View source for Wiki143 talk:WikiProject Albums

{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|wp=yes|WT:ALBUM||WT:ALBUMS}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Albums}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 80
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-11/WikiProject report|writer= [[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]] ||day =11|month=July|year=2011}}
{{archives|bot=MiszaBot II|auto=short|age=30|search=yes}}

== RfC on bonus and alternate track listings ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750262466}}
What guidance, if any, should be included at [[MOS:ALBUMS]] regarding bonus and alternative track listings on album articles?--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. [[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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 (album)|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. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|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. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Voorts|Voorts]] what about situations where a track might not have receive coverage but has charted significantly?--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure how often, but I know of one. Thanks for that input.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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? [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk: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 (Lecrae album)|Gravity]]'', that charted on the Heatseekers.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 18:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:For transparency, I notified editors who participated in previous discussions and who are still active.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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 (Dubstar album)|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. <small>[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.]</small>
** 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 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 (SZA album)|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}}
}} [[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|Sergecross73}}, do you mean, opposition to how I've rendered the listing?--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. [[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk:Fundgy|talk]]) 21:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] yes, if it's significantly covered, inclusion is usually warranted. I think on that there is universal agreement.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 22:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

*Support [[User:3family6|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. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|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.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
*::Exactly. Better to build a consensus than build competing essays. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

== Related artist infobox chronologies ==

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 (album)|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 (Wings 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 (band)|Genesis]] and [[Utopia (band)|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? [[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

== ''Melodic Magazine'' and mxdwn ==

[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.<br>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.<br>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. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 04:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I convinced source reviewers for [[Eternal Blue (album)|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. [[User:MFTP Dan|'''<small>mftp</small> <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">dan</span>''']] <sup> [[User talk:MFTP Dan|oops]] </sup> 02:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::I came here to link to that discussion. It's reliable.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) [[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 14:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:go muckrack deep diving [https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/mxdwn here]. [[User:Chchcheckit|Chchcheckit]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 14:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

== Northern Transmissions ==

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?... [[User:Fundgy|Fundgy]] ([[User talk:Fundgy|talk]]) 23:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

== Stereoboard and ''[[Uproxx]]'' ==

'''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? [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 05:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:Uproxx is definitely fine imo.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 06:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:These are fine. I've used Uproxx for years.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Antichrist Superstar]] ==
[[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 [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Antichrist Superstar/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

== ''[[Dork (magazine)|Dork]]'' and other sources ==

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 (magazine)|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.

<s>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]</s>

<s>{{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.<br/>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.}}</s>

<s>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.</s> 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 (magazine)|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 (magazine)|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.}}

[[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 06:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:''Dork'' is a print magazine and I'd consider that reliable. [[Official Charts Company|Official Charts]] is a [[WP:GOODCHART]], I just don't think there's an official list maintained of those, only the deprecated charts.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I think we could. I'd bring it up on that talk page--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Done. I don't know what to put on Genre section, so I wrote "All genres" in there. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

''[[The Music (magazine)|The Music]]'' began in 1990 as a print magazine, which would usually indicate reliability, but that "Advertise Us" page does not look very promising. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 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. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 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. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 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. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 03:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

== Merger ==

There is a discussion underway to merge [[Son of the Mountains]] with [[Brad Paisley]]. Your participation is encouraged [[Talk:Brad_Paisley#Proposed_merge_of_Son_of_the_Mountains_into_Brad_Paisley|here]]. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

== Prior consensus regarding members in navboxes? ==

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 [[User:Woodensuperman|Woodensuperman]] involving this on [[Template:Guided by Voices]], and it would be good to clear up the ruling. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
:::What benefit would there be in including them? '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. [[User:Victor Lopes|<span style="color:black">'''Victor Lopes'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Victor Lopes|<span style="color:#FF0000">Fala!</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Victor Lopes|<span style="color:#FF0000;">C</span>]]</sup> 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. '''--[[User:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:red;;">wooden</span>]][[User talk:Woodensuperman|<span style="background:yellow; color:blue;;">superman</span>]]''' 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. [[User:QuietHere|QuietHere]] ([[User talk:QuietHere|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/QuietHere|contributions]]) 20:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. Its clear Woodensuperman has strong feelings on it, but its also quite clear to me that [[WP:EDITCON|the music community feels otherwise.]] [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 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. [[User:Martin IIIa|Martin IIIa]] ([[User talk:Martin IIIa|talk]]) 15:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[Stehplatz.81]] ==

Is this really notable? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 06:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
:No. Recommend redirecting to artist page. [[User:Mburrell|Mburrell]] ([[User talk:Mburrell|talk]]) 16:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[Rated R&B]] ==

[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? [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 09:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

==  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Thiefth]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The article [[:Thiefth]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 Years. Sold dozens of copies. Lacks [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage in reliable sources]].'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|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 [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Thiefth|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:25, 6 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[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. [[User:Paulie302|Paulie302]] ([[User talk:Paulie302|talk]]) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Looks reliable to me — these are all names I recognize as long-established professional critics. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Thirded. I've used it numerous times and had no problems. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Zmbro|cont]])</sub> 21:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:This looks reliable and reputable. They've got a lot of experienced staff.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

== PopFiltr ==

[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! [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 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. [[User:Leafy46|Leafy46]] ([[User talk:Leafy46|talk]]) 18:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think you're right too. I'll put the source on unreliable section then. [[User:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; color:#ff85f9">''' ''Camilasdandelions'' '''</span>]] ([[User talk:Camilasdandelions|<span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-family: Georgia; color:#2550a4">talk!</span>]]) 21:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

== Still Listening ==

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]. <span style="background-color:#f8f5ed; border:1px solid #d6cbbf; padding:4px 1px 0 1px; border-radius:5px;">[[User:Cathodography|<span style="font-family:Microsoft JhengHei; color:#6e571a;">Cattos</span>]][[User talk:Cathodography|<sup>💭</sup>]]</span> 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. [[User:Victor Lopes|<span style="color:black">'''Victor Lopes'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Victor Lopes|<span style="color:#FF0000">Fala!</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Victor Lopes|<span style="color:#FF0000;">C</span>]]</sup> 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/ <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>]), 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.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|See what I have done]]) 14:12, 13 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 [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 62#Headline_Planet_2|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. [[User:Leafy46|Leafy46]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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. [[User:Leafy46|Leafy46]] ([[User talk:Leafy46|talk]]) 21:40, 16 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?—[[User:The Keymaster|The Keymaster]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:3family6|3family6]] ([[User talk:3family6|Talk to me]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/3family6|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]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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? [[User:The Keymaster|The Keymaster]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:The Keymaster|The Keymaster]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

== New US Certification Program ==

Not sure if many people know this but [[Luminate (company)|Luminate]] and [[American Association of Independent Music|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? [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Leafy46|Leafy46]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 09:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::It is worth mentioning they have certified thirty six albums so far. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] ([[User talk:Muhandes|talk]]) 10:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::This is more or less my stance too. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 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. [[User:Leafy46|Leafy46]] ([[User talk:Leafy46|talk]]) 15:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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 [[Talk:For Your Pleasure/GA2|the GA review of For Your Pleasure]]. The reviewer questions their reliability; I checked them and see them as potentially unreliable. —'''[[User:LastJabberwocky|<span style="color: #2A6F23; font-family: Consolas; font-weight: bold">LastJabberwocky</span>]]''' ([[User talk:LastJabberwocky|<span style="color: #AD0008;">Rrarr</span>]]) 11:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)<ul><li>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. [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 61#Source question|This is a relevant discussion]]. [[Talk:The Backrooms/GA1|This GA review considered the source to be reliable]].</li><li>Regarding Classic Rock History, [[Talk:Californication (album)#FA concerns|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). [[Talk:Abrázame Muy Fuerte (song)/GA1|This GA review identified the source as reliable]].</li></ul><br/>What do you think?<span id="LastJabberwocky:1749899818334:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Albums" class="FTTCmt"> —'''[[User:LastJabberwocky|<span style="color: #2A6F23; font-family: Consolas; font-weight: bold">LastJabberwocky</span>]]''' ([[User talk:LastJabberwocky|<span style="color: #AD0008;">Rrarr</span>]]) 11:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)</span>

== Requested move at [[Talk:Erotica (Madonna album)#Requested move 6 June 2025]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] 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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 18:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

==  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Kyu Sakamoto Memorial Best]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The article [[:Kyu Sakamoto Memorial Best]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Compilation albums are not automatically notable.'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|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 [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Kyu Sakamoto Memorial Best|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 22:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:Redirected the album to its author [[Kyu Sakamoto]]. —'''[[User:LastJabberwocky|<span style="color: #2A6F23; font-family: Consolas; font-weight: bold">LastJabberwocky</span>]]''' ([[User talk:LastJabberwocky|<span style="color: #AD0008;">Rrarr</span>]]) 13:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[Like a Corpse Standing in Desperation]] ==

11 on the name scale. But is it notable? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 23:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)