AllMusic do this, too. Maybe I'm misremembering, and there's no old enough archive link to prove it, but I'm almost positive that Hello by After Edmund was initially a full five-star rating.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, yes, it was! But unfortunately, there's no direct archive, just this old version of the Wikipedia article.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Is pm studio reliable?

https://www.pmstudio.com/music/20240119-21894 "Pressure" by Paloma Faith was regarded as promotional single in Wikipedia, without any source. But I found this article that indicates the song as third single of The Glorification of Sadness. The source upon is from pm studio, and I'm not sure if it is reliable or not. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

CSH & primary sources

Hello, I'd like a second opinion on this so I'm posting it here. I do a relatively big amount of editing for the indie band Car Seat Headrest's albums, even getting one to GA status. Because this band lived on for a number of years as a small solo project, many sources people have cited in articles are primary sources from the only artist in the band at the time, Will Toledo. These take the form of Tumblr or Twitter posts, as well as YouTube videos and Bandcamp links. You can see some of this in Twin Fantasy, Nervous Young Man and even Car Seat Headrest itself.

Are these appropriate sources to use? Should they be removed? Or kept? I'm unsure myself. I feel like their usage somewhat constitutes OR but I figured someone more knowledgeable than me would know. Rambley (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Dispute at Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran

There is currently a dispute ongoing at Talk:Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran regarding singles for the album, and could use some input from members of this WikiProject. The discussion is called Singles dispute. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Are single albums albums?

Apologies for the silly title. I just learned that "single album" is a South Korea-specific term for the physical release of a single, containing usually no more than 3 tracks. So it is not an album in the usual sense, despite the name. My question is whether the albums categories (i.e. subcategories of Category:Albums) should contain single albums? My question was inspired by The Chase (single album), which is in Category:2025 debut albums. One could argue that since Category:Single albums is a subcategory of Category:Album types, the answer would be yes. But it seems a bit odd. I don't really mind either way, just thought I would ask. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

We might need to create a new infobox category for this. Personally, I'd have "single albums" be a stand-alone category. I think Wikipedia categorization should reflect the industry terms, rather than shoehorn industry terms into pre-existing Wikipedia categories.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They aren't "albums" though, I think that's clear. The example you gave is not a "debut album". I just think the distinguishing from singles should be reflected.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, seems like we are pretty much in agreement. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Louder Than War

Is this source reliable ? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Giving things a glance. Judging by Wikipedia page, the site's founder/editor in chief John Robb has exetensive journalistic cred and has written several books prior to the site's formation in 2010. I have also had a look at the site's journalists listed on the contact page and Muckrack:

Section Editors:

• Nigel Carr (Co-Editor): National Geographic, The National (Scotland)
• Melanie Smith (Live reviews Editor): The Guardian, Daily Mail, Screen Rant, Vail Daily, KBXX-FM (Houston, TX), etc
• Wayne Carey (New Releases Editor): Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Sunday Age, The Canberra Times, Brisbane Times, etc
• Audrey Golden (Louder Than War Radio Editor): The Quietus
• Naiomi Dryden-Smith (Festivals Editor): only LTW

Sub-editors:

• Ged Babey: Muckrack lists only LTW, although bio on site claims he contributed to Record Collector magazine
• Nathan Whittle: Muckrack lists only LTW, although bio on site claims he works for spanish magazine Ruta 66 (spanish wikipedia link)
• Iain Key: ZDNet

Tim Cooper (freelance writer) also appears to have written for LTW alongside The Guardian, The Independent, The London Standard, The Quietus, etc.

Y'all decide and y'all can do some further looking through muckrack (there are several peeps who appear to have only worked for LTW, such as Lucy Shevchuk, Natalie A. Royle, etc; you can look further if you wanna), but I think there's grounds for reliability here in regards to editorial oversight or smth. If I have missed/misunderstood something, comment. // 15:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Chchcheckit (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. I hope this source can be regarded as reliable source in here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 10:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Given all of that and that there's an actual editorial structure, I say definitely reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yay! I'm so happy for this! :) Then should we add this source, Louder Than War, on 'Reliable sources' section? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 13:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Songfacts minor caveat?

A delayed thought I had from the july 2024 review of the GA article Until the End (Kittie album). Songfacts is currently listed as "unreliable" on albums sources. I suggest adding a little bit of clarification to this, in that whilst user generated content is banned, interviews (the site has hosted a number of interviews with artists since at least 2003, as I pointed out then; in UTE's case, Morgan Lander was interviewed by Greg Prato, who has cred with AllMusic, MTV News, and Billboard. Idk about cred of others as I have not looked exhaustively) should be allowed and fall under pre-existing policy about BLP and whatnot.

I am not the most knowledgeable about rules/policy around this so please correct me/clarify if anything I've said doesn't make sense. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chchcheckit interviews are always reliable for statements about themselves so long as they are not unduly selfserving. They do not contribute to notability in such usages.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's kinda what I wanted to say. ty // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, just make sure you're following WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested moves of several articles

An editor has requested that Music of Spirited Away be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic biographies

Are these considered reliable? https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Nadimac/62012/ FMSky (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There's an option to the left that says "edit band information", so I'd say no, per WP:USERG. I don't have an account, but if one did, it looks like they could write whatever they want there. Sergecross73 msg me 11:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that the only thing that's reliable on Sputnim are the staff reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

No. They're user-generated content. I suppose if you could demonstrate that a particular entry has only been written by a staff member, then that specific entry would be reliable. Otherwise, only the staff and emeritus reviews are considered reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Jesus NO. as a former sput user. fails WP:USERG Chchcheckit (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

AfD notice

Descent Into Madness (EP) is ineligible for soft deletion (I redirected it first before launching the discussion), and the AfD for it has gotten essentially zero response so far. Any and all feedback welcome. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiple reviews by the same person?

If the same person reviewed the same album for multiple publications, should both be included in the article? I can't decide either way for an article I'm working on. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it, unless the verbiage/spirit/idea is so similar as to be redundant. It was/is common practice, for example, for reviewers to write for a national magazine as well as a newspaper or alternative weekly. Or use one review as the review and the other to support a production or background or composition section. Caro7200 (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm doing the latter at the moment (only one is in the ratings table, but both are used as sources in the rest of the article). I think my main concern with putting both in the ratings table is something along the lines of making it look like more reviewers thought it was good/bad, when actually some of them are the same person. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Suntooooth in prose, I don't see an issue, as you can give the different publications that the reviewer reviewed the album for. I would pick only one of them to put in the template.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Personnel updates (and requesting a little help)

Hello everyone! I've been active for several years now in documenting personnel credits for new releases and recent albums that are missing credits. I've only just discovered the above conversation where WP:PERSONNEL was amended to allow citations to services like Tidal (one of my main sources) and to encourage citations to liner notes, which I think is a welcome change.

I stopped including these citations several years ago after an editor repeatedly removed my citations to Tidal pointing me to that guideline, and have erroneously continued to do so, instead using a hidden note under the Personnel H1 to explain where I retrieved the credits from. Given that I have a massive catalogue of personnel edits spanning years, I'm planning to go through them and add the citations I've commented out so they are properly attributed and can be validated by readers.

With that being said, I have to emphasize that there are a lot of articles I've added credits for, and virtually all of them over the past few years do not include those citations unless they've been added by others. I don't expect anyone to go through all of my contributions with me or anything like that, but if anyone comes across a personnel section with a hidden note akin to the one below, it would be a massive help if you're willing to add the citation(s) mentioned in that note.

<!-- Per liner notes and Tidal; no citation needed per [[WP:PERSONNEL]] and [[WP:AFFILIATE]] -->

Thank you in advance to anyone who adds those references I've missed, and my apologies to anyone I've mistakenly reverted believing I was following the correct guidelines. I never agreed with the restriction, but I also didn't feel it was my place to kick up dust and go against it. Sock (tock talk) 16:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

"Frequently, as illustrated above, it will be necessary to use third-party sources to include performers or other personnel who are not credited in the liner notes. Per WP:AFFILIATE, inline citations to e-commerce or streaming platforms to verify personnel credits are allowed. However, reliable secondary sources are preferred, if available."

I confess that I don't completely follow; if the liner notes and Tidal match up, there's no need to cite Tidal, as it is primarily a commercial vendor that seeks to sell you something. If a credit is not in the liner notes, but is in Tidal, in my opinion, a reliable secondary source would need to confirm it. Even a link to the artist's page or record label would be preferable. As always, the album is the source. WP doesn't need to "help with verification" in this regard. If a reader disputes cited liner notes, they can take a few seconds to explore the issue on their own. Caro7200 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the point makes sense. Credits on Tidal, Qobuz, Apple Music, etc. are provided by the record label or artist, making them exactly as official as liner notes. I can't recall the album, but one recent album's liner notes pointed to a website saying "full credits here", and the website was a dead link that seemingly never existed. That's a problem.

Liner notes can be incomplete and exclude writing/production credits, especially if those credits end up being updated at a later time or a person was erroneously left out of the liner notes for one reason or another. They also may not specify credits for specific tracks, while streaming credits are more granular for each contributor. I personally don't see an issue using both in these kinds of instances, though it's not something I would go out of my way to implement if someone has already sourced the liner notes.

All that said, this comes down to relitigating an issue and verbiage that's already been discussed at length, and that wasn't the point of this post. Sock (tock talk) 15:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. Caro7200, what Sock describes here is in part why the guidance was recently changed. Also, the original guidance was actually incorrectly summarizing WP:AFFILIATE. AFFILIATE doesn't exclude third-party vendors, whereas the essay did. So that was another reason for the change.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Flip^andFlopped ツ 06:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)