Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Countless song and album articles are misnamed

There was a discussion about this back in Jan 2024 that reached no conclusion. This has continued to bug the hell out of me and I'd like to resolve it.

Consider these article titles:

These are all incorrectly capitalized. The "The" before the band name should be lowercase, like this:

  • Zombie (the Cranberries song)
  • Friend of a Friend (the Smile song)
  • The Moment of Truth (the Real Milli Vanilli album)

In fact, there should probably be no "the" at all, like this:

  • Zombie (Cranberries song)
  • Friend of a Friend (Smile song)
  • The Moment of Truth (Real Milli Vanilli album)

This is for the following reasons:

  • Per MOS:THEBAND, we do not capitalize definite article ("the") in band names. So we write the Beatles, not The Beatles.
  • The fact that the names are placed in parentheses doesn’t change anything. For example, we have articles titled "White Christmas (song)", not "White Christmas (Song)"; "David Mitchell (author)", not "David Mitchel (Author)"; "Mercury (planet)", not "Mercury (Planet)" etc.
  • These are fragments, not sentences, so arguments about capitalizing the first letter of the sentence do not apply.

We have hundreds or thousands of articles with this problem. The current naming is contrary to Wikipedia manual of style and we need to fix it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

My understanding was that THEBAND applied to article prose, not article titling. I say this more as an observer, than a participant, as I don't care that much (though I also see little conceptual benefit to "fixing" this either.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The benefit of fixing it is the same as any other MOS fix: to be consistent with the MOS. So the question is whether I'm right in my interpretation of the MOS and how it applies here.
If we say WP:THEBAND only applies to article prose, that would presumably mean we would cap "The" everywhere else, such as in shortdescs ("1965 album by The Beatles"?), infoboxes ("Album by The Beatles"?), and article titles in general, not just disambiguation parentheses ("Bob Marley and The Wailers"?) ... I don't see the logic in that. Popcornfud (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: I'd love to see this resolved. I understand it as you do and I'd like to see it treated uniformly through Wikipedia, but I've seen requested moves go against it. A decision here would help resolve that. I also think your final point using the example "Zombie (Cranberries song)" should be made the norm too. Nobody says "I love that the Zombies song", so we shouldn't use that unnatural language in our titles. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
My understanding that THEBAND was largely rectifying the awkwardness of having a capitalized "The" in the middle of sentences. ("Johnson posited 'Untitled' was the best The Smashing Pumpkins song." sort of stuff.) No such awkwardness exists at a page title like Untitled (The Smashing Pumpkins song), with it just being a name sectioned off with parentheses. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
IMO, it's extremely awkward, because it would be simply wrong to capitalize "the" for any other type of noun in this situation. In fact, we probably wouldn't write "the" here at all, as SchreiberBike mentions (see MOS:THENAME).
So why do we make this exception just for band names just in parenthesis just in article titles? If you don't find it awkward, I can't convince you to have that feeling about it, but I'm hoping you can at least see that it's inconsistent. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Support proposal. "Zombie (Cranberries song)" is the most intuitive. I would also make the "T/the" variants be redirects (e.g. "Zombie (the Cranberries song)", "Zombie (The Cranberries song)"). WidgetKid chat me 19:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Support omitting "the" if possible, capitalizing it if not. If "the" can be omitted without causing confusion, let's do that, but if not, writing it as "The" is preferable since a lower-case letter starting what's effectively the band name in parentheses would look odd. Gawaon (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - considering the hundreds (thousands?) of articles affected, and the fact that we've only had a handful of participants over the course of the last week, makes me think we're going to need a more widespread WP:RFC to get the sort of participation and consensus we would need for a situation like this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment

When an article title includes the name of a band (or other musical act) in parentheses, how should definite titles ("the") before the name be treated?

  • Option A: capitalize "The", eg Zombie (The Cranberries song)
  • Option B: lowercase "the", eg Zombie (the Cranberries song)
  • Option C: remove "the", eg Zombie (Cranberries song)

Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Option C. This is to me is the most natural and concise, and follows the advice at MOS:THENAME, which says "use a Beatles song, not a the Beatles song). Certainly not Option A as this goes against WP:THEBAND, which specifies not to capitalize "the" before band names except at the start of sentences, and I don't see any reason to make an exception for parentheses in article titles and nowhere else. Popcornfud (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C per Popcornfud, aka per the MOS. This text is in a disambiguator, not part of the title of the work itself, so we should follow regular English formatting rather than potentially stylized title formatting. Toadspike [Talk] 07:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    Pings for participants in the above discussion: @Sergecross73@Gawaon@Widgetkid@SchreiberBike. Toadspike [Talk] 07:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C as long as The The is left alone. Also note this proposal omits singers like The Weeknd. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    On the former, I think there's a reasonable case for making an exception for "The The". On the latter, yes, as currently worded this only includes bands. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    This was an oversight on my part when wording the RFC. I meant to propose we apply this to all musical acts, including bands, duos, singers, individuals etc, as this is what WP:THEBAND says. I've updated the RFC to clarify this, but I'm aware that might not be strictly kosher as people have already voted. If anyone thinks this is out of line, feel free to revert to the original wording (or just ask me to revert it) and we can sort this out some other way. Popcornfud (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C but let's be vigilant: There are acts in whose title the definite article ("the") is an inseparable part. The Beatles were originally marketed as The Beatles, as were most bands that followed them thereafter, a trend that lasted for some time. -The Gnome (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C per Popcornfud and Toadspike. But in the rare cases where "The" has to be included, it should be capitalized, say with The The. Gawaon (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot)Options C with exceptions per Gawaon. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C per above, which reflect WP:THEBAND, which has been consensus for many years. A few exceptions may apply per WP:IAR if it makes the encyclopedia better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C. The first two make my eye twitch. WidgetKid converse 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C per above – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option B, aka status quo, as a compromise. Per the discussion above, MOS:THEBAND appears to relate to article prose, not proper nouns in article titles. Keeping in mind the example given above, The Cranberries is the official name of the band. They are listed as The Cranberries on all CDs, vinyls, digital retailers and streaming services. Removing "The" entirely is therefore improper and misrepresentative. Plus, the example above of "No one says 'I love that the Cranberries song'" is kind of splitting hairs. It would be perfectly acceptable to say "I love that song by the Cranberries", however. And I've not seen a single voter above give a policy-based reason why "the" should be removed entirely from article titles anyway. MOS:THEBAND gives no such advice for article titles. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • (invited by the bot) Good grammar rules out "A" and allows "B" and "C". Why not just edit them instead of making up a rule. When editing I'd do "C". North8000 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    What a bizarre comment. Please don't discourage editors who are correctly following Wikipedias consensus-building process in the correct avenues. This RFC is about something that has been inconsistently done throughout the website, there was disagreement on how to proceed, and it will affect a large volume of articles. This is absolutely the time to get a consensus before proceeding. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Option C (omit "the") per Popcornfud. Blue & Lonesome is a Rolling Stones album, not a The Rolling Stones album. Commonsense exceptions apply for The The and The Who and The Band. Also, disambiguators aren't exactly running text. See also Talk:Officer (The Salvation Army)#Requested move 22 February 2026. But in the rare cases where "The" has to be included, it should be capitalized, per Gawaon. "Zombie (the Cranberries song)" looks like a reference to "Zombie (the song)" rather than "Zombie ([bandname's] song)". See also Talk:Scarlet (song)#Requested move 4 November 2020 and Talk:Angry (Rolling Stones song)#Requested move 16 December 2023 and Talk:Closer (The Chainsmokers song)/Archive 1#Requested move 31 October 2020 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 8#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles (2019). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Option B - Homeostasis07's arguments are persuasive, and I am made rather anxious by how many of the "Option C" votes have the disclaimer "But we'll have to make lots of exceptions." All else being equal, I think we should avoid setting rules where we anticipate making numerous exceptions, and especially so in this case, because I see lots of room for disagreement over what constitutes a "common sense exception" to Option C.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    Nobody referred to "lots of exceptions" except you. The number of suggested exceptions I see here is only about 4. That's a very small number, and Wikipedia's guidelines often have some exceptions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment - I just want to point out that while there seems to be a consensus forming here for having Option C as a default while allowing for exceptions there also seems to be a lack of consensus on how to phrase those exceptions. As it stands two people have expressed preference for A (specifically for exceptions) while two people have expressed preference for B. Unless one, in my opinion unreasonably, claims that those voting for B shouldn't be considered to also prefer B over A for exceptions if C passes as the default, then this seems to be headed towards a consensus for C with exceptions with no consensus on the format of those exceptions. That will likely lead to you guys having to do another RfC to resolve the disagreement that will inevitable arise over that. That might be prevented if the people voting for C clarifies their preference for how to handle exceptions. ―Maltazarian (talkinvestigate) 19:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I just looked at categories like Category:The Band songs and Category:The Who albums for the three bands and one artist that have been explicitly discussed as potential exceptions. All of the straightforward examples had "The" present and in uppercase (i.e., option A). There is one song with lowercase for which The Weeknd is one of several artists in a list in the title, and there is one redirectTwilight (the Band song) for a song by The Band that uses lowercase. I think a list is more like running text, and I think redirects shouldn't count when looking for styling guidance, because no one looks at the redirect itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I personally don't see the need for exceptions. "Song Title (Who song)", "Song Title (The song)", "Song Title (Band song)" might look odd but, you know, those band names are odd, too. The article title about The The also looks odd, after all, but we don't feel the need to retitle it "The The (band)" to mitigate that oddness.
In any case, if we decide we do need to include the definite article (the) in parentheses, we shouldn't capitalize it, per the WP:THEBAND policy reasons given above, and because capitalizing it wouldn't clarify anything anyway. Popcornfud (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Please don't. "Who song", "The song", and "Band song" would obviously not work at all. Gawaon (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I explained my rationale for why I think they would be OK. Could I ask you to do the same? Popcornfud (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Isn't that obvious? When somebody mentions "The song", people will think they mean "the song" as opposed to, say, "the album" with the same title. When somebody mentions "Band song", people will know it's a song by a band, but they won't think of The Band – at least not at first. Article titles should be chosen so as to minimize confusion, not to maximize it. Gawaon (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the logic. But I'm not sure what the parameters are for when something becomes "obviously" confusing. I truly don't think "Who song" is going to be confusing, for example, any more than "Fish song" or "[any other random other word] song".
And if these names are confusing, then how does adding "the" help? Is "the Band song" really less confusing than "Band song"? I think we're worrying too much. Popcornfud (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Some amount of WP:COMMONSENSE is allowed, and I think "Who", "Band" and "The" are apt enough to explicitly acknowledge, and perhaps "Weeknd" too. Thankfully, The Fish (band) is a red link, so we don't need to worry too much about that at the moment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Heheh, "fish" was just a random word I picked. I think I was hungry... Popcornfud (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Option C got a lot of support above, but the problems with sometimes ignoring the rules are important too. I don't see that there will be many times to ignore the rules. Perhaps we could even say they should never be ignored. "Song Title (The song)" does look weird, but if you're going to name your band the The or the Who, weird comes with the territory. I think we are close to a resolution here and I don't want to let this die. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah it would be good if someone not involved could close this, determining the result. Gawaon (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Option C unless the band name contains "the", in which case it should follow Option B. I think that option C is more MoS compliant and Option B is better for when the MoS creates factual inaccuracies. As always, if exceptions to options C and B exist, they should be determined through local consensus. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 11:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
The RfC only concerns artist names that use "the" (eg the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc). Popcornfud (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Oh. Just option B then, for accuracy. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of God Is in the TV

Hi all, is the magazine God Is in the TV reliable? I first encountered it in this source while researching about Oasis, though feedback on the publication in general would be helpful too. I searched this page's discussion archives as well as the project source list, and couldn't find any meaningful mention of it. Left guide (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear on this as well. I have historically avoided using them because I've come across a few articles in the past that had a number of typographical issues, but I can't recall a specific example at the moment. I'm not necessarily against them based on that alone, and it would be beneficial to look through their authors and see if they've also written in other established publications. Fundgy (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking through some of their authors, a few that stick out are:
I think my remaining concern is related to my aforementioned typographical concerns, but after looking at these two newer articles (, ), I'm not really quite as concerned about that at this point.
Any thoughts? Unless there are some red flags that I missed, I'd be okay classifying God Is in the TV as generally reliable. Fundgy (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
An author having written for other reliable publishers is a good indicator that at least that particular author is reliable, and certainly wouldn't hurt the reputation of the publisher being examined either. That said, do we happen to know anything about Ben P. Scott, the author of the source linked in my original post? Left guide (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Here is their XS Noise bio, which gives some background. In any case, if we end up considering any source generally reliable, then I was always under the impression that it is then assumed by us editors that their writers are qualified and that if there's a content issue, the source's editorial process would have taken care of it (exceptions can be noted). Is there anything in the GIITT article that is disputable based on other sources you've researched? I'm not deeply familiar with that Oasis album in particular. Fundgy (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Record Label Discographies

FYI
 – This is a spillover from an AfD conversation.

I couldn't find any clear policy or style guidance regarding the 125+ record label discographies. I would like to develop some consensus on an approach. I would like your help with these questions:

More information Question / Option, Supporting Points for Option ...
Question / Option Supporting Points for Option
1 In general, should discographies of notable record labels have their own articles?
A Yes. Record label discographies serve an informational and/or navigational purpose. They are also practical from an article size perspective, similar to artist discographies.
B No. Only labels whose catalogs have sources indicating notability of the catalog should have discographies. Record label discographies are like all books published by HarperCollins, so should not have a separate article.
2 If no, how should a large record label discography be handled?
X Split the discography into a separate record label discography article. Treat large record label discographies like artist discographies, splitting them.
Y Add the discography to a collapsed section within the record label article. Keeping all the information contained in the record label article makes it easier to use & reference, doesn't imply the notability of the catalog separate from the organization.
3 What should the discographies of notable record labels include?
P Could include anything and everything the label has released. Treat record label discographies like artist discographies, which allowing everything, not just notable releases.
Q Should only include notable releases (e.g. ones with articles), not the entire catalog. Record label discographies are like all books published by HarperCollins, so limit to just notable releases.
Close

I pulled together some relevant portions of these policies:

  • WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies: 2. If the discography of an artist, group, or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "<Name> discography").
  • WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
  • WP:NOTCATALOG: 6. [...] Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

My initial positions are A (separate discography article) / X (split out large discographies) / P (allow inclusion of everything). WidgetKid Converse 16:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Kelob2678, Graywalls, 78.26, Izzy007, Devin, dcljr, Dan arndt, Marchjuly, LingNerd007, Chubbles, Jessiemay1984, Vexations, JalenFolf, FeRDNYC, Richard3120, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, QuietHere, Richard3120, Bearian, A Knight Who Says Ni, Steelbeard1, Zachtron, J04n, Robman94, Another Believer:
As contributors to record label- and discography-related discussions, I invite your input on this topic. WidgetKid Converse 17:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
My immediate thoughts are mostly the same as yours, though I think I would vote BXP. My understanding is that these pages should be treated as lists and thus are subject to WP:NLIST, wherein it is said that not all items in a list need to be sourced so long as the group is collectively. A notable record label will have plenty of coverage of its catalogue, and should likely qualify by that standard, so it would make sense to have an associated list. And I think splitting said lists for size concerns is a given. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I must confess I've never really understood why this is controversial. Record labels release albums; it's their chief reason for existence, and the most basic encyclopedic information we can provide about a notable record label is its output - its artists at bare minimum and a discography at best. There seems to be wide disparity in perception between current and defunct labels; people seem to regard the discographies (and even the artist lists!) of currently active discographies as promotional, whereas there's almost no debate about exhaustive discographies for long-dead e.g. jazz and blues labels. Fundamentally, they're encyclopedic regardless of the label's business status. The discography really only needs to be its own article if the page would be too long for its inclusion - that's ultimately an information management issue, not a notability issue. So I guess that places me into A and Y and P? Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    I must comment that you and I generally see things differently in inclusion worthiness. List of products/releases by label, as opposed to artists is essentially list of products by a company; so I feel this shouldn't be specific to the record label type organization/company category specific. Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Well, isn't the entire purpose of a book publisher to publish books? As important as discographies may be to record labels, I don't think it's in our best interest to include a seperate discography page as per WP:NOTCATALOG MoxxiMachineWanna talk? 11:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty conflicted by this. Please note my comments are a result of this discussion and the Polyvinyl AfD that this is spun from. I disagree with Graywalls that discographies are just any old product by a company. They are significant artistic works, of course critical assessment varies. But I agree with Graywalls that WP:NOTCATALOG may apply. Per my question at the AfD, how is NLIST met in general for these discographies. In some cases like Blue Note, or Blue Amberol cylinders, or Columbia Records, you could easily pass NLIST. But that doesn't make every discography pass. And speaking of Columbia, which has no discography on Wikipedia because the size would be ridiculous, how would you parse that out? And in cases like JVB records, why does that belong on Wikipedia, when that exact type of information is readily available elsewhere. On the other hand since discographies contain information that make understanding of notable topics more complete, why not include them? Back in the day albums by notable artists were split off from the main article because it made the main article too long or unweildly. Then these articles were deleted because they didn't have standalone notability, and we lost encyclopedic information. I worry that might happen here. Chubbles is also right, Record labels release albums (or singles, we have those discographies also), artistic works, as their primary reason for existence. I need to admit my bias, I'm predisposed to historical record labels, and I get twitchy about recent labels touting their catalog per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Sorry, I'm not giving any answers, but I'd really like some real thought into how our readers are best served. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would first ask how such possible listings are handled in other areas. In articles on publishers, do we list all their books? In articles on film studios, do we list all their movies? In both cases, I think the answer is no. So per analogy and due to NOTCATALOG, record labels should probably be treated the same way – include some works for which they are particularly notable, but don't strive for completeness. An exception may be made for particularly small labels, whose discography would not be more burdensome to maintain than that of a typical artist, but such exceptions are best discussed on a case-by-case basis. Gawaon (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    As pointed out earlier in this discussion "Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth." so.. the answer would be no on that. And as for a stand-alone catalog entry, the list itself should pass WP:NLIST. Graywalls (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Graywalls, what I struggle with is how to differentiate the notability of a record label from their releases. As I reviewed record label discographies, I couldn't find any difference between record labels whose catalogs I would assume are notable (e.g. Blue Note for jazz, Motown for soul, Epitaph for punk), and ones like Polyvinyl.
    Per WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. If a source discusses the label and their catalog (typical in record label article sources), wouldn't that suffice to demonstrate the notability of their releases as a whole? How do we discern between a record label notable enough for an article, but not a list? Which discographies would you point to as passing WP:NLIST, etc., and how do you tell the difference? WidgetKid Converse 15:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Since HarperCollins is presumably as notable as a publisher can be, I don't think it boils down to notability, but rather: Since publishers and records labels do not create works, but merely publish them, they are not covered by the "lists of creative works" exception. For authors, musicians, artists etc. who are creators themselves, listing their creative works is fine, however. But labels should be treated like HarperCollins with no lists of all of their publications. Gawaon (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Surely some record label discographies fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes? Or you're saying none at all - nuke the 100+ that are out there?
    I feel like HarperCollins is analagous to Columbia Records - it would be impractical to create a discography, given HC has hundreds of thousands of books and Columbia probably tens of thousands. There also isn't really a theme or purpose at that scale - versus a Blue Note for jazz or early Puffin Story Books for children's books. WidgetKid Converse 16:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Allowing creating of catalog for smaller companies would be egregiously promotional WP:ADMASQ Graywalls (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    I should preface this by saying I'm newer to editing Wikipedia, so apologies if I'm overstepping here, but based on a discussion I had regarding sources for record label articles as well as other discussions I've read regarding the topic [which I unfortunately don't have on hand, sorry] I believe record labels are deemed notable when they have a significant amount of sources about them specifically, not their songs/albums/singers/etc. So while a label's notoriety comes from its discography, a label can't be notable simply because it's discography is notable. I think because of this it would also work the opposite way around, a discography shouldn't be notable just because the record label is. But of course I could be mistaken, so experienced record label participants feel free to correct me MoxxiMachineWanna talk? 00:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    I believe WP:INHERITORG answers your question. Graywalls (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure it does... I understand a label can be non-notable but have notable artists/releases. The case we're talking about is where the label is notable (or assumed to be based on having an article), and how it relates to handling of their discographies. WidgetKid Converse 04:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • If a company is very notable then its products are often listed, such as List of MGM films as well as some if not all of the products having their own individual articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Personally I think it should be BYQ as per WP:NOTACATALOG. I don't think WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies works as a defense here since it explcitly uses the phrase "artist, group, or work" rather than "label", so in the context of the book example it would be supporting an article for books by Roth rather than HarperCollins MoxxiMachineWanna talk? 02:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see why we should make the listing of record label releases/products more restrictive than the rest of Wikipedia. Another example List of Apple products. WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies is for musician discographies and not related to record labels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Unresolved
 – Soft closing this as unresolved. The only thing clear is that there isn't a consensus. I appreciate everyone's engagement! I assume this will continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. WidgetKid Converse 21:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Did John Corabi play guitar on Generation Swine uncredited?

The instruments were recorded when Corabi was still in the band. Vince Neil's lead vocals were the last thing to be recorded for the album. Did any of Corabi's guitar make the final version of the album like he claims he did? Kart2401real (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is anything anyone is going to know off the top of their heads at the albums WikiProject. I'd recommend doing research into the album's credits, band interviews, etc. Band fansites generally can't be used as a source, but they could still be helpful as a lead in finding more information on it. (Maybe a Motley Crue fansite mentions of an interview done in a magazine that mentions what Corabi did/didn't record or something?) Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Beyond the Blue Horizon#Requested move 15 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Beyond the Blue Horizon#Requested move 15 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about northerntransmissions.com on RSN

Additional opinions would be welcome, see WP:RSN#Northern Transmissions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion moved from RSN to the Spam blacklist talk page, and from there it was removed from the blacklist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

upcoming FAR for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album)

hi, everyone! i'm here to leave a note regarding the FA status of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album), and the FAR notice i've given. the article was promoted to FA in 2012, but its quality has severely degraded over the years, and it no longer meets the featured article criteria, or even the good article criteria. since its major contributors appear to be completely inactive, i'm reaching out to this wikiproject to see if anyone's willing to adopt it for a massive overhaul, otherwise it's likely to be delisted from FA, or even GA, entirely. i've expressed individual concerns about the article's content here. thank you! Kinnimeyu (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Help Required On Draft:Man Bites Dog (Album)

Hi, everyone! I am working on an article for the album, Man Bites Dog by digital hadcore artist, femtanyl. I would love any assistance or help with this article and would love for new sources, information and anything else for the page to be ready for submission by May 2026.

Thanks alot!

again, you can locate this article at

Draft:Man Bites Dog (Album) Booksandarticles (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I don't have time to spare on working on the article, but I did find a bunch of relevant sources that would help expanding it and most importantly establishing the album's notability: , , , . Victor Lopes Fala!•C 14:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Why would it need to be done by May? Fundgy (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I just like having deadlines for things, usually entices people to do articles quicker Booksandarticles (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Online music stores

What's the consensus on online music stores such as musicjapanet.net and official record label online stores? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That they exist. What exactly are you asking? Mburrell (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I’m asking how reliable they are, I should have been a bit more specific about that. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
On-line music stores and record labels are primary sources, so they can be use for specific facts such as publication date, record label, artist who performed on album, but they can never be used to show notability, provide genres, or anything that has to do with an opinion. That would require a secondary source, independent and reliable. Yes stores and labels are reliable, are only reliable for just the facts. Mburrell (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Music sample guidance

Hello, a recent RFC has resulted in light consensus to include a hidden pregap track on an album’s page, but a question on whether a sample could be included was still left ambiguous.

For This City Made Us, could I ask that an editor weighs in on the talk page as to whether a sample is appropriate and if it is how best to word the justification - I did try to follow the template instructions when initially uploading the file, the third party editors were just not comfortable weighing in on non free content use (e.g: copyright issue- though the sample template instructions do seem to talk about fair use justification by way of commentary, so I think it’d be the same with any page that uses a song sample). PBugaboo (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Are these albums mini-LPs?

Are Transgender Dysphoria Blues by Against Me! and Adventure Club By Laura Jane Grace mini-LPs? Both are under 30 minutes. The vinyl versions of Adventure Club and the 10th anniversary edition of Transgender Dysphoria Blues are 45 RPM albums. That seems to perfectly fit the definition of mini-LP. Kart2401real (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe them as such? Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I have not found any source call them that. Maybe I should just call them 12" 45 RPM LPs? Kart2401real (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Every source I spotchecked from the reception section simply called it an album, so we should probably just stick with that. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Could I at least call them 12" 45 RPM albums, since that it what it says on the album? Kart2401real (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

FAR for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album)

I have nominated E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). Kinnimeyu (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The Young Folks, HitFix, Popjustice

Hi all, does anyone know if The Young Folks, HitFix, and Popjustice are reliable sources? I see that HitFix's website now redirects to Uproxx's website, which is a reliable source, that Popjustice was founded by a guy who wrote for numerous other reliable sources, and that the former publication's staff is mentioned on their about page, so if anyone could find any other publications that the staff of the former publication wrote for, that would be great. Thanks in advance! RedShellMomentum 04:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I found related discussion for HitFix opened in 2016. The source was confirmed to be a reliable source, so I'll add this. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 07:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Update: @Kyle Peake: seemingly confirmed at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Dua Lipa (album)/archive1 in 2021 that "The Young Folks is unreliable due to being created by two people". Pinging so he can give some more commentary, if he wants to. RedShellMomentum 20:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the ping, yes this is a view I still do hold and refrained from using this in my own articles after realizing the lack of reliability. Also, any student run info would violate WP:RSSM as it's not of sufficient quality here. K. Peake 16:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
It's been a while, but I believe I've historically removed attempts to add The Young Folks from articles I maintain. If I recall right, it seems like it was just an amateur/student run thing that lacked professional credentials. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Alright, so here's the consensus:
The Young Folks: Unreliable.
HitFix: Reliable.
Popjustice: No consensus yet, waiting for other uses to chime in. RedShellMomentum 02:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Earmilk

The music website is being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and so far the comments are very negative, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Underground Hip Hop Blog

Wanted to ask this here just to make sure this is reliable. It's this site called Undergroundhiphopblog.com. Bit skeptical on the site but I just want to ask you all on its status as far as sources. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Screams "group blog" to me. Even has "blog" in the title.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Far Out (website) has returned to wikipedia as Far Out (magazine)

Far Out (website), considered a generally unreliable source per WP:FAROUT and nominated for deleiton in 2025, has recently returned as Far Out (magazine).

The main difference from the last site is like, an october 2025 interview from Press Gazzette. But that's kinda it; the other sources are questionable or random mentions. I think this should get AFD'd again. Also, the fact the site is coming back on wikipedia under a different page name (the source access dates are not even from 2026, another warning sign) is a scummy fucking tactic. fuck off

// Chchcheckit (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The Arts Desk

Is The Arts Desk (website) a reliable source? RedShellMomentum 16:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI