Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81

Still Listening

I need to confirm the reliability of this source, as requested in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Black Country, New Road discography/archive1. I believe it is reliable, since they do 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 Lambrini Girls and 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 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 ( [1], [2], [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)

SuperDeluxeEdition - add to reliable sources list?

There are hundreds of uses of SuperDeluxeEdition as a source across Wikipedia. The site primarily covers album re-issues[3] and is edited by Paul Sinclair, who has also written for the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Age, to name a few.[4] Other contributors to SuperDeluxeEdition have included Alexis Petridis,[5] David Quantick,[6] and John Earls.[7] 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)

Reliability of "Happy Mag" and "Classic Rock History"

In particular these Happy Mag and 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, 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 "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.


What do you think? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of a record label's channel on YouTube

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.[8] 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)

New US Certification Program

Not sure if many people know this but Luminate and A2IM announced they're partnering together for a new certification program for independent artists [9]

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 [10] 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)

Requested move at Talk:Erotica (Madonna album)#Requested move 6 June 2025

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)

Deprecating Music Feeds

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 (2021 vs. 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 (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)

RfC on bonus and alternate track listings

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 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."
    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, 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.
Deluxe
No.TitleWriter(s)Producer(s)Length
15."Love Galore" (Alt version)Henderson
  • ThankGod4Cody
  • Lang
  • Scum
4:33
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)
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_&_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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_81&oldid=1301371976"