Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

AllMusic links

It looks like a lot of the links to the AllMusic album reviews have changed. For example, the album ratings template in the current version of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has this link,^[1] but now should have this link.^[2] Did these AllMusic URLs change recently, or did I miss an older discussion about it? And is there any fix for this, other than going through lord knows how many album articles, and updating the links manually, one by one?

References

— Mudwater^(Talk) 10:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen we've generally stopped using the former, and I'd guess it's been that way a while now. However up until recently I believe clicking on those old-format refs still worked. Guess not anymore. We could get a bot to do it, but we'd have to request its use and anything involving bots is completely out of my wheelhouse. dannymusiceditor ^oops 13:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

agree it needs a bot as there are an awful lot of refs that need fixing, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor Holiday56 is doing exactly that, updating the links one by one, but I'm sure he/she would appreciate the help of a bot. The {{AllMusic}} template should probably be removed from the album article style guide, as it is now obsolete. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The {{AllMusic}} template is not obsolete, I'm pretty sure. The id= parameter just needs to be updated to the new value, and the tab=review needs to be removed, if present. I'm not a huge fan of the template, but it seems that it's still okay to use. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not obsolete, exactly. There's a difference between "not used" and "deprecated". It's just less popular than standard format. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, obsolete from a user point of view... even if we updated the code, I'm not certain anyone would use it. There's a {{Certification}}, for example, but everyone abandoned it years ago for {{Certification Table Entry}}. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like WP:BOTREQ is the place to request bots. So, I guess we should post a request there. But first, what do we want the bot to do, exactly? Find the outdated links to AllMusic album reviews, and update them to the current links, right? In articles with the WikiProject Albums banner on their talk pages? But, should we try to define it a little better before we make the request? For example, I guess there will be two "flavors" of updates -- full-fledged links to AllMusic URLs, and links from the {{AllMusic}} template. Also, is there an easy way for the bot to recognize the outdated links? "P.S." I don't know how hard or easy it would be for a bot to find the new URL for a particular album review. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've submitted a bot request, at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Updating links from album articles to AllMusic. — Mudwater^(Talk) 18:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's a pleasant surprise. It looks like the old links are redirecting to the new links on AllMusic now. I guess they used to do that before, and then it stopped working. But would seem that they fixed this at their end. So, that's cool. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Gaon Chart Sourcing

Good day!
My question is regarding whether i can include sales from specific chart (summed from several years).
About the chart:
Gaon Music Chart, which is produced by the Korea Music Content Association, publishes monthly and yearly physical album (amongst other things) sales in South Korea. According to their faq page (http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/faq/list.gaon?f_type=SITE&community=faq) - monthly chart is compiled of data from 1st date of month 12:00AM till 1st date of next month 11:59AM (basically calendar month), while yearly chart is compiled of data from january 1st 12:00AM till january 1st of next year 11:59AM (basically calendar year).
Gaon Chart does not show compiled overall sales over several years. Monthly chart is published in format "sales this month"/"sales this year thus far", and when year ends, Yearly chart is compiled and shows sales for specific year

The problem:
I wished to compile sales of artists albums (sold over several years), but my edit was declined citing WP:SYNTH, that you can't sum sales from several years (or different months), and article mentioning cumulative sales is needed like how billboard or nielsen does it (which is highly unlikely to happen, especially for "International" (aka not Korean) artists as their physical sales are relatively low).
I, personally, do not aggree.
This seems to be our disagreement with specific editor, thus 3rd party opinion seems to be required. I kindly ask for your opinions. Kleool (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kleool: You are correct. Per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not numerical summarization: if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4". It's basic arithmetic and nothing else. However, as this is the Gaon Music Chart, this should only be applied when adding units on a month-by-month or year-by-year basis, and should never be combined. Its year-end chart calculates domestic shipments minus returns and this is not reflected on the monthly charts, which can sometimes lead to lower year-end numbers when the monthly charts add to a higher album count. ℯ xplicit 02:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Peer review request for Black Panther (soundtrack)

Ultimate-guitar.com

How do we prioritise reviews?

Missing Video Reference

Help with tracklists

Sheet music

Hi all. Currently working on Wings (Little Mix song) and was wondering if there are any musicians part of the project who can help analyze sheet music of the song? I already have the time signature, key signature, bpm, vocal range etc... but was hoping someone will pick up on something interesting such as a key change, the song structure, where the high note takes place and so on. I have the sheet music and can e-mail it to whoever is willing to assist. Thank you Night clubbing 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be original research by us, and not acceptable on Wikipedia. You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the features you are asking about, not Wikipedia editors. Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the sheet music shows a key change then you can report the sheet music shows a key change. It will also show the format; verse, chorus, bridge etc There is also some WP software to enable you to create a couple of bars of topline (melody into the article). This question might have been answered better over all WP:Songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: thanks for providing a better answer than I did - I think I misunderstood the question as 'do Wikipedia editors find anything they deem interesting about the song structure'. One question, though: it may be that Nightclubbing has an original print version of the sheet music, but of the online sites, are there ones that have been deemed reliable/unreliable for the purpose of providing sheet music? Richard3120 (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sheet music is always inaccurate, it is at best a guide how to play a piece of music and if you played it, you would recognise the tune, and little else. This is because you can't put all the nuance of audio on a piece of paper. Then you might have a simple piano arrangement for a complex guitar song, again, it has to be an approximation. As long as Nightclubbing is using an authorised source (i.e. authorised by the music publishers of the song) it should be accurate enough for WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I bought the sheet music from Musicnotes.com. It was published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing. I have done a composition in my sandbox (User:Nightclubbing/sandbox) -it's the second composition. Richhoncho are you able to assist me? Should I rather ask at WP:SONGS? Night clubbing 13:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you have all the bases covered. Good to see somebody actually concerned with the song, rather than only the chart performance and what the artist said... --Richhoncho (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on date(s) included under Recorded in the infobox

Just want to check something: in the infobox's Recorded parameter, am I right in saying we should only include dates or a date span that reflect when music that appears on the released album was recorded? In other words, not a date for when sessions might have started but did not yield any recordings that appear on the album.

I take this to be as logical as, say, the name(s) included under Producer or the style(s) under Genre – in that, there be a producer that's omitted because their contribution didn't find its way onto the album (eg Denny Cordell on Petty & the Heartbreakers' Southern Accents), or an initial version of an album (later re-recorded) might be assigned a genre that's different from the official release (Dylan's Blood on the Tracks perhaps, which was far sparser and more folky originally). Same for Studio, when sessions at one location didn't produce anything that appears on the actual album.

So, I'm thinking about the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: sessions began on 24 November 1966, but not only did nothing from the first couple of dates find its way onto the released version of that first song, "Strawberry Fields Forever", but the song didn't end up on the album at all. Meaning, to my mind, that the infobox should give 6 December – the earliest date for when a piece of the released album's music was recorded. Does this tally with everyone else's approach? JG66 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The infobox should be a summary of the article's content. As long as there is no original research in supplying the content in the infobox, and it's a correct summary of the article, and if there are dates, producers, or other content (I know of albums where recording was started while under contract to one label but they dropped the act before the album's release) that are not germane to the final release, they do not need to be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve always included all known times of recording, but I’ve rarely had situations where they definitively say “nothing from this session was used”. I’ve never really given it much thought though, as they’re so frequently filled with unsourced/unverified dates anyways. I’ve merely put what I could source and kept moving. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both. No, this example is clear-cut and well-supported by the sources. (Oh, and yes, Walter, I was thinking of possible issues with Label also.) JG66 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Tax Scam Release Pages (re: Hotgun and Onion's "Made From Plate")

PoV template added to an album

Bodybuilding.com

MusicBrainz IDs in Authority control template

The Fader / Bandcamp Daily — reliable?

Request for comment

Tiny Mix Tapes should be considered reliable (in certain contexts)

I became aware earlier today that Tiny Mix Tapes has been listed as an "unreliable source" by the WikiProject, as seen here. While I understand many of the reasons that editors object to use of TMT—and I don't think it's an appropriate source in every context—I think it's a mistake to make a sweeping ban on using TMT. It's especially wrong to tear TMT references out of articles that already make use of their reviews, interviews, features, and other commentary. On the basis of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS—in short, a WP:RS policy indicating that some sources are useful and appropriate in certain contexts, but not in others—I think we should limit, but not ban, use of TMT. It's often an essential resource for alternative, underground, or experimental music, which is where it is most useful. In that context, I think we should continue allowing the use of TMT for certain artists that match its scope, while excluding the site from articles about mainstream music.

Here's a summary of objections from previous discussions (links for convenience: January 2018 discussion, February 2018 discussion), plus my answer to each of these objections:

For many TMT writers, "writing isn't their primary job". The site's "about us" page declares "we don't write for money or fame. Tiny Mix Tapes is comprised of a bunch of over-achievers, and our primary jobs range from studenting, teaching, receptioning, cooking."
The fact that their writers are not paid well is not inherently a good reason to declare them unreliable. Most journalists (especially music journalists) are not paid well, or are under-employed (getting paid far less than they could be getting paid for their education level); many work second jobs for income (ever heard of the gig economy?), or they are able to afford their low-income lifestyle only because they're trust-fund hipsters and don't depend on their scarce writing income for survival. The difference between TMT and most similarly situated music sites is that TMT is openly declaring this fact, and saying that it doesn't matter because commercial concerns are secondary to their scope. To me, TMT's "about" page is just a declaration of their ethos: they're going to focus on noncommercial music, and this is mostly a passion project for them since noncommercial music is, by definition, not a field that generates a ton of money.
The writers are not credentialed.
Credentialed for what? I'm not sure what standard is being raised here, since there are no formal requirements to become a music journalist. If the concern over "credentials" is a concern that TMT wouldn't be considered legit enough to acquire press passes to cover notable events, a quick scan of their features page shows that they cover festivals and other events. They have also frequently interviewed, and continue to interview, notable artists. I list some of their notable interviews below. TMT would probably be laughed off if they reached out to the PR rep of an Ariana Grande or a Kanye West, but they are trusted enough by independent artists that those artists grant interviews.
They started as a self-published page on Geocities.
Pitchfork also started as a DIY blog in 1996 that just published the writing of enthusiasts. That's not to say TMT and Pfork are on the same level: for the past several years, Pfork has been much more broadly reliable for certain information (for example, news about major-label artists) and they've become so central to music discourse that their reviews are almost always worth citing. But if amateur origins are being raised as a standard for disqualification then a site like Pfork would also fail that standard.
Additionally, Pfork only reached its unassailable current position in the media market fairly recently, since becoming a Condé Nast property. The site existed for many years at roughly the same level and publishing model as TMT—I'm thinking of Pitchfork as it existed between 1999 to 2004 or so, after their very early "amateur" period but before they achieved the massive success they reached in the late 00s and early 10s. The only difference between TMT and Pfork at that time is output, since Pfork is famously prolific, but quantity is not reliability; they were no more "credentialed" in that time period than TMT is now. Yet Pfork articles and reviews from that time period are considered reliable. When we're talking about online music magazines—most of which were probably started in the proverbial garage by amateur enthusiasts—I think we should be asking what the site is like now and in recent years, not pointing to its origins as a disqualifying point.
Many of the site's writers use pseudonyms—goofy pseudonyms at that.
This is a valid objection. I do think this is a really fair concern and I'm not opposed to editors choosing not to use pseudonymous articles published in TMT. That said: The Guardian published a music criticism column for years by an unidentified writer (I've tried to find out who it is to no avail) who writes under the pen name "Maggoty Lamb". The Guardian's institutional and editorial judgment are not directly comparable to TMT's, but I think the point is that we should judge these kinds of things on a case-by-case basis. It may be more appropriate in some contexts than others.
Many of their reviews or other articles are too academic and/or too off-topic.

This objection wasn't raised directly, but I think it is an implied problem with the site that makes it difficult to see how their work can be used in an encyclopedic setting. Again, I agree it's more than fair to limit inclusion of TMT in articles where their approach and ethos are at a mismatch with the subject matter. There may be compelling insight to be gained by citing Foucault in a review of Passion Pit, but that doesn't mean there's a compelling reason to cite that particular review on Wikipedia. On the other hand, citing Foucault in a review of Holly Herndon may be more appropriate given that academic, philosophical concepts are part of her work. Sometimes the reviews are very digressive or are closer to personal essays than reviews, and in these cases I think it's fair for a user to make a judgment call and not include that particular review in a Wikipedia article. But bad writing alone is not a great criterion for judging reliability; consider early Pitchfork contributor Brent DiCrescenzo, whose review of Kid A is notoriously overwrought ("I had never even seen a shooting star before...").

Some arguments in favor:

They publish and have published news about artists; sometimes this is mere aggregation, but often they are reporting themselves (new releases, tours announcements, other common bits of music news).
They've interviewed numerous musicians and other notable figures. There's no reason to determine that these interviews are "unreliable"—is there any reason to believe that these interviews are fabricated, that the artists were not participants? I haven't read all of the interviews below, but it strains credulity to think that none of them have content that wouldn't be useful and appropriate on Wikipedia, whether in an article about the interview subject, their work, other works that they comment on, etc.

Genesis P-Orridge
Courtney Barnett
Gang Gang Dance
Jamie Stewart of Xiu Xiu
John Maus
Kool Keith
Deerhoof
David Toop (musician, journalist and author)
Tim Hecker
Julia Holter
Lightning Bolt
Matana Roberts ,
Earth
Tommy Wiseau (director and star of The Room)
Angel Olsen
Royal Trux
The Body
Melt-Banana
DJ Rashad (RIP)
Julianna Barwick
Fuck Buttons
Matmos
William Basinski
Flying Lotus
Jens Lekman
Todd Solondz (independent film director)
Mark and Jay Duplass (filmmakers)
Orbital
Mount Eerie (Phil Elverum)
Lou Barlow
Grimes
The Magnetic Fields

These are just the names I picked out of their features section because I felt they crossed some minimum (but arbitrary) threshold of notability or "name recognition"; they have interviewed many other artists who are not as famous as these ones. Indeed, some of these artists were far more obscure when TMT interviewed them; Grimes was starting to become well-known in 2012, but certainly not on the same scale that she is today. Some artists that I skipped over may become more famous in the years to come, when their interviews with TMT may be seen as historically significant insight into their early work.

In a Google Books search (link isn't working but you can easily search "Tiny Mix Tapes" in quotes on Google Books), TMT is cited in a few books by music scholars and other writers. Again, they're not a central hub or mainstream outfit, but they are reasonably trustworthy within the field of underground/alternative music. —BLZ · talk 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not shocked to find out that Wikipedia adjudged this source unreliable; consensus operates poorly here all the time. But it is high time for it to change. TMT is an independent review site; I cite it all the time. There's no good reason not to consider its reviews as substantial for establishing notability as anything by e.g. Popmatters, Drownedinsound, etc. Chubbles (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus can absolutely change. But you need to give a reason why it should. It’s baffling that an experienced editor like yourself would hinge your argument on “I cite it a lot” and “other stuff exists”. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I agreed with Brandt Luke Zorn, I was never a fan of the idea that TMT should be classified as a unreliable source. My reason for removing the website off of Wikipedia because I was following the guidelines. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you failed to advance a valid reason in the last discussion about this, and your current comment doesn’t either. Do you have any any stance on this website beyond personally liking it? Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Im seeing a lot of complaints being thrown at the prior discussions, and a lot of vague agreements along the lines of support, but can someone (briefly) give the reasons why it’s reliable, in a way that can be reconciled with Wikipedia policy? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
My post isn't a complaint; I do think some of the concerns raised in previous discussions are valid and worth addressing, which is why I didn't just quote the brief rationale at the list of unreliable sources, but also presented all of the reasons given in prior discussions. But the valid concerns can be addressed by using TMT only where it is contextually appropriate. "Started as a self-published Geocities page, run by non-professional enthusiasts, not writers with credentials": WP:RS doesn't say anything about any of those reasons. None of those are a good enough reason to deem the site categorically unreliable for any purpose—it's very useful and very reliable for many purposes! There's no reason to disbelieve the validity of the interviews they've published or their news section, which has been routinely cited by other music sites. Metacritic and Album of the Year include TMT in their rankings. Vice's Noisey has cited TMT for its critical opinion; so has The New York Times. Flavorwire called Creem, the venerable-but-defunct rock magazine that published Lester Bangs and Patti Smith, "the 1970s' answer to Tiny Mix Tapes"—surely a favorable comparison, given Creem's historic importance and influence. TMT doesn't have to be included in every article that it could possibly be included in, but there's no good reason to scrape it from Wikipedia either. —BLZ · talk 03:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- - Again, this argument is centered almost entirely around defending its criticisms of it being unreliable, without arguing why it’s actively reliable.You haven’t established on what grounds it’s a reliable source. Is there a reason beyond “RS’s cite it sometimes”? Do they have established staff with credentials? Editorial oversight? Editorial policy? What about the source itself that makes it an RS? Sergecross73 msg me 04:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Read over WP:RS carefully. TMT is a publication that regularly publishes interviews. That suggests that they have established a degree of trustworthiness, reliability and credibility among musicians and artists, right? They don't have a reputation for misquoting or misrepresentation of the interview subject's words or anything like that, otherwise artists would stop giving them interviews and publicists would stop reaching out to them. The mere fact that they publish interviews of notable people is, in and of itself, evidence of their reliability, in context, for the purpose of describing interview subjects, their work, their opinions, their lived experiences, etc. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Let's say I want to cite an article at TMT to provide this information, "In an interview with Tiny Mix Tapes, Johnny Musicman said that Gretchen Guitarson's album Sgt. Beatbox influenced the synth-heavy direction of his new album." The information for the Wikipedia article is a statement by the artist regarding their music. Reliability check: Did the artist say that in the interview? Is this interview a fraud or a prank? If the artist said it and it's not an Onion article or equivalent, then the source is reliable because the source directly supports the information as it is presented. Asking for more than that is making up a standard that doesn't exist, at least not in Wikipedia policy. Demanding "credentials" is a slippery and meaningless standard: what credentials? That's a serious question. Be specific. Think about it. What credentialing process are you actually asking for? —BLZ · talk 04:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"Reliable" - Or rather, notable enough to be used for citing critical opinion. Their editor-in-cheif Marvin Lin has contributed a 33⅓ book, for which TMT staff were consulted. Grant Purdum from TMT has been published in Drowned in Sound. Lin was an editor at Pitchfork before starting the magazine (). Another staffer, Charles Ubaghs, has given academic lectures on social media and served as a journalist/editor for BBC, DrownedinSound, The Quietus, and The Stool Pigeon (). Yes, they present themselves casually and unprofessionally, but that is just hipster posturing; these appear to be experienced writers and editors running this publication. And yes, Tiny Mix Tapes' status as a featured reviewer on Metacritic also helps. Dan56 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the sort of commentary I find convincing. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Dan56's assessment as being reliable. Whenever I have read TMT's reviews or articles, they have appeared to be professionally written to me, however, its just that their whole appearance gives an aura of a blog like website with hipster posting. However, their staff being notable enough and with credibility gives me hope that we can actually list TMT as a reliable source for music articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a totally reliable source for music reviews. Just as reliable as Drowned in Sound, The Quietus, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Reliable: Dan56 has pointed out editor Marvin Lin's credentials above, but the rest of the editorial team appear to have solid writing credentials too: Dan Smart has a degree in Creative Writing and is a poet and studio engineer, according to his website , and Justin "JSpicer" Spicer and Grant "Gumshoe" Purdum both have journalism degrees, going by their LinkedIn profiles – Purdum is also an editor at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times newspaper in his home town, and has written for The Wire and The A.V. Club. "Ze Pequeño", aka Sean Brady, was a former contributor at PopMatters . Several of the other contributors appear to have writing backgrounds, whether as novelists, poets, art critics or even grant proposal writers (which may be nothing to do with music, but you still have to be able to write clearly). Behind the pseudonyms and humour, there seems to be enough there to convince me that this is a professional writing team. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I no longer object with evidence like this. I don’t understand the indifference on the topic earlier in the year contrasting with this suggested vigor the community has found on it within these last 24 hours, but I’m happy we’ve got a more solid consensus on it now regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable. Even if their journalism is not the most accurate due to the vocabulary as it as not as formal as other websites, the interviews are still good to go. I mean otherwise, artists wouldn't grant more interviews and that is not the case. Every source that has interviews with artists should be accepted even if it's the only reliable way of using said site. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A response was solicited from me on my talk page. I have watched the discussion and I have no opinion on the source itself. While we have local consensus to accept it as a source, and we could even put it on our list of sources (with any caveats that would seem appropriate), we still need to have a few voices at RSN to get the decision reviewed. I would say that based on the discussion here, that should be fairly straightforward though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that the user DepressedPer apparently spent much of the last three days removing Tiny Mix Tapes references and quotations from over a hundred article pages, claming it was an unreliable source. This user has not participated in the discussion here, but the removals started a couple of days after this discussion began. Chubbles (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chubbles: DepressedPer has restore the website back in those articles after I leave a message in their talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: @IndianBio: @Koavf: @Richard3120: @Sergecross73: @Dan56: @MarioSoulTruthFan: Since mostly everybody has agreed that TMT is a reliable source, should it be removed off the list of unreliable sources? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Reliable for reviews and music-related news/interviews (tho they probably just quote original sources for news). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate consecutive numbering of tracks across multiple LP sides or discs in track listings

I am unsure if this has been discussed before or not. I often see this in articles (LP example, CD example), and in the past made the same mistake. Perhaps this stemmed from the impression created by our era's digital music format, conflated with the formats of the past, but such examples are not faithful to the numbering format of the original release; each LP side begins with the track number one, as does each disc of a CD. I think someone here eventually made me aware I was misnumbering tracks in articles, so I would like to encourage more to be aware and make an effort to fix such occurrences. Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Track listing, but then the example gets it wrong! EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha. I have fixed it. Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My fix has been reverted. Dan56 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it came about because CDs were often reissued with extra tracks, and it was in order to avoid adding another track listing which is near identical to the LP version apart from the extra tracks at the end. Otherwise you get track listings of "Side one: tracks 1-5, Side two: tracks 1-5" and then "track 11" as the bonus track, which looks odd. Is there any easy way around this, without having to separately list LP and CD versions for every album? Richard3120 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

An example of how it gets complicated, using a very well known album. Synchronicity by the Police added a bonus track onto the cassette and CD versions. Instead of just noting this, as in the current version of the article, we would have to have three separate track listings - (1) side one, tracks 1-6, side two, tracks 1-4 for the LP; (2) side one, tracks 1-6, side two, tracks 1-5 for the cassette; and (3) tracks 1-11 for the CD. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Listing the original LP and an extra complete listing for CD with bonus track would be fine by me. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your assessment that the numbering system on two-sided LPs/cassettes should be different from a single-sided CD, just pointing out that it could result in some very long track listing sections in album articles. But just to be clear, you would be OK with having three separate track listings in the Synchronicity article, for example? I know you said you would be OK with two for LP and CD, but I don't think we can ignore the cassette version: in the UK in 1983 this would probably have been the best-selling of the three formats. Richard3120 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about saying that the third track in an album is track #3. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It is inaccurate if the track number is listed below the heading "Disc two". Because it is not the third track of disc two. Dan56 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if the album articles used the same track numbers as the ones on the actual albums. The convention that's usually used, on the albums themselves and elsewhere, is to start the track numbering with #1 for each disc of an LP or a CD. Therefore, if disc one of an album has two tracks, the first track of disc two would be #1, not #3. Or if a particular album does it differently, the corresponding article could reflect that. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, restarting the numbering is the correct way to do it. If the metadata on a CD or track numbering provided on an LP differ from the norm, that would be a rare exception where we'd probably defer to the release's specific numbering method. I can't think of an example when this exception would apply... some hidden tracks, perhaps?

Incidentally, even digital music has a way to deal with the phenomenon of track numbers restarting on a new disc. Most standard formats (mp3, FLAC, etc.) include metadata not just for track number, but also disc number (as well as the total number of tracks and the total number of discs). Using the example above, the metadata for the song "Track 2" would be track number 2 / 2 and disc number 1 / 2, while "Third Time's a Charm" would be track number 1 / 1 and disc number 2 / 2. Even modern streaming formats recognize this: if you have a desktop version of the Spotify app, go to Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. It displays subheadings for discs 1 and 2 and restarts the track numbering so that the first track of disc 2 is track 1. —BLZ · talk 00:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, with vinyl recordings, both schemes are used but the more common scheme is that song numbering is restarted per-side, so you will have a side B, song 1 (as can be seen here. We should do what RSes state the track numbers to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So how would you list the tracks on An American Treasure where there are three formats and there is no way to make a single compatible listing? Three lists? One complex table? Or just a single list in numerical order? It's not original research to say that there are x songs in such-and-such order. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

When reviewing the album, how did reliable sources refer to the song numbers?

I agree that WP:CALC allows us to state that there are N songs on an album and thereby number continuously.

I also recognize that when I pull an album out of its dust jacket, and I see side b, track 2 on the label, I know where I'm dropping my needle to hear that song. And when I would write about that track, in relation to the other songs on that side, I would number them Side B 1. "The First Song"/2. "Song the Second"/3. "..."/4. "Track Four". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And when reliable sources refer to the "tenth" track on Led Zeppelin's fourth album but the album sleeve calls it "Side 2 #5" and the digital streaming version of it just calls it track 10, then what? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There are only eight tracks on that album, but if the last track of the second side of a 10-track album were the 5th track of that side, it would also be the 10th track of the album—there's no contradiction there. My second daughter is also my third child—there's nothing strange about saying it either way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If we have the track listing itself to verify the track listing, why should any other source matter? Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Because, as I pointed out: there are two different track listings for the same album. Maybe this was unclear. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about a special case, then it should be sorted out at that article's talk page. The default otherwise should be to list tracks as they are listed on the album, which should trump 3rd-party sources in all but special cases. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not talking about a special case: many, many albums are streaming on the Internet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The album sleeve is not the only thing identifying the track; the groove of each side of the record itself has visible track bands delineating the songs. Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, why do we even retain the multiple side/disc format if we are not being faithful to their respective enumeration? Why are there still pseudoheadings saying Side one or Disc two if we are to present an album's songs as a totality (more like "This entire album's songs")? Dan56 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What you're saying is that there are "many, many" special cases. Yes. Yes, there are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"So how would you list the tracks on An American Treasure where there are three formats and there is no way to make a single compatible listing?" I wouldn't say that a continuous track listing arises to the level of an WP:OR concern. If I came across a continuous, undivided track listing for a multi-disc album, most of the time I wouldn't bother to correct it; it's fine, it's "good enough". But when crafting a style guide, we're not contemplating "good enough", but rather what is most correct or proper. As far as I'm concerned, the track listing at the "Deluxe Version" of An American Treasure as it currently exists is fine, I don't have any problem with it, but if it went to GA or FA I'd expect the track listing to be formatted correctly/properly. An uninterrupted list of 63 songs is a little long and would probably look better broken into sections by disc, but: not my circus, not my monkeys.

Ordinarily, there isn't a need to make multiple track listings for each release format if the order and number of songs is the same across releases. It's redundant info and better suited to Discogs. If an album came out on multiple formats simultaneously (implying that it was originally released in the CD era or later), the thing to do is pick one format and list them that way, probably defaulting to CD, since CD metadata and digital metadata are almost always identical (see Mellon Collie example above). A case where multiple track listings of releases across different formats really is necessary would be The Wonderful and Frightening World Of..., because the album's track listing went through multiple iterations with different numbers of songs, even before any deluxe/special edition/"expanded" reissues: there are three very different sequences of songs that could all properly be called "the album The Wonderful and Frightening World Of...".

Also the style guide won't account for every situation, it's just stating general principles. There will always be, per Curly Turkey, "special cases". Minor variations that don't exactly conform to one version of the album are OK; for example, at The Beatles (album)#Track listing, the track listing is sectioned by LP side, but the numbering reflects the two discs of the CD release (1–13 for sides one and two, not A1, A2, etc.). This is a synthesis of the LP and CD versions, but it makes sense: it combines the original historical info (when it came out, this release was divided into LP sides) and the current context (this is how you are most likely to encounter this album, given that it is a time after the 1980s). I don't have any problem with this minor "inaccuracy", which in this case is really more like a heightened accuracy. (That said, there is no conceivable reason to list "Good Night" as track no. 30.)

I'm really not sold on this idea of looking at secondary sources to see how many tracks they say something has. You're liable to find cases where you'll encounter conflicting info between two (or more) sources' descriptions, and a reviewer's description of a single song in passing is not an attempt to prescribe or impose a track listing—plus, what if they just get it flat-out wrong, like if someone writes "'Seasons of Man' is the fourth song on Close to the Edge"? More fundamentally, this method confuses quantity (cardinal number) with numbering (ordinal number). It is simultaneously true that there are 13 songs on Sgt. Pepper's, total, and that the final song was track B6.

(Btw, totally off topic but since this is my first time interacting with you, Koavf: I really admire the Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album) article! I know you were not the sole "main" contributor but nonetheless, shouts out, it's excellent work.) —BLZ · talk 03:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: For An American Treasure, what discs are you talking about? Again, it seems like editors are giving "hot takes" here but maybe I'm just not explaining myself clearly: how would you format this album to show which songs are on which discs? Not hypothetically but can you actually show me how you would do it? (P.S.: Thanks for that! User:Jujutacular deserves a lot of praise as well.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Per what I said above, the best thing to do for An American Treasure—or any similarly situated album/edition-of-an-album that meets the conditions of being (1) released on multiple formats, (2) simultaneously, (3) all of which retain the same order and total number of tracks—would be to use the CD track listing and omit the LP track listing. The reasons are the same as what I said earlier in that second² paragraph of my response: (1) CD track listing overlaps 1:1 with digital metadata, so that's two birds with one stone (only one bird with one stone if you list the LP version), and (2) if an album was simultaneously released on CD & LP, then it was released in the CD era or later, a time when CDs have been considered the "dominant" or "default" format. That method prefers dividing by disc rather than LP side, but the omission of the LP-side information is not exactly mission-critical. On balance, it's better to lose the LP-side information and LP numbering rather than include two (long) track listings that are otherwise identical in order and total number of songs; it's mostly redundant info. Again, Wikipedia is not Discogs; perfect and complete cataloging of every edition of an album is what Discogs (or Rate Your Music, or...) is for.

But also: the current track listing of the deluxe edition of An American Treasure is basically fine. This is what I mean about "good enough" (in a particular instance) vs. "most correct/proper" (as a matter of general principles). It may not be formatted the way I think is "better" but (1) I'm neither individually responsible for the article nor pressingly interested in the subject and (2) the method and reasoning behind that formatting is not unacceptable (it's not like it's ordered in reverse or something outrageous that I might feel compelled to correct if I came across it). It's fine.

² Wait wait, hold on: the second paragraph of my response is actually the 28th paragraph overall in this discussion, so if you'd rather count it out that way... (Just kiddin' around. But hey! You accused me of taking hotly first so some light ribbing is in order.) —BLZ · talk 04:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ribbing is appreciated. So what to do about R.E.M.'s Out of Time (1991) or Green (1988)? When is the "CD era"? Are we just supposed to intuit that? See, this is why creating some arbitrary rule is actually counterproductive and would only create more trouble than it solves? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are fine. I'm not proposing "CD track listings are always better than LP in the CD era" (by which I meant: the time period after CDs were invented and became commercially available, nothing special or exact) as an absolute rule, just noting a consideration. It's a potential reason to favor using a CD track listing but it could be overcome by any number of countervailing factors/reasons in a specific instance. The continued relevance/applicability of CD metadata in the digital era is a point in CD's favor, but also, using LP track listings for albums that are only 11 or 12 tracks long is not a big deal; it remains very easy to tell what the CD track listing would look like in a way that is not equally true for multi-CD/multi-LP sets. Conversely, I think it would be "cool" and "swell" if Vitalogy listed the LP track listing for reasons that would be generally clear from reading the article, but it's fine either way. I'm not super-invested in whether CD or LP is superior (for the record, I personally prefer to see LP track listings every time). I think that's subject to an editor's discretion and ultimately doesn't make a consequential difference 99% of the time. I do think that we should consolidate to one track listing where possible, but whether it's LP vs. CD isn't that critical if they're mostly identical. —BLZ · talk 04:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Who says we are limited to a "single compatible listing"? We could just list all of them. You know, the ones that actually exist in the real world, rather than synthesized pieces of fiction... Or just the physical edition, since it is labelled in the infobox as a "box set", unless there a "digital box sets" I am not aware of.. Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if you are doing away with the actual numbering for each disc or side, why are you still retaining the disc or sides? Dan56 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

We could list the track listing of multiple editions, but when they're fundamentally the same there's no pressing reason to do so, either. We're not necessarily limited to a single track listing, but we've gotta weigh the pros and cons of listing mostly redundant track listings. Consider: Discogs lists 534 distinct editions of The Beatles by The Beatles. —BLZ · talk 04:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The original LP can be rendered accurately and shown in full view, while the CD reissue can be "collapsed"(?). Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing is deprecated and never should have been done (as I have argued for years) because it's inaccessible. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is having two track listings such a burden on the article? Dan56 (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It's ludicrous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Buddy, if you think it is more ludicrous than inaccuracy, we are ideologically opposed and have reached a stalemate. I move for a formal vote. Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's burdensome, a sub-article might be a place for multiple track listings. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think a sub-article is over-kill. I understand the issue though: an album is released to vinyl. It is subsequently released to CD, maintains the same track listing, but now there are no sides. Years later, a remastered version is released with new material, some of which is inserted in the listing. Finally, a streaming version with additional bonus material is released. I wouldn't supply track listings for all of them, and merely mention the additional listings in prose, and again, relay on what reliable sources (including the liner notes and album labels) call them (international issues with different track listings notwithstanding). Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Far preferable to a subpage would be simply using Template:Discogs master in the External links section. —BLZ · talk 04:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That would be a case-by-case editorial decision. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone (other than Koavf) object to this change to the style guide's example? Dan56 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't. Putting aside some of the other (more complicated and varied) issues raised in this discussion about what to do with multiple editions/formats, this issue about multi-disc CD releases is pretty clear cut. When a CD release gets to a new disc, the track listing starts over again at 1 (unless there is evidence of a good reason to do otherwise, like artistic intent etc.) This is the standard followed by MusicBrainz (Mellon Collie 2×CD, by way of example) and others who have thought a lot more about metadata than us. —BLZ · talk 07:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Late to the discussion: constant edit conflict. A few of us did discuss this issue, back in 2014 or thereabouts; I think it started on an album talk page before moving somewhere more central (if not here, I'm not sure where). I agree with Mudwater in that it's the disc that counts. The LP-side pseudo heads can be read purely as divisions for that format (as well as cassette where applicable), and I don't think there's any confusion in that unless one chooses to overthink the issue.

I came to this approach based on others' opinions, as well as the issue that Richard raises in his first post, regarding repetition of track listings for various formats and reissues. I think the latter is to be avoided at all costs; just my personal opinion, but the inclusion of multiple lists looks terrible. Not only that but the setting of reissue bonus tracks and entire supplementary discs in "hidden" format often raises the shackles of editors (citing WP:ACCESS) objecting to hidden content on the page, I've found, so whatever it takes to impart the information without multiple listings and situations whereby, through sheer bulk, the content is being hidden – the better.

So in reply, Dan, I'd say I agree with Justin's objection to that change to the style guide's example. JG66 (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. You said Mudwater's right that it's the disc that counts, and he said "Therefore, if disc one of an album has two tracks, the first track of disc two would be #1, not #3." But you object to this change, which does nothing other than start the numbering of a new disc back at 1, which is what Mudwater said to do? Am I missing something? —BLZ · talk 08:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I apologise – a case of me half reading Mud's point and completely missing that the style guide example concerns a new disc, not a new side. Since it is a disc there, I have no objection to Dan's change, no. What I meant by the disc matters is that the track numbering should continue through the disc's two sides rather than start anew at side two. JG66 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If the only issue is that readers unfamiliar with LP to CD format differences will find the CD bonus track number odd beside the LP listing, then why not just make a note of it (LP songs combined as tracks 1-13 on CD, something like that) below the track listing, as opposed to misidentifying the second (and third, fourth) side's track numbers? Misidentifying, misrepresenting, inaccurately portraying... shouldn't these be more of a concern for an encyclopedia, rather than a little redundancy? Redundant, yet there are templates made for repeating chart and certification info, without much if any objection. Infoboxes and image, quote boxes, for illustrating repeated items. If there is not enough familiarity with LP vs CD track listing (which in this age, might be expected), wouldn't offering an illustration in the form of an extra listing help in this? Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

We already have a guideline in infoboxes that the most commonly sold version of the work should be represented there, and so the track listing could follow that principle.

We encounter problems when special editions are released, or there are different track orders between media (some bands rearranged orders to avoid the click in the change on 8-tracks for instance). I'm hearing that notes can address reordering, and special track listings for bonus material make more sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In reply to Dan56: I just find it tidier when then going on to add lists of bonus tracks for reissues. And again, I think any issue regarding misidentification or misrepresentation is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. To my way of thinking, the approach at Straight Up, Is This What You Want? and especially All Things Must Pass (where three LP discs were reissued and repacked as two CDs) makes sense. JG66 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There is simply no track numbered "5" on "side two" of the All Things Must Pas LP. This is indisputable. But the example you cite depicts a track numbered "5" on a "side two", when this does not exist. Tidiness is subjective (eye of the beholder). Facts are not. Dan56 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, listeners could play the "B-side" ("side two", whatever) before the "A", and then what you considered the fifth song on the album becomes the first. Because there is no instruction on how to play the record, which side gets played first; since we are devaluing the labelled track numbering, why bother giving the labelled side numbering any meaning either? Now, do we really want to deal with abstractions, or record concrete information? Because, if the latter, then everything ought to be recorded accurately, rather than being selective to suit our personal philosophies and prejudices of taste. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am getting carried away, though. Apart from "tidiness", it has been mentioned earlier that the purpose of re-imagining the numbering is to tell readers that, if the record is played in the order intimated by the format (side one, then side two; disc one, then disc two), then these tracks will carry this ordinal number (1st track, 2nd track, so on). But this is abstract, and the numbers in the template do not even carry the ordinal suffix (-st, -nd, -th), so it makes no sense. And the readers can figure out for themselves which is first, second, third, on the album in a larger sense; the track listing (in articles) doesn't have to spell out the obvious for them. There is also the likelihood younger readers unfamiliar with the LP format will be left with the impression that track numbering was consecutive across LP sides; because that is what is being illustrated. To risk this, and to record information inaccurately, for the sake of sensitivity to visual taste, is anti-intellectual. An additional listing, or just a note of prose below the one listing, can surely be spared. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This all sounds like a good excuse for getting rid of side and disc divisions in favor of continuous track listings. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

For albums since the end of the CD era, this is not a problem; Spotify does not even appear to have track numbers for An American Treasure. But the physical formats of older albums can have a significance (as covered by third-party sources) that warrant coverage of different listings and the LP sides; the track-segment analysis of Agharta's double LP sides and (later) discs, or the soundtrack/singles sides division of Magical Mystery Tour. Dan56 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. If the most common format was a two-sided medium, we should reflect that in our track listings. I have never owned a vinyl copy of Time Out (album), or any jazz album, but recognize that contemporary sales pale in comparison to the original sales and so listing it as two-sided is appropriate and should not be abandoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, albums that don't have some specific commentary on their individual sides wouldn't warrant this division, according to you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Commentary on the formats, commentary on reissues. If faithfully reproducing the track numbering and format is so visually burdensome, as has been argued here, then I am thinking of cases when it is essential. I also do not disagree with representing the most common format when multiple listings are not essential. Dan56 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The most common format for virtually all releases will be streaming, so that would mean a continuous track listing, which is what I have argued the entire time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

LP-era albums are commonly discussed as LPs, rather than CDs or streams, and they achieve their notability (the basis for their having an article) as LPs. One of the world's best-selling records, Sgt. Pepper, attained its significance and reached most of its 32 million plus sales during the LP and CD eras, before streaming had become, or will become, the most commonly distributed format. And you cannot predict the future; even streaming has been susceptible to piracy, which is what has done in CDs and download purchases. In the case of older albums like Sgt. Pepper, the format commonly discussed in the literature (and referred to throughout the article) is the LP: the process of producing the LP, the gatefold packaging, chart run on the Billboard Top LPs, on which it ran for 175 non-consecutive weeks until 1987, the year of its CD reissue. To abandon the LP format in such cases would be inconsistent with the article's narrative. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So now the goalposts shift to what was the format that was most popular at the time when it would have been notable had Wikipedia existed at that time? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I do not see any of... that... in my previous comment. Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we make track listings based on the most popular format of an album or the most popular format when it was first released? And what about when we don't know the latter? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I would apply the due weight principle and defer to the most commonly discussed format among third-party sources. Also, I see you mentioned R.E.M.'s Out of Time in an earlier comment above. Discogs can be used as a reference point if nothing else can; it shows more CD releases than LPs in the year of its original release. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So now you are suggesting that we use unreliable sources? And why are the number of varieties of CD more compelling than the actual number of units sold per format? This is a totally impenetrable black box for something that is actually very straightforward. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Both are compelling; more compelling than the recent popularity of stream services. Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, as streaming services become more popular and are far more likely to be the way that someone actually encounters this music, we'll have to agree to disagree. Either way, I don't think we should appeal to 1.) unreliable sources, 2.) some ultra-complex calculus for determining which format was most popular when an album would have been notable had Wikipedia existed, or 3.) shifting around our guideline without consideration. Obviously, consensus is not on my side here but I think this is a misstep for many reasons. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your points :) Dan56 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The legacy of album era records has been mentioned before; an LP is reissued on CD with bonus tracks, for instance. Articles should provide context for as many readers as possible (WP:AUDIENCE), and retaining the original format of the first listing while providing an additional listing of a significant reissue (like a CD with bonus tracks) of an album from the LP era would provide younger readers this context. But my point before was if you are going to do away with one thing, then do away with it all; might as well just list the songs with bullet points or hashmarks and call the section "song list". Because it is not the album's "track listing" if it does not exist in any edition of the album. An additional listing might appear less tidy, but numbering the first track on side two as anything other than "1" appears, er, stupid. Dan56 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at noting the track numbering difference between LP and CD, at Kind_of_Blue#Track_listing, where there are several listings of CD bonus material. Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Album short descriptions

Live DJ set sample and samples pack

Should be this live DJ set sample and samples pack included in the discography? Eurohunter (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that list it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: What you mean by list it? It's official channel. Eurohunter (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well no, it's not the DJ's official YouTube channel; it's a single video on the performer's YouTube channel.

If reliable sources discuss that exact video as a distinct work, then we should. If they don't, then it would be original research to suggest that it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You are wrong. It's his official channel and I know what I'm saying. Eurohunter (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You clearly do not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8QURO_kQs is a link to a single video, not a channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXUCegBr2GL7mo6O1l-xvVw is Basshunter's channel, which you can tell because it has the word channel in the URL.

Your actual question was whether that linked object (which is clearly a video and not a channel) should be included in a discography, and the answer to that question is not unless reliable sources list is as part of Basshunter's discography. If there's a list of videos, it could be included in that section without further references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean it was published on official channel. Eurohunter (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: what Walter is saying is, are there any reliable sources that discuss the video, that are independent of the artist's own video channel? Richard3120 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Why there should be? If samles are acceptable then it should be included. Eurohunter (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask you a question: where do you want to include it? Be precise. An article name and ideally a link to which section you want to include it would be beneficial to giving you an answer.

Short of more particulars, no, just because a work was released doesn't make it enough to list in a discography. You won't see artists list every song they release. We only discuss them in an appropriate section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of 45cat at the reliable sources noticeboard

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

"Single Album"

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Asian (especially Korean) record companies have been using the term "Single Album" for a release of a promoted song plus a few support tracks. I submit that this is simply a modern term for what has traditionally been called an EP. The problem is that "Single Album" is not supported by the Album Infobox Template, causing alerts when someone uses the new term in the TYPE field. This tends to lead to further disputes about how "Single Album" really is an industry term now and it's somehow different from an EP. Perhaps the Infobox Template can be adjusted accordingly, or a statement can be added that the term "EP" should always be used in the TYPE field. Incidentally, this has come up in a new article for an item in which the Korean record company is using the term "Single Album" for the release of ONE song: XII (Chungha song). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, a Korean "Single Album" could have a title different than that of the one song included, leading to more confusion for infobox fields and article titles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an EP to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Similar case with JinSoul. It was moved to the same title with the ambiguator "single album", but then moved back in October per WP:PRECISION. Not sure why this one has type "single"... Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I recall some releases being specifically marketed in the West as "mini-albums" rather than EPs for some reason. And some singles get expanded into six-track EPs with a name (e.g. Please: PopHeart Live EP). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur that a single album is basically an EP. I have an idea which we could potentially come to a compromise to have it say "EP/Single album" or have it be in an EP-style infobox that says "Single album", but I fear my views may be fringe and it would be unpopular. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly made the change at JinSoul. I may have missed a few categories when changing the Future bass category, but users are free to revert me if they disagree. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the comments so far and the idea from DannyMusicEditor above is a good one. Use of the term "Single Album" as the TYPE in the Infobox causes an article to appear in the nonstandard infobox report, and I think this requires some sort of solution. Within particular articles I have often recommended that "EP" be used in the infobox, while "single album" (or "mini-album" etc.) can be used in the article text if the record company insists on using that term, but a fair number of editors have not been convinced by this logic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A "single album" is not the equivalent to a "mini-album" (the latter is synonymous with EP). They are distinctly separate release types, which is why 0806 is D-Crunch's first "single album" and the subsequent released M1112 (4colors) is their first "mini-album". The term "single album" exists because all physical releases in South Korea are deemed "albums", and this is governed by South Korea law. Per Yonhap: "Under the country's copyright law, an album refers to a physical object that contains music." If there is a physical CD, it is legally an album here. This may not exist out of this country, but it should not be mislabeled. ℯ xplicit 03:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

All the more reason to come up with a solution here, because the terms "single album" and "mini album" are not supported by the Album Infobox Template. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on ℯxplicit's comments, it sounds like a "single album" is more like a traditional single than an EP. Maybe it's even equivalent to a "single"? If all CD releases of recorded music are "albums" by legal definition, wouldn't any single on CD be a "single album"? Is the CD release of "Gangnam Style" a "single album", rather than a "single", properly speaking? Or is there a distinction between a "single album" and a mere "single", within Korean music industry standards?

If the terms are equivalent (or very close), I think the solution would be DOOMSDAYER's solution (with one difference): use the existing infobox but allow the article text to use whatever terminology is appropriate, except that "single albums" would use the existing Template:Infobox song (with type=single) instead of Template:Infobox album (with type=EP). It sounds like it would also be worth adding a new subsection about the Korean music industry's naming convention in the article Single (music). The Yonhap source is a good start, so maybe that and one other source confirming the industry's definition and usage of the term "single album".

Incidentally, on the issue of how to title articles when the title of the single album is different from the A-side: it is extremely rare, but not totally unprecedented, for a single release in the western music industry to have a different title than the A-Side. For example, Nine Inch Nails released the song "Closer" as a single titled "Closer to God". In that case, our article is titled Closer (Nine Inch Nails song), rather than "Closer to God", because the focus remains on the song itself (rather than the release) and the name difference represents a rare deviation from the norm of the western music industry's release style. I know next to nothing about K-pop and the Korean music industry, so picking a title probably depends on factors like (1) how conventional (or unconventional) is it for a release to have a difference title than its A-side and (2) whether secondary sources tend to refer to the A-side or the release name. —BLZ · talk 01:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent points from BLZ here (and "Closer" is a nice catch too). I must admit that I had not thought of a comparison to singles. It was very common in the 80s and 90s for a western song to be released on a "CD single" that included 2 or 3 support tracks (what were previously called B-sides). So those are categorized as "singles" in Wikipedia even though there is more than one song included. I agree with BLZ that this corresponds to what is happening with the "single albums" from Korea. Perhaps they should not be in the Albums Project at all and should instead be categorized as singles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should keep single albums as part of the songs WikiProject, as while Explicit points out that all physical releases are albums under Korean law, this appears to be more of a technicality for the Korean industry that they have to include "album" in its definition but are still trying to differentiate it as a single (whether or not it's primarily promoting one track). However, in the case of Chungha's XII (single), we also have an article for the one song on the release itself, Gotta Go (Chungha song). There are digital singles in Korea, like "Bbibbi" by IU and "Sappy" by Red Velvet, that do not have accompanying physical releases, and it appears there is also a digital single available for "Gotta Go" with its own cover art (as distinct from "XII", which has both a digital cover—on Korean music sites, can't find it on any Western sites—and a physical cover). Maybe in this respect, we don't need two articles for what are two sides of essentially the same thing (I can see how having two articles is a bit redundant), but I'm still not sure how many other users feel that way. I think in some cases we may need to differentiate between what is a single (or single album) and what is an EP (or mini-album) on a case-by-case basis, as on some releases, e.g. M, A, D and E by Big Bang, there is not one primary track, as the songs on each of the releases received separate promotion (videos, performances, etc. that typically makes songs 'singles'), and they can't just be called EPs (as there are actually denoted "EP versions" of these singles in some markets). I think in some instances it's appropriate to use "(single)" as a disambiguator if the title is for a release and not a song and it is not referred to as an EP in media (nor as a "mini-album"). Sorry if this presented a bunch of different points, just wanted to put my thoughts out there that perhaps there's not one solution for everything called a "single album", as some contain one song, while others contain multiple with one primary song or multiple songs with no primary song. Ss112 15:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

With little non-promotional sources for XII (single), I'd support a merge to Gotta Go (Chungha song) as the single release of the song. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ss112's examples are really interesting and useful in understanding what's going on and building some conceptual hierarchies/analogies to western music release paradigms. The single albums from MADE are an interesting example. Most of the time in western music releases/promotions, there's an album and then subordinate singles. But with MADE, there are the four subordinate single albums, each of which functions sort of like a quasi-EP/double A-side. I say "quasi-EP" because they're clearly neither albums nor singles in western terms, they're somewhere in-between, but they're also not the same as western EPs, which we've established are (almost) 1:1 with "mini-albums".

Zooming in, I'll take the example of the single album M—which I'm noticing charted on the Gaon Album Chart, not the Singles Chart—which collects the songs "Loser" and "Bae Bae". According to the track listing section, there appears to even be an alternate EP version of M, but it's just a collection of alternate versions of the same songs (instrumental, a cappella). This usage of the word "EP" is closer to what in the west would be an expanded single—like some of the longer versions of Ace of Base's "The Sign" that collect alternate versions and remixes—and is distinct from "mini-album", which seems closer to the EP-as-standalone-release that includes, say, the Beatles' double-EP edition of Magical Mystery Tour or Pavement's Slay Tracks (1933–1969) (shameless plug of my own writing there).

These two songs, "Loser" and "Bae Bae" are the true "singles" (not single albums) inasmuch as they can be downloaded/streamed as individual song-size units, and are promoted as singles, but are not "single albums"/releases in themselves. The articles for each of those releases are well-sourced and developed enough to stand on their own, at least in my judgment. (This is a tangent, but: adding another level, there's MADE the Korean-language album and then Made Series, the Japanese-language version of same. With few other equivalent western examples handy, this reminds me of the split between the Beatles' British albums (most of which form the band's "core catalog") and their American albums; compare With the Beatles and Meet the Beatles!, for instance.)

I think the question of whether there should be articles for a single album, the singles themselves, or all of the above is going to be case-by-case, as Ss112 said. I think all of the MADE examples are well-developed enough that they stand independently. But for many releases, we can handle multiple "releases" or "editions" of the same work all the time in album articles; this is really common for expanded/deluxe editions, which are sometimes handled within the same article or sometimes given a separate article, just depending. XII (single) seems like it could easily be rolled into Gotta Go (Chungha song), given that "Gotta Go" is a non-album single (in the same sense as, say, "Paperback Writer", which is that the song does not seem to appear on a "full" studio album-type release); ~~there is no physical (non-digital) release of XII;~~ there is little to be said about XII that couldn't be rolled into "Gotta Go"; and perhaps most importantly, "Gotta Go" is the only track on XII (which is somewhat bewildering to me, but I guess "I get it"). —BLZ · talk 01:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's possible to write up something about single albums in the single article. There is volume 33 of Korea Now which goes into it. Some snippets I was able to view:

"...SM Entertainment launched the popular pop group Dongbangsingi with two single albums. Each album was priced at 4,500 to 5,000 won, less than half the price of a regular album".

"...afraid to switch over to single albums, thinking it could bring down their status, 'But single albums are actually the best way for the domestic pop music industry to survive,' he said."

"The format, locally known as 'single albums', contains five tracks or less."

If "single albums" are legally albums, why would they be part of WikiProject Songs? It is still an album even outside of South Korea. Compare Big Bang's eight-track single album D, which charted on Japan's albums chart, to Koda Kumi's eight-track single "4 Times", which charted on Japan's singles chart. The distinction between a single and a single album still exists, and the legal definition doesn't cease to exist outside of its home country. I agree that those two Chungha articles need to be merged, and in this case I would support tagging the talk page with both project tags because it would cover both the single album and the song.

Speaking of which, the chronology for the Big Bang articles is in disarray. M, A, D, and E are linked back to back, but "Loser" and "Bae Bae" are sandwiched between the single "Monster" and the single album A, and somehow manage to ignore the existence of each other in the chronology. This continues with "Bang Bang Bang", "We Like 2 Party", and so on. Classifying single albums with the {{Infobox song}} is really not helpful. ℯ xplicit 06:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just jumping back in here to clarify: @Brandt Luke Zorn: XII was also released as a physical edition (here's an "unboxing" of the physical edition). It's "Gotta Go" that only exists separately (under that title) digitally. Ss112 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Thanks for the clarification, I had relied on the "format" portion of that article's infobox but hadn't looked into it. Also um holy hell, that is some seriously impressive packaging. I really recommend that anyone following this discussion check out that unboxing video. I think I'm beginning to understand the sense in which these are "albums". The modern (post-Sgt. Pepper's) western conception of the word "album" is pretty much "LP record-as-kunstwerk", emphasis on "long-playing"; an album is an album and that categorization transcends whether it exists in physical or digital medium. The Velvet Underground & Nico is The Velvet Underground & Nico whether it takes the form of 8-track or vinyl or streamed or illegally downloaded or whatever, the same way Moby Dick is still a novel whether it's a printed book, text file, ebook, whatever. Sales charts like Billboard's also make a hard distinction between the LP format and the single-song format. Since single albums aren't (or don't have to be) LP-length, an (understandable) reaction is to say they are not "albums". But in ROK, the word "album" seems more akin to "physical music product" or "record"—in the broad sense, not "record" as shorthand for the vinyl format—whether it's an LP length or not. This is a very different conception of the scope of the term "album" as it's come to be used in western discourse, but that doesn't make single albums not albums, either. The most decisive piece of evidence, to me, is that sales of single albums compete alongside full-length albums on the Gaon Album Chart. I think single albums fall under both WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Singles, but I wouldn't file them under only WikiProject Singles.

I went to Korean Wikipedia and looked at the usage of 틀:음반 정보 ("Template:Music information"), which is the template for music infoboxes, as well as their usage of the song infobox and single infobox. K-Wikipedia use the same color-coding for different types of releases as English Wikipedia. For the Korean article on MADE, they use the blue studio album infobox, natch; for "Loser", they use the blue song template; "Gangnam Style" uses the yellow single template. So what does a single album like M use? As you can see, it uses the "other" parameter of "Template:Music information", resulting in a peach color. I think at least provisionally, our solution for distinguishing single albums is to follow Korean Wikipedia's lead: we can use Template:Infobox album with type = Single album. This will help address the issue ℯxplicit has raised, which is that using the "single" template for single albums is not only misleading but quickly results in muddled, inconsistent chronologies. Using the "other" format allows us to label these as "single albums" and visually distinguish them.

I poked around Korean Wikipedia and found some other tidbits that may be informative as background info—unsourced, unfortunately, so take the info (and my reading/interpretation with machine-assisted translation) with a grain of salt. The Korean article for "single" notes that in the late 20th century, the Korean market only manufactured 12-inch LP records, not singles or EP, and so the promotional purpose of a "single" was approximated with an LP's "title song" (the phenomenon of titling an album after the lead single is common in western albums too, especially in the 50s and 60s when the "... and Other Songs" title format was commonplace). They cite this as a form of Galápagos syndrome, referring to divergent developments of a universal good or marketplace (like phones or records) due to relative economic/cultural isolation. The initial reason that ROK lacked "singles" was resource scarcity and efficiency in manufacturing, but then it became a cultural norm anyway. By the 2000s and the advent of the music download, the definition of a "single" in western and Korean markets was equivalent. But an important thing (it seems to me) is that the Korean market and culture didn't inherit the concept of a "single", as the western music industry did, from a history of 45 rpm records and a clear distinction between LPs and singles as products.

The Korean article on "album" has a paragraph on the definition and historical development of the "single album", but it's a little hard to parse with Google Translate. If anyone who speaks Korean would like to take a crack at: "싱글(single)과 대비되는 의미로의 앨범(album)은 과거 SP반은 한 장에 한 곡 정도(4분가량) 밖에 수록할 수 없었기 때문에 SP반 한 장이 한 곡을 의미했다. 이를 발매하는 것을 싱글(single)이라 했고, 그 후 싱글을 포함하거나 특별한 사유로 다곡을 발매할 때 여러 장의 SP반을 사진첩(album) 같은 곳에다가 꽂아 발매했던 것에서 이를 앨범(album)이라고 부르게 되었다." —BLZ · talk 21:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If it does end up being added as a album type, just use the same color code as for EPs, the way greatest hits and remix albums use the same color. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If single album gets added as a distinct type recognized by the template, it would be logical to have it share a color with EPs; they're distinct from each other, but they're both in the same range of not-quite-studio-albums, not-quite-singles. However, there's nothing constraining editors from using type = Single album starting right now. The "type" paramater of the album infobox recognizes "other", where any input that is not one of the pre-existing categories becomes the label of the release's type. I've switched XII (single) to the album infobox to demonstrate how this would look. Note that I've set "Single album" capitalized, because if "single" is lowercased the infobox will also display it that way. If "single album" is ever added as its own recognized parameter in the future, switching the type parameter in the meantime would make it easier to label and find them later. This also makes the releases easier to distinguish from "true" singles. —BLZ · talk 23:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to find a definition of "single album" as a format in a secondary source, but this post from the blog kpopalypse is helpful, even if it isn't a reliable source for the mainspace:

Korean singles tend to use the word "album" to refer to the book that comes with the CD rather than the CD itself which harks back to the original pre-shellac 19th century definition of an album as a collection of pages, in the same sense as a stamp collector's album. Given the substantial amount of content in a k-pop single's booklet vs what you average western CD booklet has, this kind of makes sense.

Again, this squares with the "album-as-packaged-product" concept rather than "album-as-long-playing-recorded-musical-work-of-art". Also: Skimming k-pop sources in Google News, I saw a few instances where these sites sometimes use "single" as a shorthand for "single album". Whether a single album stands alone from its single(s) is a question of notability and subject overlap, but I think it boils down to: is the single album more akin to an EP (several songs, independent notability) or more akin to a single (one song, notability overlaps with that of the song itself, essentially a different edition of the same "work"). It's been said but XII (single) is a perfect test case of a near-1:1 overlap between single album and single. The "album" is the packaged version of the song, and as such is virtually synonymous with the single itself (for Wikipedia's purposes). It's just a different edition of the same thing and the only reason there are two articles at the moment seems to be the different names. It could readily merge into Gotta Go (Chungha song) or vice versa. Compare 0806 , which adequately describes its lead single, "Palace". M (Big Bang single) is fine even with independent pages for its two singles (although it and the other releases in its series should probably be moved to "M (Big Bang single album)" and so on) because there are multiple singles, the album is identifiable as its own "thing", and there's enough to say about each release. —BLZ · talk 00:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like several editors seem concerned about what's "legally" considered "an album" in a given country, and I'd like to point out that Wikipedia Doesn't Care About That. You cannot write a neutral and comprehensive encyclopedia if you try to follow all the definitions given in various laws. Their laws are about them and their needs, not about Wikipedia and our needs. The EU declared carrots to be fruit rather than root vegetables, but we do not change our article to say that carrots are fruit, because they're not. They declared Helix pomatia (land snails) to be fish, but we do not change our articles to say that they're fish, because they're not. Decide what it actually is, not what a single country's (tax and copyright) laws choose to call it, and then write down what it is, in plain English. Don't worry about what it is "legally". Worry about what it is "really". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

^{The EU only listed carrots as fruit in the jam making directive for ease of understanding. They could have just as easily called the permissible things to make jam from "Things", "Ingredients" or "Bernard". Fruit was a catch-all term used for ease of understanding (The British press still struggled though.) Carrots are vegetables, even in Europe. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)}

This thought crossed my mind as well and I'm glad it came up. Just to be clear: the fact that Korean law designates these releases as "albums", taken by itself, does not determine how we define or classify these releases. Nonetheless, it is useful evidence that Korean culture defines the cultural object of an "album" differently than it is usually defined in the west. What's more, that piece of evidence has been supplemented throughout the discussion by several consistent examples of how the term is used in Korean culture and commerce. Finally, unlike the EU laws you mentioned, the Korean law does not contradict a well-defined scientific category, like "root vegetable" or "fish" (incidentally: I would guess the EU law makes those categorizations for limited purposes like economics and trade, not with the intent to redefine science by fiat, so it would be disingenuous to cite those laws for scientific purposes in the first place). Unlike those scientifically rigorous terms, "album" is a squishy concept that has shifted over time (as recorded music and the music marketplace have developed) and differs depending on local customs and standards. —BLZ · talk 04:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Summation

I started this discussion and would like to thank everyone for the impressively in-depth and well-researched contributions. Since I started it I am going to try to sum things up and get us on the road to a consensus, but this post is not an attempt to declare the discussion closed. Possible consensus so far:

Single Album is a legitimate new industry term in Korea that should be acknowledged here, and not forced into existing definitions of "EP" or "mini-album" as some editors (including me) have attempted.
Regardless of the number of songs therein, a "Single Album" should be included in the Albums Project here, and not the Songs Project. This is because the chart authorities in Korea and Japan list them on their respective album charts.
The Template:Infobox album should be adjusted to include "Single Album" as an acceptable term for the Type field. That new Type should be equivalent to/parallel to the existing "EP" Type.
In the event of a one-song Single Album than has a title different than that of its one song, there is no need for separate articles on both the Single Album and the song. Content can be merged into one article that is titled after the Single Album and added to the Albums Project. (This one can be handled on a case-by-case basis.)

I think that covers everything. I'm typically a content editor around here, so I don't know much about the process of declaring that a consensus has been reached or changing the infobox parameters. More comments are welcome! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I think this summarizes the discussion pretty well. If there is no opposition on this matter for a week, we can move to modify Template:Infobox album to include "single album" and move to amend articles about single albums by switching from Template:Infobox single with the album infobox. I'm willing to volunteer with the latter. ℯ xplicit 02:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I will help with that latter task too. A fair number of Korean Single Albums are currently displaying as EPs because of me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Before single album is added to the list of valid infobox types, someone will need to specify where it is going to link to. The redirect Single album seems the sensible choice, but someone will need to do something about it because at the moment it just redirects to the article on singles with no mention of single albums. That will not be helpful to users. - X201 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the folks above did some great research on what exactly a "Single Album" is, so that would be useful material to start a new article on the general topic. I could also get started on that, sometime in the next few days, though I don't quite see why it has to be done before the Infobox template is changed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I was saying that a decision needs to be made over where it links to, not that the article actually needs to exist. - X201 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. In that case my suggestion for right now is that we leave the redirect as-is with the understanding that a new article called "Single Album" will eventually be created (perhaps by me) and that will be the ultimate target. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently drafting a new subsection of Single (music) about the single album. A separate "single album" article may be helpful in the future; the subsection I'm writing could certainly coexist with a new article since a lot of what I'm adding is applicable to Korea's historical development of the "single" format in general. Also delving further into Korean-language sources. —BLZ · talk 23:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: The template has been updated, per a request on its talk page. Please test out the changes. Someone will need to do something useful to the current redirect "single album" to ensure that it links to something that explains this non-obvious (as evidenced by the dicussion above) term. Ping me if something doesn't work right, or (better) post a note to the Infobox's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95. I've made sure the redirect goes to the right place: Single (music)#In South Korea, a section I wrote about the unique development of the single in Korean culture and the very distinct "single album" classification. —BLZ · talk 22:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

For anyone following this discussion (or reading it later on): doomsdayer520 asked me a followup question on my talk page about whether to put the encyclopedic text about "single albums" in the Single (music) article or the Album article. My reply turned into a summation of my lingering thoughts on the topic, so I thought I'd link it back here for people to find if they are interested. tl;dr:

"Single albums" remain their own thing, per our consensus;
Releases that are single albums should use the Album Infobox, for purposes of Wikipedia's internal organization;
But conceptually, single albums are nevertheless more closely related to singles than albums (from a western perspective);
For that reason, the text explaining "single albums" makes much more sense at Single (music) than Album, but it could be split off into its own article at some point;
And finally—beyond the scope of doomsdayer520's question—I think single album articles could be filed under WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Singles, or both, and any of those outcomes would be sensible.

My full thoughts, including some research I'd found but didn't mention in the earlier conversation (especially an interesting excerpt I found on Namuwiki), can be found here. —BLZ · talk 21:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking for a Conclusion...

Discussion of YouKnowIGotSoul.com on the reliable sources noticeboard

New template--please provide feedback

Discussion of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

Variety, Billboard from the 60s?

Can't quite tell from the /Sources subpage. I'm digging around for sources for The J's With Jamie, a vocal group from the 1960s, and keep coming across old short reviews in Variety and Billboard. To what extent are these considered reliable? I'm not familiar enough with the practices of those publications (let alone back then) to know if they're just promotional, supplied by labels, etc. They appear in sections like "singles of the week" and "editor's picks" and "album reviews," but they're typically pretty short... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought they were promotional puff pieces supplied by the record companies, to be honest – I can't say for certain, but being British, I know the equivalent to Billboard in the UK, Music Week, also had a similar page of brief record reviews, and they wouldn't hesitate to say if they felt a song was poor or unlikely to be a hit, which doesn't sound like they were pushing the label's agenda. Richard3120 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Billboard reviews are fine, although as you say there's often not much there to use, and they concentrate on the recording's potential for commercial success. I haven't used Variety. EddieHugh (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think either would be fine. Billboard's capsule reviews are short but sometimes useful for otherwise little-remarked-on '60s acts, and while I have also not read much vintage Variety, I'm not aware of its having been accused of print payola. Chubbles (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, these are reliable sources. There may have been behind-the-scenes industry influence on these magazine's editorial stances, and it's easy to imagine this being true (especially in that era), but it seems speculative—any facts about insider influence would have to be gleaned from other sources (like history books) and included on a case-by-case basis. Even if it's true to some extent, we're not judging these sources as trustworthy contemporary sources, but as useful historical sources. These were the preeminent music/entertainment publications of their day, at a time when there was not yet a robust popular-music press at the level reached in the late 60s/early 70s and beyond. The reviews they printed—though short, and focused on superficial notions of "commercial appeal" rather than critical aesthetic judgment—would have been some of the only widespread published reception of pop music released during that time. As such, the reviews are inherently notable as historical facts and worth mentioning, even if their editorial policies and sensibilities may not be up-to-code as judged by our modern, post-Rolling Stone, post-Internet standards. —BLZ · talk 22:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comments, all. I went forward with using them. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review - Metal Head Zone

This should be an open and shut case, but I wanted to discuss and get in on the list because I see it being used in the rock music world/articles.

Unreliable - Lets look at an example source as a reference point for what I’m getting at here: https://metalheadzone.com/tools-maynard-james-keenan-reveals-dramatic-story-it-was-a-pain-in-the-ass/

The writer, who in my experience, writes virtually all the content, openly admits/apologizes that there are many English words and phrases he dies not know or understand. That’s about as far away from “professional writer” as it gets.
The site is constantly using misleading clickbait titles in their work. (Read the example. Nothing in it constitutes a “dramatic story”.
They frequently site, and/or mirror, the garbage that Alternative Nation pumps out. (Headline: Maynard James Keenan tells shocking stories about the food industry. Article content: A tweet from MJK saying he had bland pasta at Olive Garden or something.
https://metalheadzone.com/about-us/ - No history. No credentials. No editorial policy. Just a list of 4-5 names and no context.

I’m happy to find further examples if anyone’s not convinced, as the issues are just all over the place. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

https://metalheadzone.com/corey-taylor-finally-breaks-his-silence-after-dan-reynolds-emotional-letter/ - Misleading headline. Corey Taylor criticized Imagine Dragons, ID singer defends the band on a series of tweets (not an “emotional letter”) Not only is the “controversy” manufactured and mundane stuff, but Corey Taylor “breaking his silence” over it is a contentless, vague comment made like less than a day later to a random social media user. It’s so embellished and over the top.
https://metalheadzone.com/dream-theater-singer-reveals-why-he-listens-to-tool-coldplay-and-stone-sour/ - Here’s a revelation - When does the Dream Theater singer listen to Coldplay? When he’s in the mood for it. Whoa!
https://metalheadzone.com/gene-simmons-reacts-to-snoop-dogg-singing-a-kiss-song/ Literally just hosting tweets. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No more examples needed. Your opening characterization was enough to convince me. Unless you can find a shred of useful content, we could 1) put it on the unreliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources 2) request a content filter to be added so it can't be used anywhere. Suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree to both. And no, I’ve never witnessed anything remotely useful that wasn’t ripped directly from a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable: it's literally a group of Turkish guys reposting anything they can find online related to rock and metal on their website. It seems to be 90% tabloid/Buzzfeed-style "shock! horror! nightmare!" exaggerated headlines that preface mundane anecdotes. Anything that is genuinely useful, you may as well go directly to the original source, which is usually linked within their news article anyway, so it's easy enough to find. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute on Sampling (music)

GAR

This Is Lit

Synthopia

Merger proposals

Dutch needed

I'm looking for someone who knows Dutch. Due to NVPI not provides exact cerification date and requirements changed on 1 July 2014 I need article about this certifaction with date so I'm looking for something like this article (about second platinum which is not included in NVPI base). Eurohunter (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think NVPI give out multiple platinum certifications anyway, so no single or album in the Netherlands has more than one platinum certification. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Check this link and "Aantal" rubric. There are multiple platinum certifications like Esko, Josylvio, Hansie - "Hey Meisje" or Davina Michelle - "Duurt Te Lang". Eurohunter (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, you are correct. But if NVPI doesn't show Racine Carrere as double platinum, then I don't see how you can add that to the article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I noticed this fact but article from RTL Boulevard clearly says that album received second platinum "De Franse artiest Stromae staat vrijdag precies een jaar in de hitlijsten. Zijn met dubbel platina bekroonde album Racine Carrée staat deze week op nummer 3 in de Album Top 100.". I will look if there is more sources for second platinum in Dutch media. Eurohunter (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I know the article says that, but if it's not on the official NVPI website, I don't think we can accept that. Richard3120 (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Finally I found article about first platinum. NU.nl says that "Formidable" also received platinum which is not included in NVPI base. Btw. do you know how I schould source it in discography? It requires to use NVPI page for certification, NU.nl article for certification date, archived NVPI requirements page after 1 July 2014 and the same url archived before this date with requirements after 1 June 2009 for evidence that requirements changed after ceryfication date. Eurohunter (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyway would be helpfull if someone Dutch speaking could look for articles about first platinum for this album so we would have clarified requirements in few articles. Eurohunter (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide sales

Seeking help getting a GA review over finish line

Charting and genres

Apparently DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) has told me many times that charts do not determine genre. I don't recall may discussions about but, let's ignore the hyperbole and ask the question as to whether a song or album charting in a specific genre qualifies that genre to be listed in the infobox. In other words, if a song makes it on the country charts, is that enough to call it a country song? If it makes in on the modern rock charts, is that enough to call it modern rock? Other genres included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That, I feel, is an acceptable first start, I do general things like this sometimes, but I also make it clear that anything that I do like that is challengeable and removable if you oppose. Before we go any further, let me clarify that the example that brought us here today is Skillet's "The Older I Get". I personally oppose this one - the context given on what the song is about does not cite anything directly involving a Christian standpoint, aside from the concept of forgiveness which I know is taught and emphasized in Christian scriptures, but the concept of forgiveness is not exclusive to Christian ideology and the interview in the article does not explicitly imply a Christian standpoint. Just because Daughtry's "Home" charted on Christian charts does not make it a Christian rock or Christian anything song necessarily, so neither should this one. I agree that Skillet is absolutely a Christian group, there's no ignoring that, but I don't think everything they make is necessarily built in the confines of non-secularity. I think it quite possible that the band's massive popularity in the Christian scene may have forced this one into the charts whether it be a Christian song or not. In conclusion, I argue that a recording's genre of any type should preferably be supported by secondary professional reviewers, and on a lesser basis, by the artist themselves. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To answer the question, we need to know how the organizations behind the charts choose which one(s) to put a recording in. Does anyone know? I've seen albums put in a certain chart based on what the musician has built a reputation on playing, even when the albums are in a different style, so I lean towards supporting the idea that charts do not (necessarily) determine genre. EddieHugh (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've seen albums put in a certain chart based on what the musician has built a reputation on playing, even when the albums are in a different style. This is precisely my point. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I’ve used it as justification to add general, non-contentious genre to song articles, but I was never sure if that was supported by past consensus or anything. I’ll try to dig up an example. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think my justification of adding “Rock” to Saint Cecilia (song) was that it charted on the Billboard rock charts. But yeah, I usually only do that as a last resort in obvious situations. I’d do it for something like Foo Fighters - people would be hard pressed to call most of their output “not rock” - but wouldn’t do it as a widespread thing, as rock radio does occasionally play non-rock music (certain songs by Beastie Boys, Gorillaz, Twenty One Pilots, etc.) So, in the context here, with there being room for a good faith doubt, I’d probably want a better source. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I remember when "Royals" crossed over and began receiving airplay on R&B radio stations. It even reached #3 on the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart in Billboard, but it did not crack the main Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart because someone at Billboard made the determination that it's not an R&B song. If the song was released a few years earlier before their methodology changed, it would have made the main R&B chart. Anyway, since we don't know who is making these determinations and why, which charts a song reaches should not play a factor into what genre the song may fall under. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When we do know the methodology, such as spins on Christian radio, which is how the chart for the Skillet song is determined, I see no reason to say it's not part of that "genre". Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So does that make "Home" a Christian song, in your opinion? If so, I'm just at an ideological impasse with you as usual. That's not a reason to include it. Although not directly tied to it, Evanescence had initial support from Christian stations and stores and asked them to pull their support. If they hadn't pulled the plug on it so fast, they'd have charted there too if what you say is how it works (I trust you know that). Does that make them a Christian band in any capacity? Of course not. You get my point, right? dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lacking sources to the contrary, yes it would. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That has never and will never make sense to me. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And that's why we're here. In short, if an article is lacking sources other than charting, it probably shouldn't have an article. However, charting has become a stand-in for reliably sourced content about albums and singles. So if we accept that a song has charted on the country charts, the metal charts and the jazz charts, it's safe to say it has some credibility in those genres. Without sources to the contrary, we have to accept that charting as an accurate representation of the subject's genre.

If, however, we want to state that we need more than charting to signify a subject is notable (with respect to singles and albums) I can agree to stating that charting is not sufficient for determining a work's genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Without sources to the contrary, we have to accept that charting as an accurate representation of the subject's genre. I still have not been (and probably cannot be) convinced that this is necessarily true; sure, while we can use it as a start, it should remain challengeable. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you accept that charting alone is a measure of notability? If not, then we are in agreement. If so, then you have to argue that the people who create those charts are including content in genre-specific charts that do not belong there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing this also applies to music award categories like the Grammys? Erick (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: That was not the initial question, and I've supported use of them in the past as genre descriptors, but I'd be willing to change my mind on that if it helps with the consistency of my case, which I think it probably does.

@Walter Görlitz: The answer to that question depends on the recording. Did it hit multiple charts, and/or did it perform well on at least one of them? Is it the only thing that otherwise would render the song non-notable? If the answer is no to both of the former and/or yes to the latter, than probably not. Why do you ask? (This song's article seems fine to me.) I still don't see how that makes me agree with you. I sometimes do think that the "people who create those charts are including content in genre-specific charts that do not belong there". Maybe I'm missing or don't fully understand something in your argument. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page, just approaching the answer differently. I disagree that charting alone should be enough to show the notability of a subject for inclusion. However, if that's all we have, and the consensus is that it is enough, then why is charting not enough to support the claim of a specific genre? I too agree that it shouldn't be, but we can't use it it one case and ignore it in the other. I'm suggesting consistency. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not always consensus that it is enough. WP:NSONGS says that a song (or recording) may be notable if it "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" As you think, it is not a guarantee of notability, and consensus is not always that it is enough. Another example would be "Elite", a Deftones song which won a Grammy Award, but could not prove notability beyond that because it ended up having no other coverage and becoming a WP:PERMASTUB. (At the time it had an article, for the record, it had sourced genres on it IIRC.) I digress slightly, but my counter-point is that the rules are written in a way that does not say it's always consensus to let the simple fact that the song charted or won an award be enough to make a subject notable, even if we usually accept that (probably a little more often than we should), so we don't necessarily have to be in line with anything like you're suggesting if what NSONGS asserts is indeed the case. I do get where you're coming from now, though. (Did I understand what you meant correctly?) dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. So we agree that charting isn't always enough to support notability for either a song or an album. If there aren't enough sources to support something about the work, we should probably get rid of the article. In this case, there are no RSes for that article, aside from its charting, to support anything: genre, lyrical analysis, production challenges, etc. As a result we it might make as much sense to delete it as it would be to delete the unsourced genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, that analysis by Cooper isn't reliable? And, if we're not having this article, I would prefer it redirected. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We should also redirect more PERMASTUBS with only charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, so we've resolved this one, but what about the odd ones which don't have sources for their genre but otherwise have a substantial amount of useful, sourced content? Those I'd still oppose having genres solely based on charts if I disagreed with them. They can be a good place to start, but should be allowed to be challenged, because again, sometimes the people who create those charts are including content in genre-specific charts that it is debatable whether that song even belongs there. The best thing to do is always to hear from reviewers, and that's not always possible. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, concert reviews tags genre labels to a certain song. I cite those sometimes, particularly when they aren't stated in album reviews or anything.

Citing genres can be tricky sometimes though. In my past searchings of some genres a song may have been categorized as, there's a lot of points where they aren't specific enough, using terms like "influences" or "this song has a *insert genre here*-chorus. But how a certain song is categorized from the source, that can be determined through local consensus on the talk page. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That's the underlying issue for me. If charting isn't a RS, then we shouldn't use it to help establish notability. Ultimately, I would fall back on the advice at WP:GWAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh charting is a RS, just that alone cannot always prove notability. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Bumping this thread so it doesn't get archived. I want to continue on this, but I cannot at the moment. I'd prefer to get a more Wikipedia-encompassing viewpoint rather than this one specific article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 12:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand certyfications

Help with article -- understanding sources for charts / release dates

Hi, I've written Liaisons: Re-Imagining Sondheim from the Piano, and as this is my first article about an album I'm having a few hiccups. It was easy enough to figure out the Charts for the Billboard weekly US Top Classical Albums chart, I was able to find that information for the album here , and then confirm the peak position and how many weeks it was on the charts just by checking the individual charts the weeks of 2015-10-17 (16, new), 2015-10-24 (15 ↑), 2015-10-31 (22 ↓), and 2015-11-14 (20 re-entry). Easy enough.

However I ran into issues trying to do the same thing for the category Classical Crossover Albums. I wasn't able to find a similar page with overall information like I could find for its standings on the Top Classical Albums chart, but I was able to find a few pages labeled "Artist Index" for Billboard, and they seemed to provide the same information? The key at the top of the page said CX (Classical Crossover), and the ones I was able to find said: Oct 17 2015 "Anthony de Mare: CX 11"; Oct 24 2015; "Anthony de Mare: CX 11"; Nov 14 2015 "Anthony de Mare: CX 15". Are these valid sources? Why can't I find anything else about the weekly Classical Crossover Albums charts? Is it original research to say its peak position was 11 just cause that was the highest one I could find? Help on this would be appreciated.

I'm also looking for help on where to get reliable sources for release date information. Like I just came across this -- is this a valid source to say it was released in Japan on 11 Nov 2015? It doesn't say that explicitly, it just gives that as the release date and it's a Japanese site. I also got a lot of random commercial websites saying 25 Sept 2015, 2 October 2015, 16 October 2015, 11 November 2015, etc., but I'm not seeing any explicit information about release history that gives an indication of which areas got which dates. Closest I got was from the album's Facebook page, but that's hardly a source appropriate for Wikipedia, and it also seems inaccurate since it said 2 Oct was the international release date so it's unclear how that works with the Japanese site given above. I'm tempted just to continue having no information on release history just since it's all so confusing -- not to mention sources aren't explicit as to if they refer to physical discs or digital downloads.

Thank you for your help, I'm sure I'm just missing some database or something for both of these questions, hopefully I'm making sense. Umimmak (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure there's an answer to your question. I've been looking through the print versions of Billboard from October/November 2015, and although they have 20 pages of all types of charts (Gospel, Holiday, Latin, etc.) there are no Classical charts of any kind. It seems like Billboard has given up on the idea of classical music and charts completely, which means it's going to be very difficult to find any information about the Classical Crossover that you were asking about. Maybe "CX" and the other abbreviations are simply a way of defining the genre of the release, not of a particular chart.

The Universal Music website is the website of the artist's record company, so I think they of all people should know the release date for their own album in that particular territory. But as you, say, there's so much conflicting information about the release date. Richard3120 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: thank you very much for checking the print volumes of Billboard; I greatly appreciate that as those are not something I had access to. But it leaves me more confused than ever about the existence of “Classical Crossover Albums” as a category. Those three “Artist Index” PDFs certainly look like charts for those three weeks, with the CX 11/11/15 weeks all corresponding to weeks it was on the more documented Top Classical Albums chart, but it’s hardly conclusive...

The catalog page on ECM Records only lists Oct 2 as a release date, but I’ve found various press releases or reviews either say “Sep 25”, or just less helpfully “September” or “last month” for articles written in that October. I’m guessing it’s a US/international thing, but nowhere says this explicitly—let alone explicitly explains where Oct 2 was the date, vs Nov 11 (Japan?), vs Oct 16 (seemingly the UK date as per Amazon , though that isn’t really a source). Is it typical to have such difficulty finding secondary sources about the release history which are explicit and don’t require interpretation? Umimmak (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's not usually difficult to find release dates for pop/rock albums in the modern era, because there are so many websites covering those genres. Classical music is not my area, but I'm guessing there are considerably fewer reputable online websites that cover the genre. Maybe the established print magazines dedicated to classical music would have release dates, but I suspect those aren't easily available to you either. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

AllMusic dates

Currently, the advice on this page is: "Track listings, release dates, record label, album covers and track lengths can all be found at AllMusic." That's true, but unfortunately AllMusic can't be trusted for dates. Here's a classic example, where they say an album was released before it had been recorded: . I've come across lots of examples of them giving the same date for recording and release, which is impossible (this is for physical albums). I suggest removing the recommendation that AllMusic should/could be used for dates. EddieHugh (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about dates – this is part of the information in the sidebar on the left where users can make corrections, and we've already deemed it unreliable for use for music genres. I've also noted errors here – for example, the date for Alton Ellis' Mr. Soul of Jamaica compilation album of singles was originally listed as being 1970, which was impossible as he had only recorded two of the album's tracks by that date... it's now been changed to the correct year of 1974. So as these dates can be changed by anyone, they are not fixed and therefore not reliable for use on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed it's very hard to find correct first release dates of old albums. AllMusic, iTunes and even other shops sometimes shows random dates. Usally these dates are wrong about few days-one month period. Eurohunter (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

They make mistakes, but the dates there can't be changed by just anyone. I often find they list re-release dates rather than original release dates. --Michig (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Some of these mistake may be the result of systematic database errors on the part of Allmusic's administrators - I think sometimes fields get loaded en masse into the wrong places. I can speak from personal experience: it is not easy to get Allmusic to change things on its site, so I don't know where the "these dates can be changed by anyone" idea came from. Chubbles (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have been involved in some earlier discussions on this matter for jazz albums, where release dates can be tricky for reasons specific to that genre. But just because AllMusic has been known to commit some errors, that is not a logical reason to conclude that they can never be trusted. Simply find corroboration elsewhere. For example, if AllMusic and the record company and Amazon all say an album was released in 1987, then there is no reason to conclude that none can be trusted and the release date is totally unknown. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: I think that's a reasonable assumption to make if all of them show the same date, but I'm not sure what an editor would do in the case of a song like "Fairytale of New York" where AllMusic shows the correct release year of 1987, but iTunes states 1986, and Amazon 2012... Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The examples given by others are not from jazz, so this doesn't appear to be a genre-specific problem. No source will be 100% dependable, but when one is wrong so frequently, I don't think we should be advising editors to use it (just as we don't with AllMusic's genre sidebar). How about changing the wording to state that, if the AllMusic sidebar is used as a source for dates, then it must be backed up by at least one other source? EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What would be the point of using it at all though in that scenario? You could just use the other RS at that point. Not defending Allmusic’s dates, just saying that’d be kinda pointless. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It was an attempt at a compromise, even though no one is strongly defending AllMusic, so that it wouldn't be ruled out completely as a source for dates. I'd be happy to see the advice changed to the same as for genres though. Are there any objections? EddieHugh (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

AMG is huge, so it's more-or-less inevitable that they have some errors. Plus, they aren't a wiki: it's not like anyone can edit anything, they just have users who can suggest improvements. That's true of The New York Times. It would be less reliable if they didn't allow anyone to suggest updates. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

When "some errors" becomes a proportion that editors who frequently use it have noticed and have plenty of examples, we shouldn't be actively encouraging using AllMusic sidebar information as a source for dates. That time is now, unfortunately. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

...That’s a pretty strong assertion for the minimal, anecdotal evidence that has been provided so far... Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There's little alternative to finding evidence as we come across it / being anecdotal... is there empirical evidence that it is reliable for dates? EddieHugh (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

For one of the greatest saxophonists: album released on the day it was recorded / same / same / same / same / same / another one / same / same / same / recorded "December" & released "December 19", so possible, if unlikely / review: "The product of a day's worth of recording at Nola Studios in 1957" but sidebar recording dates "December 11, 1957 & December 19, 1957" & release date "1957" / review: "Recorded in 1956 but issued in 1960" but sidebar release "1957" / released before it was recorded! / recording date "December 17, 1951 - February 15, 1951" and that's just the first decade of his career. I can spend more time finding yet more evidence, but I hope that isn't necessary. EddieHugh (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The 'recorded "December" & released "December 19"' is another one that AllMusic says was released on the day it was recorded... it was recorded on December 19, source here. There's something fundamentally wrong about how AllMusic adds dates to a lot of its pages: this is not an occasional human slip up or typo. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So, where do we stand now? EddieHugh (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No change in the advice. If you find a contradictory release date that is confirmed by two other reliable sources, use the sourced date. The dates are generally reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"generally reliable"... How many examples would it take to show that there is a serious reliability problem with the dates? ok, here's some more. Keith Jarrett to 1973: 5 release dates are definitely wrong and another 2 probably are. That's at least 40% wrong (same as Sonny Rollins, above). Horace Silver: 5 out of the first 13 are obviously wrong... close to 40% again. Recent releases must be super-reliable though, surely? No... from recent classical releases: text has "2018", sidebar has "February 1, 2019"... another with text "2018", sidebar "January 4, 2019"; that's 2 out of 11 of Blair Sanderson's reviews wrong: 18%. Looking at AM's alphabetical list of new releases that it has reviewed: this album was ahead of its time: a digital release in 1963; released in the month of recording..., probably wrong but this version, released on the first day of the month in which it was recorded, is definitely wrong; released same month as recorded... possible, if unlikely in 1990; released 2 days after recording... wrong; 4 days after recording... no. So, I've gone through A and B in their alphabetical list: 23 albums and there's a problem with 4 or 5, ie 17-21%. Aren't these percentages (of known errors, remember: without checking other sources, the real error rates remain unknown) too high for us to be telling editors to use this as a source without any warning or caveat? EddieHugh (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

50%+1. I can show you 100 were they are correct. Once you have the total count of all entries with dates and can show that there are more unreliable dates than reliable dates I'll be glad to agree with you. WP:STICK much? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"shut up already"? There's no need to be aggressive. How could anything being wrong up to 49% of the time be something we would want to recommend as being reliable? EddieHugh (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

His point is valid and what I was going to raise myself. Context matters. 50 errors out of 100 entries is abysmal. 50 errors out of 1 million is considered very good. You’re not providing context for your raw data. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross73, could you clarify which person is "his" and which person is "you're"? Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Walter has a point, Eddies raw data lacks context. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So far, I've given the names of the musicians I've looked at and the date ranges checked; for the second set of examples, I've given the AllMusic url for their alphabetical list of new releases and given the name of the reviewer of new classical releases, url & full list here. I've expressed all of these as raw numbers and percentages; isn't that the context you need to assess, based on your "50 errors out of 100 entries is abysmal. 50 errors out of 1 million is considered very good"? AllMusic must have tens of thousands of reviews; the only realistic way of checking reliability is to take samples, which is what I've done (if there were an automated way of comparing AM dates with actual dates, they wouldn't have the problem). The first set was from jazz, which is what I'm involved in; the second set was to show that the problem is beyond jazz and beyond old releases (I just took what AM was advertising as the latest releases&reviews when I checked). Would you like further context/examples? EddieHugh (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a fair bit of substantial evidence being provided here, and while large datasets almost inevitably have errors, I think what we're seeing here may be part of the fuzziness of what we mean by "dates". This is often treated as a single field that actually stands in for a range of different temporal inflection points related to a creative work. Most often, we're interested in fixing the date of recording and the date of release; AMG, in particular, seems to have trouble with these, even though it has separate fields for both (again, I wonder if this is to do with a mass-ingest mistake when they were populating their databases). Sometimes (truth be told, most of the time) we're looking for just the year, and sometimes day - month - year. But many resources identify only year of release, not date; it wasn't always common in the music industry to systematically track this information in the way most major releases are today. Researchers and databases often take release information directly from recording liner notes themselves, which are of course printed ahead of the release date and so do not contain information about the exact date of the release. (If you put this into a system that demands day-month-year, sometimes those systems autofill with the first of the month or the first day of the year.) Sometimes the date on a recording is the date copyright is asserted in the work, which may be the year before or the year after the album was recorded, pressed, or released (or, in rare cases, can be more than one year away). Some releases get issued on different dates in different formats, and others are issued on different dates in different regions; AMG only has one field for release date, and some of the discrepancies for more recent releases, I suspect, may stem from European releases getting delayed issue in the United States (where AMG is based). All of this isn't really that big a deal if you're just interested in getting a simple year date for a recording's release, especially if a year's given on the back cover; any exceptions or inconsistencies can just be handled case by case with additional referencing. For more detailed date-by-date information, we'd need correspondingly more robust sourcing. Now, if AMG's database is not flexible enough to differentiate between these scenarios, and is systematically introducing errors, then it may be a good idea to reword the advice here; perhaps we can point to a range of different discographical resources and suggest that interested editors corroborate between sources if and when disparities are found. (Eddie, if you did a full statistical sampling analysis of AMG's reliability, you might well be able to get it published at a music IR conference.) Chubbles (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Chubbles and in part with the additional evidence shown with EddieHugh. We could certainly add clarifying text to the effect that AM has been shown to have dates that differ from other reliable sources for older releases (releases prior to a specific year?). However to have a blanket prohibition on its dates or even to impugn its credibility based on an unknown percentage of its entries is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk)

As Chubbles hints at, doing a systematic analysis of AllMusic dates would be a major undertaking. It would require a complete list of their articles and a complete list of correct release dates. The latter obviously doesn't exist, so knowing what % of entries are incorrect is impossible to know. I suggest changing the text to "Track listings, release dates, record label, album covers and track lengths can all be found at AllMusic (check that the dates given are not contradictory – such as recording and release dates being the same – and consider finding another source for dates for pre-internet-era releases)". EddieHugh (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Wiwibloggs and Eurovix on the reliable sources noticeboard

Reverb.com

RfC on categorizing all works by an artist by genre

WikiProject Record Labels

Project talk:WikiProject Record Labels looks dead for me (last answered questions in 2017), would you be interested to adopt it wholesale? Otherwise it could be also tagged as inactive, because the rules for defunct appear to be harder than reviving a dead project, or restarting WikiPedia from scratch. @EddieHugh: Your answer in 2018 not withstanding. I somehow got involved in two or more indie labels. –84.46.52.44 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha! You know, if the sources are there... EddieHugh (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, whatever it is that we do when WikiProjects die, we should do here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

We should probably notify 78.26 and Chubbles of this discussion, as they seem to be the editors currently most actively interested in record labels, and ask them for their opinions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I still actively monitor the article alerts, and add the project tags as appropriate. It's not dead. It's not inactive, it's just mostly inactive/on life support. It's not my fault nobody wants to talk about Angelophone Records!

A lot of the activity is of course for recent rap/EDM/"alternative" labels, which rarely catches my interest. P.S. thanks for the ping Richard3120. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a larger trend, but most of the projects and noticeboards I used to watch have essentially petered out. Wherever interest in record labels is directed, I hope it tends toward music projects, and not business ones. Chubbles (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The only real record label article I've had experience editing is Monstercat, and even then, there could still be more to write about. I know it can be tough when a WikiProject approaches inactivity. Take Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music for example. Though I can see bits of activity here and there, I don't see much when it comes to the projects section, which I have already submitted projects to. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of The Singles Jukebox (thesinglesjukebox.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

Year-end list and musical genres

Hello, I would like to discuss about the reliability of year-end lists as sources for music genres. For example, in the page Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse R&B is sourced with "20 Best R&B Albums of 2014"; I previously talked about this with the rollbacker Ss112 (talk · contribs) and he told me that is ok. Nevertheless, Gutchan (talk · contribs) disagrees and I'm tired of fighting with him in the page Liberation (Christina Aguilera album). Should I use these lists as sources? Blueberry72 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me. Source lists off their top R&B albums. Album is in the list. I don’t see any other interpretation possible other than that the publication considers it to be an R&B album. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Serge – if the publication didn't consider it an R&B album, why would it be included in a list of R&B albums? Richard3120 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very straight-forward: cited information from a reliable source on this topic and it's not at all controversial to say that Mariah Carey sings R&B. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So, if I add pop in the page Liberation (Christina Aguilera album) and I use this source I suppose I'm not making a mistake Blueberry72 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blueberry72: Certainly not. See WP:BLUE and WP:SOURCE: we should have sources for things that aren't common knowledge or uncontroversial facts. Christina Aguilera is pretty well known as a pop star, so a source like the one you provided is good for saying that an individual album was on a certain list or a particular recording was pop but generally speaking, it's totally fine to say that she performs pop or Michael Jordan played basketball without having to cite that in every instance. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yet, when I used such a chart to make such a claim, it's not valid. How do you reconcile those discrepancies? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: ? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

In a recent discussion, there was some disagreement as to whether charting in a specific genre was sufficient for claiming that genre in the article let alone the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Well, I can't comment on why there is some inconsistency without knowing more details but I'll make blind guesses... Maybe the one chart categorized someone's work as a genre that no other source does so is spurious? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly. But then shouldn't we apply that same standard to t hie year-end list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I can't understand your point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider that year-end lists are written by music critics, charts aren't Blueberry72 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Blueberry72 makes a good point. We have to look at who is making the list. If one reviewer states that an album is the best in a particular genre, but no other sources support that the work is of that genre, it's WP:OR by that reviewer, whether or not it's peer reviewed or subject to editorial review. In this case, Rolling Stone has rigorous standards that many of such lists (such as or ) may not have. My point was that where a work charts is determined by the label and others. So an album may be a crossover success and may not be representative of the genre. However, when a work only charts in one location, I argued that it should be considered as a RS to support that genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if a chart can be considered a reliable source for musical genres; anyway, it seems that we are all in agreement that year-end lists can support a musical genre Blueberry72 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No. The merits of the compiler of the year-end list must be taken into account. A blogging website with an uncredentialed author that comes up with the best East Coast hip hop albums of the year is not a RS. However, yes, a Rolling Stone list on a specific genre can be considered a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I take for granted that a blog is never a reliable source Blueberry72 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

But then again, a blog written by a noted music critic is a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You right, in that case I think there aren't problems of reliability Blueberry72 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

*Summation*

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks

Summation