Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Diff

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750262466}}

What guidance, if any, should be included at MOS:ALBUMS regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)12:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Definitely against 100% omitting them. Not sure where to draw the line though, as I know its ridiculous to list off these scenarios where an album has 8 alternate releases that are just barely different from one another too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:After the previous discussions, where I started off in a sort of middle position of inclusion but with some significant restrictions, I came around to the position of generally include, with some discretion against being excessive with them in cases where there are numerous re-issues and bonus issues. In those cases, we should be more selective.

:Variant sequences of tracks can be noted in prose as they don't need multiple listings.

:Regardless of where we end up landing on the inclusion or exclusion criteria for these tracks, there should be some technical and style guidance for how to display the tracks using the template. 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:The first concern should always be with page size, because there's no justifiable reason I could think of to split track listings into their own article. I think so long as the additional TLs are sufficiently small (such as deluxe albums that include an additional handful of songs) and there aren't too many of them, their inclusion shouldn't be an issue. I would say prioritizing prose over lists/templates would be good; there are plenty of cases where the explanation is much simpler to put into words than to display, such as Damn (Collector's Edition) which is the exact reverse track order of the original album (under the Release and promotion section, this is explained in just two brief sentences, and that's really all that is necessary). Of course, there are cases where the difference is too complicated to briefly explain – I added two tracklists for Angels & Queens for that express reason – but in most, it is probably as simple as a sentence in a bulleted list and should be expressed as such. And if there are cases like Serge suggested with several barely different variants, it could even be useful to put them under a subheading the same way lists of samples in articles like Damn have. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:No guideline. Editors should follow WP:DUE/WP:BALASP and only include track listings that have received coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a database, and not everything that's verifiable needs to be included in an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Voorts what about situations where a track might not have receive coverage but has charted significantly?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How often does a bonus/alternative track chart? And if it does, I'd say summarize it in prose with due weight. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure how often, but I know of one. Thanks for that input.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Here's an example.

::::While it's not currently listed in the article for Sound-on-Sound, its remastered and expanded version Art/Empire/Industry (named after one of its tracks) charted in the [https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/17474/bill-nelsons-red-noise/ UK indie album chart]. Is this sufficient for inclusion, ignoring whether or not it had anything written about it? Fundgy (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would just mention that as prose, since it's the entire album, unless there's agreement that the additional tracks are worth including. I'm thinking of specific tracks themselves, like "Fuego" from the iTunes version of Gravity, that charted on the Heatseekers.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Earlier this year, at the RFC that occurred on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, I supported a position that would allow for the inclusion of bonus tracks released within a year of the original album. I've thought about the issue more since then, and my stance has moderated over that time. I still think it's best to avoid too much "bonus track bloat"—(here I'm thinking about albums with numerous regional versions, or deluxe editions with entire discs' worth of alternate takes and instrumentals)—but on the flip side, I think there's also merit in avoiding the WP:CREEP of saying "here's a laundry list of rules about which bonus tracks should be in or out."{{pb}}My current opinion is that we should encourage editors to be conservative about what tracks to include (probably encouraging them to use prose over full listings, for situations such as the ones QuietHere describes), but that keeping our guidance broad and general will be more productive than enumerating a detailed rule set. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:For transparency, I notified editors who participated in previous discussions and who are still active.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Some kind of compromise is probably in order. This information (in some form) is genuinely useful (as a reader rather an editor, I make frequent use of it). However, we obviously do not need to reproduce near-identical tracklist tables for variants. What I would suggest is this:

• For any album (or EP, etc.), provide a tabular tracklist, showing the orignal release.
• When the album is simultaneously or near-simultaneously released on different media (or online release channels) with variant track listings:
• Give the longest track listing in that table (and indicate the medium or release channel), then note (by medium or release channel) any missing tracks, or variant-version tracks, in one or more footnotes under that tracklist table. Formatting is left to editorial consensus at an article, and could take take the form of footnotes directly under the table, or a subsection for the variant release, or some other style.
• Where there are multiple additional tracks in a release variant, it is okay to provide them in a short table matching the style of the original, without repeating the contents of the original.
• When the album is much later re-released in a form with a variant track list, treat it likewise, unless it is radically different:
• When reasonable, handle this with footnote(s) under the original tracklist table.
• In the case of a bonus disk or otherwise greatly extended track list, added onto the original, note that the original tracklist is included as well as additional tracks, then provide a tabular tracklist of the bonus tracks that matches the style of the original table, without reproducing the original table.
• Example: There are near-innumerable "anniversary edition" reissues that consist of remasters of an original album with a bunch of bonus tracks added (sometimes multiples discs of them) such as demos, live takes, remixes, single edits, and single B-sides.
• When releases by the same title are radically different (e.g. in two different national markets) but marketed as if the same album, treat them as separate releases (though not as separate articles, unless both are somehow independently notable).
• Example: the UK and US versions of Goodbye by Dubstar. The US version is actually an anthology of songs from the UK Goodbye, from the previous album (Disgraceful), and from various singles, and has a separate listing in the article on the album. Sensibly, the Japanese version, which is the same as the UK one but with bonus tracks, is simply annotated with regard to the bonus tracks, without repeating the UK tracklist table. [Rather unhelpfully, it does not actually name them, just says they're B-sides from a particular single, and doesn't even link to the single. That should be fixed one way or another.]
• When two completely different albums coincidentally have the same title, treat these as separate encyclopedia subjects.
• Example: Tim Rose has two same-named but unrelated albums from two different labels, without tracks in common: Tim Rose (1967), and Tim Rose (1972). If articles are written about these albums, they will be separate articles.
• Do not treat remaster re-releases differently. Simply note that a remaster was released in a particular year by a particular label, and annotate any significant alterations – tracks added, removed, or replaced (entirely, or with longer or shorter versions) – as we would with variant versions released simultaneously.
• In summary, keep tracklists as concise as possible without losing key information. In particular, do not duplicate tracklists (e.g. tracks 1–10) when listing additional tracks on a variant release (e.g. bonus tracks 11–13).

That's just off the top of my head, and some of you can probably refine this better. We need to strike a balance between being useful and informative of basic information about notable releases and their variants, versus wallowing in the sorts of geeky details to be found on a release's Discogs.com page. It's similar to the issues involved with WP articles on actors and movies/TV shows, versus their pages at IMDb.com.

PS: I don't think we need to have any "within a year of the original album" rule. Keep things simple.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

PPS: The above isn't proposed guideline wording. For that purpose it could be squashed down considerably, since most of the concerns about re-releases also apply to [near-]simulatenous variant releases, and we would not need to provide long-winded examples. The above material is intended for helping come to consensus on what the best practices are. How to put them into guideline wording comes after identifying what they are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for this! Regarding how to avoid duplication, {{u|SMcCandish}}, what do you think of this that I drafted in a revision of MOS:ALBUM? It's based on the given example, Ctrl, above in the guidance on how to format tracklistings:

:: When adding the track listing of a deluxe edition with bonus tracks or additional discs, it is not necessary to repeat the track listing of the original album. Instead, add the track to the bottom of the listing, with its own headline, numbered with its position on the album (see the example immediately below). Avoid adding track listings on multiple media formats that are either identical to the original or merely reordered, such as 8-track cartridges.

:: {{Track listing

| headline = Deluxe

| extra_column = Producer(s)

| title15 = Love Galore

| note15 = Alt version

| length15 = 4:33

| writer15 = Henderson

| extra15 = {{hlist|ThankGod4Cody|Lang|Scum}}

}} 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've always preferred that approach, though it seems like there was some sort of opposition to it (not by me.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Sergecross73}}, do you mean, opposition to how I've rendered the listing?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, sorry, looks like the indent didn't work right, but I was trying to respond to you. I've adjusted the indent. I like your rendering of the listing above. That's generally how I do it when I'm writing a creating an album article and its strictly up to how I want to handle it. I want to say someone's said there's WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, but I'm not sure. (I could be missing up formatting options too.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, I've always favored the format of not repeating the full track listing for bonus tracks. The only objection to it I can think of is that people might find it confusing in those cases where the bonus tracks appear somewhere other than at the end of the album. But a short prose explanation would suffice in such cases so far as I'm concerned. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Here's an example to consider: Gratuitous_Sax_%26_Senseless_Violins#2019_BMG_Remastered_and_Expanded_Edition

:::::::Is there a way to remove CD 1 entirely while making it clear that it's just a remastered repeat? If not, then perhaps it's a necessary evil that should remain. Fundgy (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::P.S. I've gone through it and edited out CD 1 completely. It doesn't seem particularly confusing to me. Fundgy (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::As far as reordered track listings go, I agree that in general, yes, it's best not to include those, but there are some exceptions. One that comes to mind: Days in Europa

::In this case (talking about the 1980 release), the album was quickly reissued, remixed, reordered, and had a new cover. Part of that was due to the nature of the original cover and decisions made by the record label, and it has received significant coverage because of this. Fundgy (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Fundgy yes, if it's significantly covered, inclusion is usually warranted. I think on that there is universal agreement.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support 3family6's idea: "add the track [or tracks] to the bottom of the listing, with its own headline, numbered with its position on the album". Simple, easy to follow, and very effective. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Saw this at the Village Pump and I think it's important to point out that this is an RfC for changing an essay. If there's disagreement, you could just write a counterpoint essay. We already have this with WP:BLUE/WP:NOTBLUE, WP:SPADE/WP:NOSPADE, etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Thebiguglyalien that's a good point. For context, while this is an essay, it has de facto been an MoS for the Albums Wikiproject for since as long as I've been editing (15 years). I also earlier proposed this year that it be upgraded to an official MoS. This RfC is an RfCBefore to hammer out outstanding issues before promoting it to an official MOS.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Exactly. Better to build a consensus than build competing essays. Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I took a stab at updating and curating the list of Christian music sources; I added some that had been agreed on but never formally listed; I linked to past the discussions or rationales that I could find for particular sources; and I tried to add archived weblinks to sites that were taken down or usurped; and put links to back issues (where applicable).

The Christian music WikiProject seems to be on last legs. Most of the editors I've worked with are now banned/blocked, retired, or inactive either from the project or Wikipedia entirely. This includes nearly everyone other than myself that helped create and curate the list in the past, and no editors other than myself seem to watch that page or implement edits - the last editor to do so retired last month. If anyone wants to take a look and check it over, so it's more than just one editor's opinion, please feel free. Thanks--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is really good. Especially the track record of discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I skimmed through their list, but it looks like any of the websites I was familiar with were already linked to discussions from this Wikiproject or RSP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised this issue didn't come up in the discussion of multiple infobox chronologies from a few years back, since in my experience this is one of the more common sources of multiple infobox chronologies. For those who don't know, many articles use infobox chronologies which incorporate both the album's artist and related artists. The article on Ram, an album by Paul and Linda McCartney, curiously incorporates both a chronology which follows the related artists approach and the one-artist approach. The Paul McCartney chronology has as its next album Wild Life, the debut album of Paul McCartney's next band, Wings, instead of his next solo album. However, the Linda McCartney chronology has as its next album Wide Prairie, which is her next solo album, even though Linda was also a member of Wings and Wild Life came out decades before Wide Prairie.

While I can certainly understand the appeal of this related artists system, I also see two problems with it: First, if a general reader sees an album listed in an artist's chronology, their natural assumption is that the album is by that artist, not by a band the artist was a member of. In fairness, some of these chronologies address this by identifying the artist in parenthetical text, but that such clarification is needed seems wrong to me. Second, this seems like it can easily lead to several chronologies per infobox in cases where a band's output overlaps with its members' solo careers, as with Genesis and Utopia, for example. And limiting this system to a single chain wouldn't make sense, because then you'd frequently have the chronology for an artist's solo album pointing to a solo album by a different artist.

Thoughts? Martin IIIa (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Haven't had any response to this, so I should probably note that my current inclination is to eliminate the related artists system wherever I find it in chronologies. If anyone objects to that, please speak up. If no one says anything in the next three days, I will go ahead and adopt that practice.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, didn't see this come up before, but I agree, and I'm pretty sure that years past, there was a discussion on this, and the consensus was that there shouldn't be multiple chronologies in infoboxes. I generally allow it if there's two extremely disparate artists on a song or something (ie Busta Rhymes does a collaborative song with Reba McIntyre or something) but otherwise I generally remove secondary ones. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

See the discussions here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caro7200#Drastic_Plastic] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Track_listing:_what_qualifies_as_%22simple%22?]

I updated the Track listing section on Drastic Plastic to switch to the template format because I thought it was a good way to concisely and neatly place the tracks "Visions of Endless Hopes" and the US alternate track "Japan" on the same line (see here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drastic_Plastic&diff=prev&oldid=1291070159]). Simple edit, so I thought. It was reverted, which is fine, but when I asked them why, they referred how "It has long been WP album consensus that three templates are acceptable," but

• (1) what does that precisely mean?,
• (2) is there actually a consensus?, and
• (3) if so, where is this consensus?

It's quite clear that this has a history of being a contentious topic, to the point that, in my case, seniority is being pulled, and when I can't find any supposed consensus, they just wont tell me where it is. All I saw was a seven-year-old thread that had editors complaining the template was too hard to learn (as supposed to infoboxes or wikitables? strange).

These reverts are also being done in sitations that, in my view, moreso justify the use of the template than mine due to split album authorship (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recovering_the_Satellites&diff=prev&oldid=1287066669] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Things_Here_Are_Different&oldid=1289402008], same user). The user also claimed the edits might be considered disruptive, but these reverts that give the vaguest of explanations are fighting debatable disruption with more disruption.

I am a relatively new user here, but I seriously can't make heads or tails of this. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any clear-cut policy or guideline, past the tiny part in Album article style advice#Style and form that only makes a generalization for "simple" cases, which I would assume to mean track listings that are either too short or purely a list of track titles and lengths. Or is the notion of "simple" being applied to everything but the most complex of cases? Fundgy (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've been here forever, and I still don't understand why people waste time on this sort of stuff, for what it's worth. I thought someone was working on revising the guidance, but that must have fallen to the wayside or hit a roadblock or something.

:I always use the template in my article creations, because I think it looks more professional. But I also don't usually fight it if someone changes it either. As long as the info is there and readable, it doesn't matter much to me. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Sergecross73}}, regarding revising the guidance, it's gotten derailed on the question of inclusion of bonus tracks, and discussions stalled. In the discussions about this section, I don't think "simple" was ever defined. I actually thought that somewhere, using multiple templates, duplicating tracks, had an expressed consensus against it, but isn't, currently. I think, {{u|Fundgy}}, that you are correct here. The entire tracklistings do not need to be duplicated. A formal description of this is actually being discussed right now, in the above RfC on bonus and alternated tracklistings. Also at issue there is when to even include alternate and bonus tracks. I'd suggest, Fundgy, that you bring this up above, with your thoughts on the questions.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Will do. Fundgy (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The issue isn't about bonus tracks or alternate track listings (as noted above, one can use prose, one can append more numbers) ... it's about the fact that three styles are acceptable, with many editors preferring the numbered list. In the recent failed RFC discussion, many editors noted that the template style is best used for more recent albums, where songs may be written or produced by many individuals. There seems to be a recent influx of relatively new editors who are "correcting" or "fixing" or "updating" (red flag terms) the style, resulting in an inaccurate edit summary description. As I informed Fundgy, I almost always use the template, as it's the most popular. And we have a simple solution to this disagreement: make the most popular style the only choice. I consider "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed and have been in place for years to be trivial and disruptive editing, and I think it's a little weird that such a new editor got so concerned about this small matter, especially as I indicated in my remarks that it was not an important distinction to me. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To this point, still, no one can articulate what "three styles are acceptable" means and where it comes from, and I don't understand why me being relatively new and asking, in my view, warranted questions is a bad quality to have. My "update" was ultimately moving the alternate track to the same line, without pointlessly mentioning a record catalogue ID. The template was the vessel to do so. I didn't just change to the template.

::::My argument was never "make the most popular style the only choice". It is to make it recognized as the standard in sitations that need to be defined based on a less vague definition of "simple". I am fully aware that I am not the sole arbiter of this, and that's why I haven't reverted back your edit until the WikiProject can come with a real consensus.

::::Where all of this animosity on this subject is coming from is beyond me, and it's horribly discouraging. You told me earlier that you didn't personally find my edit disruptive, but now you are. Ultimately this whole thing boils down to me saying "what consensus? I can't find it" to getting the response "you're new, so trust me, it's there". I wouldn't have responded if you hadn't mischaracterized every little thing I've said. Fundgy (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Re|Fundgy}} Hello. My understanding of a simple track listing, for which a numbered list is generally better than a track listing template, is one that includes the song title, the songwriters, and the track timings -- like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commander_Cody_and_His_Lost_Planet_Airmen_(album)&oldid=1288707104#Track_listing this]. If a track listing has a fourth field -- for example, "originally released on", or "featured musician" -- then either a numbered list or a track listing template would probably work. Beyond that you'd probably want to use the template. Others might not agree, but that's my view. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.melodicmag.com/about/] I can't find the content about advertisement or something. However, I'm still not sure if this magazine is reliable or not.

[https://music.mxdwn.com/2014/09/01/news/paloma-faith-announces-fall-2014-tour-dates/ mxdwn], this website is frequently used on music articles. I checked [https://music.mxdwn.com/about/ About Us] page, and they said:

{{tq|mxdwn.com is an established online entertainment magazine that focuses on news, original reviews, features, photography and interviews. We are a leader and innovator in providing dynamic entertainment content.
Over the past 12 years, mxdwn has established itself as one of the most credible, reliable and forward-thinking entertainment publications in North America. What began as a music magazine founded by Editor in Chief Raymond Flotat has evolved into a valued resource not only for music but also for movies, video games, television and pop culture.
Our readers rely on us to provide timely and relevant entertainment news, thoughtful reviews, up-to-the-minute event coverage, and to accurately report on all that matters in entertainment.}}

For my think it's reliable, but I want to listen others' opinions before citing this source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 04:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I convinced source reviewers for this featured article that mxdwn was reliable, for what it's worth. Go ahead and take whatever comments from that thread you like for your argument. mftp dan ^oops 02:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I came here to link to that discussion. It's reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:go muckrack deep diving [https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/mxdwn here]. Chchcheckit (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Melodic Magazine is a print magazine with a full staff (so not a one-person fanzine). That's typically a slam dunk for reliability unless it's a notably gossip rag like Daily Mail or National Enquirer. Thus I'd say, reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I was searching for sources that I can cite to corroborate release dates for singles, and this site pops up quite frequently. Nothing makes any grammatical sense, and they often don't attribute to an author, so my natural inclination is to ask: is this AI generated? There's a ton of Wikipedia articles that use this source, and I hope they're not all like this, but I'm not optimistic.

As I was submitting this topic, I found out that this on Wikipedia's external link blacklist, so I think it's worth discussion whether or not it should be listed as an unreliable source. For anyone who wanted to see an example, see first Under the Radar's coverage of a Sparks single: [https://www.undertheradarmag.com/news/sparks_share_new_song_my_devotion/]

Then look up the same title on Northern Transmission's website. Same title, same formatting of the list of tour dates, same general information. Convenient, huh?... Fundgy (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Stereoboard

[https://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/229758/9 The article that I try to cite], [https://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/18/40 and its About Us page].

As I don't see advertisement thing, and they said:

{{tq|The site also offers a mouthwatering amount of unique quality content, from its extensive team of writers and contributors from right across the UK and beyond, including interviews, reviews, features and of course your daily dose of music news and tour announcements.}}

UPROXX

This source is frequently used on many music articles. [https://uproxx.com/pop/laufey-matter-of-time-tough-luck/ One random article from Uproxx] and [https://uproxx.com/about/ its About page]. They said,

{{tq|Founded by creative visionary will.i.am and media titans Jarret Myer and Rich Antoniello, UPROXX Studios is the leading voice of the creative class.}}

For my opinion, I think these sources are kinda reliable, but I'm still a newbie at determining reliable/unreliable, so I'm scared to cite these sources. Do y'all think these sources are reliable? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Uproxx is definitely fine imo.--NØ 06:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:These are fine. I've used Uproxx for years.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm glad we're discussing it - it came up in an AFD the other day and I noticed it wasn't specifically listed at RSMUSIC or RSP. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Antichrist Superstar 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) 16:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think most users think Dork is reliable source but the source is not included in Reliable Sources section. So I opened discussion for double-check.

Also, I think Official Charts is missing. [https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/paloma-faith-to-release-a-special-edition-of-her-number-1-album-the-architect-on-november-16__24233/] (Here's the source what I found) I absoloutely think this source is a reliable source too.

And I want to ask y'all if y'all think these sources are reliable too or not.

1. The Music: [https://themusic.com.au/news/isabel-larosa-announces-australia-2025-tour/duHEaGtqbWw/04-09-24 Random article] / [https://themusic.com.au/page/enquire Advertise Us].

As this source supports advertisement, so first of all I don't think it's a reliable source.

2. Headline Planet:

[https://headlineplanet.com/home/2016/08/13/tinashes-superlove-video-premieres-crosses-1-million-views-day-two/ Random article] / [https://headlineplanet.com/home/privacy-policy/ Privacy & Cookie Policy]

{{tq|Headline Planet developed the following policy to demonstrate its firm commitment to user data protection, privacy and security. The information below illustrates the privacy policy followed by the Headline Planet website and wholly managed engagement platforms like e-mail. It does not cover engagement that takes place on (and is managed by) external networks, such as Google AMP, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram.
The following policy is effective as of May 24, 2018. Inquiries or applicable opt-out requests may be submitted to info[at]headlineplanet[dot]com.}}

I'm pretty obscure on this source. First of all, the source doesn't indicate an advertisement thing, so I think it may be reliable. Checked it is marked as unreliable source.

3. Daily Record:

[https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/about-us/ About Us].

{{tq|dailyrecord.co.uk is the online edition of The Daily Record, one of Scotland's most trusted news brands.}}

{{tq|We expect our staff to use their best endeavours to verify the stories being put forward for publication.}}

Seems reliable, but other editors' opinions are needed.

4. FEMMUSIC Magazine:

[https://femmusic.com/2025/05/29/ava-max-lovin-myself/ Random article], [https://femmusic.com/privacy-policy/ Privacy Policy], [https://femmusic.com/submitting-press-material/ Submissons].

I can't check "About Us" page, seems not exist.

5. Attitude:

[https://www.attitude.co.uk/about-attitude/ About Us].

No advertisement, and they say:

{{tq|Attitude’s writers and columnists are professional journalists conversant with publishing law and both they, and our sub-editing team, make every effort to confirm – prior to publication – the accuracy of facts or quotations used in any and every story. Our writers must be precise with their words, headlines and cited URLs. They understand that words have power and act responsibly. In doing so, they must verify the information they gather. This includes identifying information such as names and positions, but also includes factual statements and accounts. Our writers conduct their own fact-checking using their own judgment guided by our ethics policy. We will use fact checkers in circumstances we believe warrant doing so.}}

seems reliable; but opinions are needed.

6. Out:

[https://www.out.com/about About Us].

{{tq|Subscribe to Out in print - Get Out / The Advocate flipbook magazine delivered to your home. Subscribe today!}}

seems print magazine, so reliable?

7. Hot Press

8. Mystic Sons: [https://www.mysticsons.com/article/m-details-new-album-forever-neverland?page=522 Random article]

In contact page, they stated:

{{tq2|Mystic Sons strive to discover and source new and fresh musical talent from all over the world.

Our contributors are like-minded individuals who share the same vision and ethos of promoting groundbreaking new music to the masses.

Every musician/band needs support and we can provide that extra push to ensure your music is recognised and appreciated worldwide.

Everything that is sent to us will be listened to, so get in touch to find out more about our Music Promotion through PR, Events and Editorial.

Please see individual roles and address any correspondence to the correct staff member.}}

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Dork is a print magazine and I'd consider that reliable. Official Charts is a WP:GOODCHART, I just don't think there's an official list maintained of those, only the deprecated charts.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Why don't we add OCC too? Because Billboard is also good chart and is included in here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we could. I'd bring it up on that talk page--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have no problem with adding OCC. I assume the only reason its never been added is because its always been used without any good faith contention on its reliability. 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done. I don't know what to put on Genre section, so I wrote "All genres" in there. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Music began in 1990 as a print magazine, which would usually indicate reliability, but that "Advertise Us" page does not look very promising. Skyshiftertalk 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:By the way, does "Advertise" always make sources unreliable? I'm not sure, but many people seem to regard if adevrtisement function exists, they think sources as unreliable source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not always, but it is a point to consider. Especially if the website doesn't declare what is an advertisement and what isn't. Skyshiftertalk 18:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the tip; but then what state should we remain for The Music? Do you have any recommendation? I'll follow your instruction and add the source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway to merge Son of the Mountains with Brad Paisley. Your participation is encouraged here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I may be misremembering, but in my mind, there was a discussion some years ago regarding unlinked/redirected band members being listed in navboxes, with a consensus that they should be kept. I tried looking for it but couldn't find it. Not a huge deal, but I have just had an encounter with Woodensuperman involving this on Template:Guided by Voices, and it would be good to clear up the ruling. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have the same recollection. Generally speaking, I'm a big proponent of WP:WTAF in most cases of templates, but band members has generally been the exception to the rule, and I'm pretty sure that discussion years ago didn't change that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:We make an exception to WP:EXISTING for band members, but this is only {{tq|to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable}}. And that is fine for current members. However, in the case of former members, they are not providing any navigational benefit and they are not clarifying that there are multiple band members, so we do not make an exception for them, they are just unnecessary clutter. --woodensuperman 15:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not previously aware of any cutoff point between current and past members in the template. That one would be news to me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What benefit would there be in including them? --woodensuperman 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Similar to the "avoiding the perception is a solo act", to show that it hasn't been the same lineup over the course of their career. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's what articles are for, navboxes are for navigation between existing articles. We don't need to extend the exception that has already been given, some bands have scores of non-notable previous members. --woodensuperman 16:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm simply attesting to my lived experience and answering questions asked. I've been working in music content for over 15 years now, and this is neither what I've done, nor what I recall observing anyone else doing. If people are doing this, I don't believe its being done widely or consistently. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not aware of this "former members vs. current members" cutoff either. In the specific case of {{t|Guided by Voices}}, I understand that only one member is being left out and I don't see a problem at all in having his name listed among the others. The essay on navboxes proposes that "red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data [...] where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result", and I guess that's the case here. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 18:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, it wouldn't be misleading. A compete set of data is North/South/East/West, not sometime members of pop bands. We don't include every non-notable release a band has ever released either. Navboxes are for navigation, and the guideline WP:EXISTING is clear that we only make an exception in the case of bands to "avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act". If we needlessly add non-notable members we are not avoiding this perception at all, as it is already clear that they are not solo acts, so there is no case to include them. It's absolutely pointless as a navigation aid, and does nothing but increase the amount of clutter in a navbox. --woodensuperman 19:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Going back to the original discussion, I still couldn't find it, but for what it's worth, if I did comment in it, I would've most likely said no to including members without articles as I believe the navbox's purpose should be strictly for navigation. I don't know where this exception for current vs. former members comes from, but it seems pretty pointless to me. Should be an all-or-nothing rule in my opinion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Its clear Woodensuperman has strong feelings on it, but its also quite clear to me that the music community feels otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::: If we are trying to establish a consensus here, I am also in agreement with Quiet and Serge. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Besides having "strong feelings on it", I think Woodensuperman has made a strong logical argument for it. However, the former members distinction does significantly complicate the navbox guidelines and can mislead readers, and I think those are bigger drawbacks than having a few unnecessary names in the navboxes. The only practical payoff I can think of is in cases of bands which have gone through large numbers of members, but in such cases we always seem to split off the "members" list from the band's article into a "List of [band] members" article, which we can just link to from the navbox rather than listing all of them. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this really notable? Bearian (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:No. Recommend redirecting to artist page. Mburrell (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://ratedrnb.com/about-us/ About Us page]

{{tq|RATED R&B is a leading and trusted source for R&B music news. Since 2011, the publication has kept its readers engaged with new music coverage, thorough news reporting, intriguing feature stories, exclusive interviews and more.

RATED R&B’s exclusive coverage has been referenced by other publications, including ABC, BET, BBC News, Black Enterprise, Complex, Essence, Forbes, Pitchfork, San Diego Tribune, The Fader, The Grio, The U.S. Sun, Vogue and many more.

RATED R&B was created for R&B lovers by R&B lovers. The team works relentlessly to introduce and amplify R&B artists of all sorts. We pride ourselves on finding innovative ways to highlight the genre’s diverse sound from artists — no matter where they are in their careers.

Furthermore, we believe in fostering an engaging relationship with our readers and supporters. We don’t just publish articles, but we make time and opportunity to truly build a connection.

In 2021, we launched R&B TWITTER, a Twitter-based community meant to connect R&B lovers from around the world. It has grown to more than 3,400 members — the largest R&B-centric community on the platform. We will continue to seek new ways to interact with our readers, aside from our regular communication across our social media platforms.}}

No subscription, so I believe it's reliable. Any thoughts? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 09:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Thiefth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 Years. Sold dozens of copies. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There are hundreds of uses of SuperDeluxeEdition as a source across Wikipedia. The site primarily covers album re-issues[https://superdeluxeedition.com/sample-page/] and is edited by Paul Sinclair, who has also written for the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Age, to name a few.[https://muckrack.com/paul-sinclair] Other contributors to SuperDeluxeEdition have included Alexis Petridis,[https://superdeluxeedition.com/reviews/review-that-petrol-emotion-every-beginning-has-a-future-an-anthology-1984-1994/] David Quantick,[https://superdeluxeedition.com/reviews/the-wonder-of-it-all-wings-venus-and-mars-at-50/] and John Earls.[https://superdeluxeedition.com/news/lack-of-happy-ending-contributed-to-tears-for-fears-management-split/] Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looks reliable to me — these are all names I recognize as long-established professional critics. Popcornfud (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Seconded. Looks like there's a lot of experienced writers here. I know sometimes we debate how much time/space should be spend on deluxe editions, and honestly, and I feel like this could rationalize spending more time on them honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thirded. I've used it numerous times and had no problems. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:This looks reliable and reputable. They've got a lot of experienced staff.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.popfiltr.com/about] PopFiltr doesn't include advertisement thing, so I doubt this is reliable, but I want to listen others' opinions. Thanks! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Of the sample I checked, every article on this website is credited to either "PopFiltr" or "PopFiltr Curators", and their writing/editorial staff is not listed anywhere. The biggest red flag, however is [https://artists.popfiltr.com/ this page] which allows anyone to buy a news article/music review on their website. Since it's not clearly listed on their website whether articles or reviews are paid for or not, I'd reckon that this source isn't reliable. Leafy46 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think you're right too. I'll put the source on unreliable section then. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 21:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I need to confirm the reliability of [https://www.stilllisteningmagazine.com this source], as requested in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Black Country, New Road discography/archive1. I believe it is reliable, since they do [https://www.stilllisteningmagazine.com/start-listening-to multiple interviews] with international artists from the underground scene alongside album reviews and music news. The most notable established artist interviewed I found so far is the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oubKkP3GpdE Lambrini Girls] and [https://www.stilllisteningmagazine.com/start-listening-to/jockstrap-interview Jockstrap]. Cattos^💭 18:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say it depends. The interviews themselves seem reliable, so I'd be OK with using them as a source (minding WP:RSPYT, of course). As for the reviews, they seem to fail WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception. The website does not list its team/editorial staff and we don't know if Ben Scrimgeour (author of the [https://www.stilllisteningmagazine.com/reviews/black-country-new-road-for-the-first-time-review linked review]) is a professional journalist/musician or just an enthusiast. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 16:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Interviews are fine as primary sources. For critical commentary, I'm skeptical. The magazine is a print publication, not just online ( [https://www.pinterest.com/pin/still-listening-magazine-issue-9-printing--444800900716019678/], [https://stilllistening.greedbag.com/], [https://exwhyzed.com/portfolio/unleashing-sonic-stories-still-listenings-triumph-in-music-zine-printing/ [3]]), but I can't find out who runs it or who editorial the staff are. So I would say, don't use it outside of as a primary source for interviews.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

After putting up the article "Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)" for GA, the reviewer asked whether Music Feeds was a reliable source or not. I initially assumed it was because it was used in other articles, but after doing some digging, it looks like the source was pseudo-deprecated in 2021 per this discussion. It doesn't seem like their "About" page has been updated with editorial information since then ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210226190655/https://musicfeeds.com.au/about/ 2021] vs. [https://web.archive.org/web/20250601080856/https://musicfeeds.com.au/about/ now in 2025]), and I can't find much about it on its Wikipedia page at the moment. However, the source is used in lots of articles, including various recent GAs like The 1989 World Tour and Music of the Spheres World Tour, and I even found it in the FA "Paranoid Android". Where do we stand on this? I would support putting this into the "Generally unreliable sources" section of A/S, but if anyone has any more information, that would be much appreciated. Leafy46 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:They don't solicit for contributors anymore, but it's still unclear who works for the site (even if volunteer) and what quality control, if any, there is.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have added Music Feeds to the "Generally unreliable sources" section ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Albums%2FSources&diff=1295952370&oldid=1295168553 revision]), in line with this discussion and the previous 2021 one. If any editor objects with this, a discussion can always be opened up again. Leafy46 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Would an official YouTube channel for a (sadly defunct) boutique record label qualify as a reliable source of information? They've uploaded a series of videos recently where they've given a few pieces of valuable information regarding the making of the Oingo Boingo albums, which they had reissued on their label in recent years. Granted it wouldn't be an ideal source, in my estimation, but I've never been able to find another published source for any of the info he's given (I've certainly tried), which, prior to this point, has merely amounted to fan rumors and such. The person who single-handedly ran the label—doing everything including negotiating the rights, remastering the audio, restoring the artwork, distribution, etc.—is one of the very few who's ever had access to the master tapes and logs, which he shows in the videos. Additionally, seeing as how this information is from his official channel, it doesn't seem like it would present a copyright violation, as mentioned at WP:RSPYT. Thoughts?—The Keymaster (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it would depend on the claim. Sources are reliable for statements about themselves, so long as they aren't unduly self-serving.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, just what I was going to say - it'd be usable within the confines of WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I should stress that the person who ran this record label has no affiliation with the band. He's just someone who licensed the albums and reissued them as expanded editions, which were big sellers for him. However, he had access to information that I've been looking to source for years now, specifically regarding outtakes from some of the albums (some of which ended up on other albums). So his videos would be a solid enough source for that info? The Keymaster (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Forgot to mention that he's also a professional mastering engineer who's been in the business since 2005.[https://www.discogs.com/artist/709984-Scott-Davies] Hopefully that adds to his credibility as a source. The Keymaster (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If he's part of the record label releasing/re-issuing the albums, I believe that would still be enough to follow PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if many people know this but Luminate and A2IM announced they're partnering together for a new certification program for independent artists [https://www.billboard.com/pro/indie-album-sales-certification-program-luminate-a2im/]

The thresholds include:

1 Star = 50,000 album sales

2 Star = 100,000 album sales

3 Star = 300,000 album sales

From the looks of their website it appears they also have a database search feature [https://certifications.a2im.org/] Is this something we would be taking part in including? Pillowdelight (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:CHART claims that "any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan" is considered a reliable, and while this is not a record chart, my instinct thus goes that this may be valuable. However, it seems like any artist or record label could submit an album via this program, regardless of whether they are "independent" or not. I think this is just a case of needing to let the program play out a little more before we take a definitive stance on its usage in articles; however, as of now, I would be against it simply because it doesn't seem like it's particularly encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion quite yet (TL;DR it doesn't have enough cred yet imo). Leafy46 (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::The program is only available for albums that are strictly released independently or through independent labels or distributors, hence the reason why the thresholds are smaller compared to how the RIAA works. I am a bit unsure on it due to the fact they don't go by the industry terms "gold, platinum, diamond", not sure how the term "Star" would work in a certification table. But it definitely could help expand some pages on here that to include them. Pillowdelight (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It is worth mentioning they have certified thirty six albums so far. Pillowdelight (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Being tracked by Luminate, I think it's safe to say it is reliable. Whether it is notable remains to be seen. Once notability is established, I see little technical problem adding it to tables. I added some preliminary text to American Association of Independent Music#A2IM Star Certification. Muhandes (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is more or less my stance too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Brilliant, you've said it better than I could above. This is my take on the situation as well. Leafy46 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

In particular these [https://happymag.tv/10-records-to-introduce-you-to-the-world-of-art-rock/ Happy Mag] and [https://www.classicrockhistory.com/roxy-music-albums-ranked/ Classic Rock History] articles that came up in the GA review of For Your Pleasure. The reviewer questions their reliability; I checked them and see them as potentially unreliable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding Happy Mag, [https://happymag.tv/about/ Happy Mag its about] doesn't raise any red flags for me, but the author of the article I'm interested in (Luke Saunders) isn't listed on the about page, and he doesn't seem to have experience outside of Happy Mag. This is a relevant discussion. This GA review considered the source to be reliable.
• Regarding Classic Rock History, this FA-related discussion identified it as a personal website of {{tq|"someone who's credentials appear to be that he got an award at Stony Brook's Undergraduate Research & Creative Activities summer program, and that he's a history teacher with his master's. Not everyone with a master's degree qualifies as high-quality RS for FA purposes."}} Couldn't find anything substantial on the author of the article I'm interested in (Matthew Pollard). This GA review identified the source as reliable.

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Erotica (Madonna album)#Requested move 6 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)