Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 84

Linkin Park's debut album has an issue or two that make it look sloppy. There's one main problem, but not that hard to fix either. I just would like to request help on what to keep and what to prune - this article has definitely gone too far on the track listing protocol. It's not that far away, but this 2008 GA hasn't been taken the best care of. On the other hand, I also wouldn't say it's bad enough that it warrants GAR, but size is still an obvious issue. mftp dan ^oops 15:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

In the past, I had been in favor of collapsing some of the longer ones. But it seems like some have objected on accessibility grounds, and I don't wish to go against that if its true. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Lately, Serge, from what I understand we've just been axeing a lot of the extra tracklists for whatever precedent was set. I am certain we do not need all of these and this should be following some suit that I don't understand the scope of. mftp dan ^oops 15:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a good case to be made to axing the track listings of Discs 2 & 3 and tracks 1-23 of DVD 1 from the 20th Anniversary edition, which are near-duplicated from already existing articles (Reanimation (Linkin Park album), Hybrid Theory (EP), and Frat Party at the Pankake Festival respectively). The info about whether a certain physical release is exclusive to a deluxe edition or what the working title of one specific track was can be easily stated otherwise. All that said, it may help visibility to move the track listings around in general, such as this potential setup:

• Lead
• ...
• Commercial performance
• Track listing (except 20th ann. edition and Hybrid Theory – Live Around the World)
• 20th anniversary edition
  • Track listing (subsection specific to the 20th ann. edition)
• Hybrid Theory – Live Around the World
  • Track listing (subsection specific to Hybrid Theory – Live Around the World)
• Personnel
• ...
• End of article

Fundgy (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to act on this version of changes and cut over 16,000 bytes of unnecessary space from the article. Fundgy, you bring up an excellent point that several of these already have articles. I also agree with Negative below that Live Around the World does not need as much attention as it does, but my plan for that requires long-term planning and restructuring of information on the album's promotion. Over the next month or so I should get to that. But in the meantime, thank you folks for your guidance. mftp dan ^oops 14:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

While you're at it, I also don't think the 20th anniversary edition needs a full section. I could possibly see a sub-section under the hypothetical "Release and promotion" section, whenever you get to that, but not a full section. Also not sure if the cover art is needed, but if it is then it should probably be added to the main infobox at the top. λ NegativeMP1 19:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the tracklistings here are overkill. I think that almost all of them should be axed. We aren't Discogs. I would save the base tracklist, the Japanese edition bonus tracks, and the 20th anniversary reissue tracks. The rest just don't seem particularly noteworthy and it kinda borders on being a database.

Also as a separate question is ```Hybrid Theory – Live Around the World``` even relevant for a section? It doesn't seem to have any secondary sourcing. Could probably be mentioned somewhere but not as its own section with a separate tracklist. λ NegativeMP1 03:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd prefer to make its own article for it if sourcing is out there for it. mftp dan ^oops 05:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The alternative track listings should be deleted per WP:ALTTRACKLIST. Popcornfud (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that all of them should go; I am convinced that the Japanese bonus tracks' importance can be demonstrated once the organization of the rest of the article is adjusted. mftp dan ^oops 19:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. ALTTRACKLIST states "Bonus tracks or track listings for deluxe editions should only be included when those tracks have had significant coverage in secondary sources and are the subject of extensive commentary in the article". I would be damned if "My December" and "High Voltage" didn't have enough coverage to warrant some discussion in the article. Here's this American Songwriter article specifically about "My December", for instance. λ NegativeMP1 19:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have added what I believe is sufficient context to keep the Japanese tracklist. I am working on a solution for Live Around the World. I would be remiss to neglect mentioning this version of the album somewhere, but we can't keep a whole section devoted to it. But we can't just axe it yet, because somehow this article lacks a release section where this would ideally go. mftp dan ^oops 19:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not songmeaningsandfacts.com () qualifies as a reliable source for music articles. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

So apparently, the former editor of Revolver has moved on to freelance writing on his own website. Earlier, he worked for Consequence, and has written for numerous other publications. He is very thorough with his record. I am curious what the community thinks about this, and whether he can be considered an expert in the music journalism field. He sometimes publishes his own interviews; take this one with Spiritbox's Courtney LaPlante, for example. Can his articles be considered reliable under certain circumstances? mftp dan ^oops 16:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Bump? mftp dan ^oops 13:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christmas CD#Requested move 5 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This source seems print magazine to me. Is this possible for being a reliable source? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 18:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

This source was already discussed at RSN here and at WikiProject Korea here, where both discussions seemed to conclude that this was an unreliable fan site. It is already listed as unreliable over at WP:KOREA/S. Leafy46 (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This website is currently being used in St. Anger and I was wondering if it's reliable? Their about us says the site is "all about guitars – with an emphasis on Metal and all it's [sic] wonderful sub-genres." It's very specific, but the article in question seems to match some other sources I've seen about Metallica's guitar tunings. I'm not a guitarist, though, so I can't confirm personally. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Their team page lists just two members — co-founders Chris Horton and Richard Goodwin — and as far as I can tell every article on this site is written by one or the other. Both say on their 'About us' section that they have over a decade of experience playing guitar, but I can't find any journalistic experience they have outside of Electrikjam (their LinkedIn pages only list that site), and I didn't see any hits on other, reputable news outlets for either the site or these two writers. Thus, I'd say that this source is a WP:SPS, and that its two writers are not subject-matter experts (whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", per BLOG). Leafy46 (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I figured it probably wouldn't constitute reliability for that reason. I'll be sure it's removed. Thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The Wall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

12 Gauge (Kalmah album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to cite a review from a religious music source for secular music? I'm looking at Fallen_(Evanescence_album)#Critical_reception, which is using a rating from the Christian media website Cross Rhythms. Lapadite (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer the question, but the page for Fallen does say that Evanescence were marketed as a Christian rock band around the time of the album's release. Thus, while the band may be secular, it certainly explains why Christian media would have picked up on the album and, in the case of Cross Rhythms, reviewed it. I don't really have a problem with this sort of use in general though, even if it's certainly fair to question whether such a review is WP:DUE. Leafy46 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. You may want to be careful to not fall into WP:UNDUE issues, but covering it some is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Cross Rhythms is fairly broad in coverage for being a Christian media source, and pretty well informed. Not generally an issue here, given the Christian market connections.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Are websites owned by SHE Media (BlogHer, SheKnows, STYLECASTER, Soaps.com, and HelloFlo) reliable? It's owned by Penske Media Corporation (which owns Billboard and Rolling Stone) but that doesn't guarantee reliability on its own, so what do you guys think? RedShellMomentum 17:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

They must not cover rock music much, because I can't say they've come up in any of the articles I write or maintain. I'm completely unfamiliar with any of them. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Interview of the owner : Q:you’ve now additionally added the shop component–where you carry products from major labels such as Universal and Warner. How did those connections come about? A:A lot of that happened because of [...] Steve Hammonds, who’s a consultant for Universal Music Group. [...] In terms of actually putting some product together for them, that started relatively recently. Over the past decade, I worked on a few ad hoc projects like Sam Brown’s A&M Years box set. I did a few remixes/rarities compilation for Cherry Red: one for Paul Young and another for the Thompson twins. There was also a Curiosity Killed The Cat box set and a 2CD deluxe edition for It's Immaterial's Life's Hard And Then You Die (1986). I was doing the graphic design, curation, and coordinating with the artists and labels for those projects, so it’s quite time-consuming to put it all together. As I became busier with the website and the shop, I found my time was a bit more limited. I’m not quite as involved in all those aspects of the Blu-Rays we’re doing now, but there is still a lot that goes into them. Generally speaking though, these kinds of relationships and connections start to build the longer you’re around. SDE’s been active for 13 years now, so it’s been an interesting journey. I didn't force it really, I just came to know people.

So basically on the website, they promote merchandising from labels with good reviews that are available on the parallel webshop of the same name. (no negative review in view) This rings the bell of the neutrality issue. The owner has record labels executives on the phone prior and after any big reissue. He can hire high profile writers but as they are paid to ... directly promote selling products, it is obvious that each writer will tone down their critics if they are hired to write a text about a reissue, even without being fully aware of it. No one bites the hand that feeds them. Henceforward, the superdeluxeeditions.com reviews by those high profile critics should not be used as sources on wikipedia per neutrality concerns for an encyclopedia. ---- Woovee (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a conflict in terms of reviewing a product that the sister site is selling (we could add a note about this in the WP:RSMUSIC table). But SDE has a robust editorial team and I see absolutely no problem with using their many reviews of albums not listed at theSDEshop. SDE is also reliable for referencing the contents of deluxe albums reissues. Paulie302 (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

When an item is out of stock on the website, the page for the selling product disappears.

There are other sources available with the same high profile writers that were submitted at neutral publishing.

Wikipedia can't make an exception as the issue is not just about the neutrality of the articles. It is also about the website in itself and its goals which is bringing story-telling for selling products. Woovee (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a way of handling this - its called WP:AFFILIATE. If their approach has changed, or we missed this initially, then we should probably revise our classification to reflect AFFILIATE. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these "reviews" are essentially a form of promotion. They are not independent of the vendor.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)