Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

There are several proposed merge discussions regarding Runrig singles that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

For those who might be interested in helping out:

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's been some recent discussion of the above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Curious what other editors think of Hull's lists of grades, such as the one for Miles Davis.[1] I love ratings and grades, have never understood the idea that they trivialize either art or criticism, and, most importantly, notice that RS books still write about them--recent books include Questlove's (The Source), James Kaplan's (DownBeat), and Will Hermes's (Christgau, Rolling Stone). Not sure about grades divorced of prose, though--even Strong, Larkin, AllMusic, have bio/prose entries attached to their ratings. Thoughts? There has been some recent removing/adding back of TH list grades, so best to ask. Or maybe I'm missing where TH wrote about all these albums elsewhere. Part of the issue may be that "subject matter expert" is kind of thrown around too often, but I'd feel the same way if Greil Marcus or Albert Murray's ghost started publishing long lists of grades without any associated text. He also has this on his site:

"In the Introduction to my ratings database, I wrote: I've been accumulating records since the mid-1970s, and have sporadically written about popular music since then. . . . The database evolved from simple lists just to keep track of stuff -- originally records that I had listened to, then it grew to include records that other people think are worth listening to. . . . The grades probably say more about me than about the music."

Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can this be used as a reliable source for music related matters? Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anecdotally, it seems like I've read that editors don't find it reliable. I can't recall the discussion(s) though. Hopefully someone else can chime in with something more concrete. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. Will be interested to hear other viewpoints on That Grapejuice. net
Koppite1 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Our Music (album)#Requested move 12 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the policy with regards to these? I saw that in the article for Drukqs, the previous ratings template - comprising ten reviews, with numerical ratings out of ten presented as e.g. "7/10" rather than            - had been changed so that more than ten ratings were present and those scores on a scale of 10 had been changed to stars (even when this clearly isn't helpful, i.e. Pitchfork's 5.5 can barely be parsed when presented as           ). I'm under the impression that this is not preferred, and that ratings boxes should not exceed ten reviews. However my attempts to restore the older ratings box have been reverted twice by @Cambial Yellowing, who in their last edit summary says that "Twelve ratings is fine" (no mention of the star ratings which I think are a major eyesore when they're so small, which only happens when used to visualise a numerical system as large as ten). I don't wish to edit war, however I would appreciate some insight into this situation and whether the ratings box as it currently stands is suitable or not. Thank you. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Star vs numerical is uncontroversial - I've amended. What was the basis for your apparently abitrary choice of what to remove? The record received very polarised reviews, from e.g. best album of artist's career to irrelevant. Reflecting this spectrum is better achieved with a couple more than ten reviews. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't arbitrary, I just restored the version of the template that was there before, rather than picking and choosing what to remove myself. I think the varied responses to the record can come across in ten review scores just as they could in twelve.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. The old selection of sources failed to reflect the spectrum of polarised ratings for the record. When ratings are polarised a slightly wider selection of ratings gives a better flavour of the variety of views. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cambial Yellowing may not be aware of the existing consensus, but it is made clear here and here that there should be no more than 10 ratings in the template. If an editor wants to include more than 10 reviews, the rest should be in prose exclusively. If they feel the present ratings aren't reflective of the album's overall reception, then they can swap them out for ones that do, and if that's considered a controversial edit then it should be discussed on the article's talk page. And Template:Rating explicitly says "Please only use this template if the rating was originally expressed with the images used." QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The template documentation indicates that more can be added in exceptional circumstances - the obvious exceptional circumstance being where there are widely polarised ratings for the record. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but you don't need to add more than ten. You could've opened a discussion up regarding removing some of the present ratings, or have included mention of those lower ratings in prose. It's not exceptional circumstances if clear alternative options exist. And besides, you should take into account the example of an exceptional circumstance which the template page uses; it's referring to an instance where e.g. the contemporary reception of an album was low, but retrospective reviews regard it much higher. All the reviews currently included are contemporary except for maybe a couple, so it's not exactly the same kind of exception that got that clause included. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reposting here since nobody responded to my question on the template's talk page. Me and @TheAmazingPeanuts (with @Caro7200 joining later) are having a disagreement on how to read the line "Do not use {{rating|4|5}} where the source does not use stars" in the template's documentation. TheAmazingPeanuts believes that this line means that {{Rating}} shouldn't be used if a publication doesn't use star symbols (such as The Source using microphones and MusicHound using bones; both are essentially star-based ratings underneath). Me and Caro7200 disagree. I believe that since the the sentence before that talks about the star rating system, as opposed to a numerical system, here "stars" should also mean the system, not the specific symbol used. So, which one is it? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 10:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My interpretation matches yours. So for example I use the {{rating}} template for MusicHound ratings. And for Tiny Mix Tapes ratings I use the fact that the template allows for different symbols:       GanzKnusper (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it should be open to including non-star symbols since they act functionally the same in every other way, and the alternate symbol is only a cosmetic difference. My understand is that the point is to exclude sources which use no symbols for ratings. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An IP editor recently added this citation from metal.de for an infobox genre claim. The site doesn't seem to be listed anywhere at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, and in particular the non-English section doesn't specify any sources. The only discussion I could find in the archives was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Add Metal.de to WP:MUSICRS? from November 2021, but it looks like it had little input and no clear outcome. Courtesy ping to those participants @Geschichte and Sergecross73:. Left guide (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emily Roberts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Roberts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't help much. We need to know things like what's their editorial policy and do they have credentialed and experienced staff. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually talked about that in the other discussion:
Apologies for being inactive, but here is a list of the news section authors and their credentials I could find:
  • Laviea Thomas: Wrote for The Line of Best Fit, NME, The Quietus, etc. ([2])
  • Jeremy J. Fisette: As mentioned before, he is an author at Beats Per Minute (see blockquote above)
  • Daniel Gonçalves Benítez: Was unable to find any credentials
  • Aaron Cousin: No credentials I could find.
  • Dana Badii: Unclear credentials, but this ResearchGate page claims they work in the music department of UCLA
  • Jasper Willems: Wrote for Beats Per Minute, Drowned in Sound, The Quietus, etc. ([3])
  • Daniel Bromfield: Wrote for Pitchfork, Resident Advisor, and Atlas Obscura ([4])
  • Tyler Roland: Seemingly wrote for this one satirical website, but I couldn't find anything relevant
  • Thomas Stremfel: Wrote for publications like Spectrum Culture ([5])
  • Albert Genower: Wrote for Cherwell and The Isis Magazine ([6])
  • Nickolas "Saz" Davis: Wrote for TheGamer and GameRant ([7] [8])
  • Alan Pedder: Wrote for Flipboard and The Line of Best Fit ([9])
  • Dylan Tarre: No credentials.
  • Tony Le Calvez: Wrote for this site
  • Alex J. Robinson: Freelancer, but he only mentions TND ([10])
  • Wade Stokan: Writes for Biff Bam Bop ([11])
  • Will Floyd: No prior credentials ([12] [13])
  • Alondra Sierra: No credentials
  • Steve Acedo: No prior experience ([14])
  • Tin Lee: No credentials
  • Lurk - Psudonymous writer. No credentials.
— 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 23:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Pinging Sergecross73 and QuietHere) — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, I'd say we should evaluate on a case-by-case basis in the same way we do for Fantano's reviews. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 12:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This helps, yes, but we still don't have any published editorial policy, and that is even more important. That they can hire experienced writers is wonderful for them, but it doesn't mean the site itself is any good. As is, I would reject this source altogether. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
And it also feels like majority of the staff hasn't written for sources we call RS's... Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now that you say that, I actually counted, and there's only five or six (if you include Spectrum Culture) writers here with bylines we count as reliable, and that is very few for a list this long. It might still be alright if we knew anything else, but again, the all-important editorial policy is missing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Quick update: Applications have closed. As for Fantano's new staff, it seems ok. One of the staff members there has written for a handful of sources that are considered by Wikipedians to be of poor and/or questionable quality, which could raise some potential concerns. The editor in chief, however, is a writer at Beats Per Minute (reliable per this discussion), so I would expect some decent quality control going foward with the news section. Said editor's profile on the website can be found here."

— (pasted from the earlier discussion)

I was unable to find any editorial policy. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's...not much of an argument for its staff...or anything for their editorial policy. My stance remains unchanged. I don't find it to meet our reliable source standards. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seconding Serge here. We're gonna need a lot more. Much better established sources have been rejected before. As I said before, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Perhaps some day it will grow into reliability, but for now I don't see it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Courtesy link to the site in question The Needle Drop (which wasn't clear in the discussion, either).
No, thanks, it looks like just some site by some guy. There are a lot of those, and they're not all reliable. This one lists no policy, and no staff except Anthony Fantano, on a page claiming the site to be "the premier destination for music reviews, news, and insights" without telling us why, or when it surpassed Rolling Stone or Billboard or similar. Via a link in the header, I am apparently able to "Join", but there's no hint as to what that gets me. A chance to post my own reviews? No clue. My conclusion: drop it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, no offense to him, but he's essentially a Youtuber that has hit it big with popularity. Which is why discussions keep arising on him - he's popular and prolific. But he has the same problems as Youtubers go - they self-publish without any editorial control, say outlandish things for views and engagement, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply