Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 8 March 2014

Albums Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

B-Class articles

Having had a few of my album articles uprated to B-class recently, I notice that unless the reviewer adds the parameters B1 to B6 and sets them all to yes, you end up with the confusing statements on the Album template on the talk page that "This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale" immediately followed by "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status". Having looked at a sample of B-class album articles, it would appear that this is widespread. Is there any way of adjusting the template so that when an article has been rated B-class, the second of these statements is automatically removed, or failing that, are we allowed to set the B-class parameters to "yes" ourselves, so that it shows as having passed the assessment and removes the confusion? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be set up like the WikiProject Songs scale, in that an assessment of "B-class" will still display as "C-class" if the criteria has not been checked. It is up to the person assessing the article that it has passed the requirements for B-class. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know the assessor decides whether the article passes or not - what I mean is even when it has been assessed and passed as B-class status, there appears to be no way of removing the previous notification that it has not yet been assessed, unless the B1 to B6 parameters are set to "yes", which in the case of many B-class articles has not been done. So can we go back and set these parameters ourselves, now that the articles have been assessed and passed as B-class status, otherwise it looks contradictory? To take one well-known album as an example, have a look at Talk:"Heroes" and tell me that it doesn't look ambiguous as to whether the album has passed B-class status or not. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound's updated rating system

Consequence of Sound are now using letter grades to review albums. ??? 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool Sound and Vision

Is the website "Liverpool Sound and Vision" a reliable source? One editor wants to use this review in the article ...And Justice for All. However, I've seen the same source used in a number of other album articles, such as The Journey, Bula Quo!, The Minutes, etc.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems questionable. I don't know that his website would pass WP:SPS. His About Me page mentions a few publications he has written for, and I might see it acceptable to use his work from some of those publications, but his own website mostly looks like a personal blog. That being said, SPS says that we can use SPS material by "an established expert on the subject matter". If someone can demonstrate that he is considered as such, then perhaps his site can be considered reliable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The source's about: http://www.liverpoolsoundandvision.co.uk/about-me/ claims that he has "written reviews for the Birmingham Evening Mail, Liverpool Live, Chris High and the University of Liverpool’s L.S. Media web site". On the surface, that looks good, but www.birminghammail.co.uk/authors/ian-hall/ returns an error as does www.birminghammail.co.uk/authors/ian-d-hall/. Searching the site doesn't return any recent reviews. So how many reviews did he write for them and when were they written? http://liverpool-live.info/about-us doesn't really explain how material can be submitted or how it's vetted. A quick look at a few entries shows that writers don't seem to be valued. So the questions I'm left with are what does "written reviews" mean in this context? Does it mean that one review for each of the locations mentioned? Until more is known about this reviewer, I'd say avoid all content unless it's an interview, and then only use with caution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the "Recent Posts" (down in the right corner), it seems that all reviews on that website are written by the same author - Ian D Hall, which implies self-published work. It's true that Hall has written reviews for a couple of newspapers, but as MrMoustacheMM pointed, until it is proved that the author is a well-know expert in the music field, the text shouldn't be used in articles identified as good articles.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road - citations to chart positions needed

I started expanding this article, got carried away (as I have a tendency to do) and it's not far off being in a position to nominate to good article status in my view. The main thing that stops it being ready are the two flags in the chart statistics section. I've got no real reason to believe they're wrong, and they need to be there for completeness, but I don't have an offline source and have no idea what online sources are good. Can anyone help? I will now trout myself for putting my copy of Guinness book of British Hit Albums in a charity shop about ten years ago, which would have cited all or most of the facts. Ritchie333 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the British Hit Singles/Albums books would have had lists of the best selling albums by year, just all time best sellers, I would think. The year-end copies of Record Retailer (now Music Week) list the best sellers by year, but from what I can find online, Record Retailer had Abbey Road down as the fourth biggest seller of 1969, and the sixth biggest seller of 1970. I haven't a clue how you can prove it was the first Beatles album to 10 million sales unless someone comes across the statistic in an old copy of Music Week or another music magazine. Good work on the article, by the way. Richard3120 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. BHA did have a complete list of what album was number one every week, so you could work out the duration it spent at number one from that. I've done a web search for the Record Retailer best sellers, but all I can find are unreliable sources. Do you have a link? Ritchie333 13:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy of the last (19th) edition of British Hit Singles & Albums from 2006, so finding out the dates and weeks at no.1 is no problem if you need any confirmation, but I still don't think any of the older versions listed the biggest sellers by year - I remember older versions of British Hit Singles used to review the biggest sellers of the previous two years since the last edition of the book, but not for all years. The Misplaced Pages page List of best-selling albums of the 1960s in the United Kingdom would appear to confirm that Abbey Road was the fourth biggest seller of that decade, but I can't see any specific source for the information in that list. However, this link of an archived page http://web.archive.org/web/20071217020421/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/album_chart_history_1969.php says that Abbey Road was indeed 1969's biggest seller - as this was information from the Official Charts Company's own website in 2007, I think that would count as an official source for the citation, and if you can find the equivalent archived page for 1970 that might confirm your other assertion that it was the eighth best seller of that year too. If you are based in the UK the only place I can think of where you can check past copies of Record Retailer from 1969 and 1970 would be the British Library's archives at St Pancras in London - the only sources I found online are unreliable ones too! Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of English-language field in the infobox

Hi. Can someone take a look at the edits of TheDeviantPro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is removing the English-language field from album infoboxes without any reason as to why. Thanks. Lugnuts 09:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the template instructions say to avoid placing English as the language if it's an exclusively English-language album. I guess it's like why we don't put lang=English into our citations, because we're English language Misplaced Pages and it would seem unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Jungle Boy (John Eddie song) to John Eddie (album)

There are currently three of us in the discussion about performing this merger. Two are in favour and one is opposed. I'm wary about closing the discussion based on a two-to-one vote, so I'd appreciate if some of you from the project who are more knowledgeable about when it's appropriate to merge song articles into album articles could comment as well. The talk page has a brief summary of what's happened so far/why the merger was proposed. Thanks! Wieno (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Under The Gun Review' reliable?

WP:RSN#Is 'Under The Gun Review' reliable? I have started a discussion on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources page. Please see discussion and contribute to discussion. It holds news posts, reviews and so on which could be valuable however I am unable to determain that myself. - SilentDan297 talk 17:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert Christgau reviews with different grades

For some albums, Robert Christgau has given different grades in different reviews. For instance, for the Bruce Springsteen album Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J., his original review which appeared in Creem (April 1973) gave it a B but in the book Christgau's Record Guide (1981) he gave it a B+. Personally, I think contemporary reviews are more useful than retrospectives but the later review could perhaps be considered definitive. The grades can change positively or negatively and it's likely fans will want to use whichever grade is higher which would lead to inconsistency across different articles. Which should be used: the original, revised, or both? Piriczki (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First I'd make sure it's clear which review is the newest. If you had to place only one in the infobox, place the newest I'd say. But it doesn't hurt to use both to talk about reception on the album's release and more modern reception. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation marks inside quotes on song titles now?

I've always been under the impression that with song titles all punctuation went outside of the quotation marks, like this... Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited album includes the songs "Like a Rolling Stone", "Tombstone Blues", "Ballad of a Thin Man", and "Desolation Row" among others. Certainly the old, abandoned WP:MUSTARD page outlined that this is how song titles should be formatted within a sentence (under the "Punctuation" sub-section). However, recently I've seen a fellow editor placing commas within song title quotes, like this... Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited album includes the songs "Like a Rolling Stone," "Tombstone Blues," "Ballad of a Thin Man," and "Desolation Row" among others. Knowing that the editor in question is an experienced Wikipedian, I went to The Beatles article (which I've found can usually be relied upon to exhibit all the latest music manual of style trends) and I see that in that article, the commas and other punctuation are all indeed within the quotation marks of the song titles.

The WP:MOSMUSIC page appears not to address this subject at all, like the old MUSTARD page did. So, my question is, has there been some new or new-ish consensus reached among editors whereby commas and other punctuation are now to be placed within song title quotes? And if so, can someone please point me in the direction of the relevant discussion or somewhere where this new formatting trend is outlined on a guideline or policy page? I'm posting this on the Music manual of style talk page too. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, Kohoutek1138. I'd been under the impression that punctuation most definitely follows the end quotation mark – otherwise we have the potential for the likes of: "Have you heard the brass lines in 'Hey Jude?' Towards the end of the song, I mean." Yet the song title is "Hey Jude", not "Hey Jude?" I do notice, though, that this habit of placing punctuation before the quotation mark is quite common in Rolling Stone reviews and in US editions of (Brit) English books – perhaps it's an American English convention?

Either way, I think it's entirely wrong in a Beatles article, or any article where style should unquestionably be British English. Serial commas are another quirk that one simply doesn't find in British English, at least not in recent decades. As far as those changes in The Beatles go, in my opinion, they're incorrect. (And I see the editor in question has also italicised a comma following the album title Magical Mystery Tour – again, that's wrong.)

Sorry, doesn't really answer your question about an encyclopaedia-wide consensus. But I think that when it comes to a subject as English as the Beatles, the issue's about retaining the Brit English approach. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LQ says to keep punctuation inside quote marks if it is there originally, and outside if not. I'm not 100% sure this applies to titles of songs, but I apply it as if it does. Thus, Bob Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited album includes the songs "Like a Rolling Stone", "Tombstone Blues", "Ballad of a Thin Man", and "Desolation Row" among others. is how I would write it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MrMoustacheMM. Punctuation should only be included in the quotes for song titles or the italics for album names if they were there originally. I immediately thought of Help! which is both an album and a song. The album would be formatted Help! and the song "Help!", and that is per MOS:LQ. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. This is consistent with how the MOS spells out how punctuation works with quotes. The song title goes in quotes and everything within the quotes should be part of the song title. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems concensus is for punctuation outside of the quotation marks in song titles then, both here and over at the Music MOS talk page. User Wasted Time R has actually updated the "Popular musuc" section of the MOS accordingly. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Should LambGoat.com be on this page as a reliable source?

WP:RSN#Is LambGoat.com a reliable source?
Based on this discussion, should LambGoat.com be placed on this page as a reliable source? SilentDan297 talk 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of sites like this are just a result of a bunch of friends setting up a website, while some are established sites with a reputation built up over years. There's a grey area in between where a lot of webzines sit. Is this a good source of professional reviews? Possibly not, but if we're just using it as a source for their own opinions then maybe would be ok. Are its news stories reliable enough to cite? They seem a bit gossipy and rumour-driven, so perhaps best avoided. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish: Warrant, Rocking Tall

It is not a very big article/listing... whatever the word is... and most of it is taken up with this rubbish sentence...

The collection spans the band's history from 1989 through 1992; although it does not include Heaven, one of the bands most popular songs....

Track listing

No. Title 1. "Down Boys" 2. "Train, Train" 3. "Heaven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.255.120 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the Amazon and Discogs sites it looks like the track listing is incorrect and track 3 should be "Sometimes She Cries" - this is in fact what was listed on a previous version of the article and the most recent editor has changed it, and would explain the contradiction in the article's summary. In any case, your point about there not really being enough information to warrant (ha!) an article on the album seems justified... and to further add to the confusion, there was another compilation album of the same name released in 2005, with an entirely different track listing (which does include "Heaven"...). Richard3120 (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic album id labels

Forgive me if I'm being dumb or a bit blind here, but it appears that Allmusic have removed the id label for their albums, the one that used to start with the letter "r". It doesn't appear to affect links on existing album articles, but if this is the case, it will not be possible to use Template:Allmusic in album review citations in the future because the |id= field can't be filled in. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

SputnikMusic: Contributors

I'm aware that "Staff" reviews are to be used and "Users" are to be avoided, however what off "Contributors"? Such as this review here for the album Issues by the band Issues. It is by a "Contributors", rather than a "User" or a "Staff" member, so does this make it valuable or should it also be avoided? SilentDan297 talk 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, just looked it up and yes they are also classed as staff members, just ignore this question. SilentDan297 talk 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@SilentDan297: Actually, not necessarily. "Contributors" are not the same level as staff seemingly, as they not eligible for use on Metacritic (as staff and Emeritus are), so I am not sure if we should use them as reviewers or as a reliable source. STATic message me! 05:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: But on this page it registers them as staff, along with the "Staff", "Emeritus" and other various staff members (editors and moderators) so shouldn't they count? SilentDan297 talk 13:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@SilentDan297: Yeah I saw that, so I would like to see someone else's opinion on it. I mean if they are not deemed professional enough for use by Metacritic, I do not think we should use them. STATic message me! 17:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ourzone Magazine

This is an online-based website that issues a digital magazine every month. It was established in 2008 and it is used as a means of reporting news, reviewing albums and interviewing artists and as you can see from this search it has been used throughout many WP articles. Should this be put onto a reliable or unreliable table on this project page? SilentDan297 talk 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the Whois information, the total lack of substantive "about" and "contact" information, it appears to be the pet project of a Rob Watson-Lang, who looks about sixteen years old in his Twitter profile. Scrolling through the reviews it seems that he's the only writer. He's the brother of Sonny Watson-Lang, of Twenty Twenty, so perhaps he works in the music biz. My impression is that the magazine is very enthusiastic but has no legs, and the writing seems to be uniformly positive - everything gets 8/10 or 9/10. It's operating on the level of a free flyer or Facebook comment ring rather than as an actual magazine of critical reviews and independent viewpoints and is indistinguishable from thousands of similar webzines. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First Incubus release

Is the first Incubus release Let Me Tell Ya 'Bout Root Beer a single or an EP? I noticed that it contains only two songs and is only 7:39 in length on a 45 RPM 7" record. Should it be classified as a single in its article because it is shorter than eight minutes? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The title of the release is not the first song's name, and it appears one of the songs from the EP was released as its own single: New Skin (Incubus song). Looks like an EP to me. The length of the record overall isn't really relevant. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know the title of the release is not the name of the A-side or the B-side (and does this even matter?), but the article for extended plays says an EP contains more music than a single. This release doesn't contain more music than a single. I thought length was relevant (like the EP article says), which seems to contradict your statement. Could this really not be classified as a single instead, as the EP article seems to indicate? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source stating it is a single? Nothing about the release looks like a single to me, especially since it isn't specifically featuring one song as the single (and since the first track was released as its own single, as I linked above).

Do any other editors have any thoughts? Is this a single, despite not looking like one? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to go by what reliable sources say it is, not by what another wikipedia article says what it might be in general terms. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 19:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not found any sources that say it is a single, but I also have not found any sources stating it is an EP. Does the A-side have to be the featured song for it to be a single? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pop Matters

I would like to add PopMatters. Does anyone object? GabeMc 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean to the reliable sources list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Sources. PopMatters is already there. Adabow (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now in online only. What do you think about www.jazz.com? GabeMc 23:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. From their About page: "We publish reviews, interviews, historical overviews and other material of interest to our visitors, and encourage them to share their expertise and opinions on our Forums and elsewhere on the site" and "Registered members also can list in our site directory, where they can promote their goods and services, or create their own web page at jazz.com." The site doesn't seem to have much editorial oversight and is quite promotional. Adabow (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-writing the lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Unsorted Error: Invalid RfC category specified: |project When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• I had improved the lead, but Dan reverted me. I have some significant concerns that editors have been removing and altering article content based on advice given here. Many seem to think that this page takes precedence over policy and guidelines, so I think that the lead should make clear that this does not take precedence over the MoS. GabeMc
  • You don't just rewrite the content of a WikiProject on your own merit without discussing your proposed changes first on the talk page. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Per WP:BOLD, yes I can. GabeMc 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Per WP:BOLD, if you are reverted, you don't revert again, and you discuss on the talk. You reverted several different users reverting you. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I reverted twice, so file an 3RR or drop it. GabeMc 19:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Project-Class Album pages
• WikiProject Albums articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment