Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

WikiProject Albums (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Overly long ranking lists[]

Looking at articles such as My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Folklore, Invasion of Privacy, and RTJ4, they have overly long ranking lists. I suggest that we should have a rule about cut down the ranking lists at least to 20. Kinda like we only add ten reviews in the album ratings template. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree, although don't know about a number, and we wouldn't want to limit it to just the Big Daddies, like Rolling Stone, etc. But glancing through your examples, there seem to be some not-very-notable inclusions in the rankings. Caro7200 (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: Adding a number probably not the answer but I think we should have the ranking lists limited, such as we limit the album reviews template. Plus it won't add extra weight to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
OMG. I don't know where I've been (other music articles, presumably) or when these things were added, but I've never seen them before. The closest I remember coming to such rankings is an article or two which mentioned (in prose) a position on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time from 2004 and their position in the 2010 re-ranking. These things smack (reek? stink?) of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in addition to being just plain ugly to my subjective view. How do these help an article? Do people come to an article expecting to find this info? And what are some of these? RTJ4 (linked above) lists "No Ripcord" and "No Ripcord", which apparently are not notable enough to be linked to WP articles, and the XXL "ranking" doesn't have a ranking at all. My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy has high rankings, but on things like Genius' 100 Best Albums of the 2010s or The Best Albums in Pigeons & Planes History(?!). Invasion of Privacy is just plain hideous. Do we need to know the album was rated 3rd by the Yahoo! Entertainment staff, or 42nd in some PopMatters listicle? There's no discussion of these rankings (or rankers), we just list this random "information".
Unfortunately, we live in a time where content providers (online magazines, other websites, actual print publications) are all competing for clicks and know they can publish "the X greatest Y's (of Time Period T)" and with little orial effort produce pages of clickable ad-space. Maybe not much different from magazines of old, but much too prolific these days to place so much weight on their "findings".
I can't offer a numeric boundary (although 20, proposed above, is fine as an upper limit), but I find these examples extreme. I think we need, at least, to exercize orial judgment and prune lists like these, case-by-case, based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I know, that means lots of somewhat tedious or contentious discussions. I just can't believe somebody comes to Invasion of Privacy to find how it was ranked by San Diego CityBeat. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 16:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. And sometimes it's contextual too; it may be noteworthy to note that an up and coming band ranks 97th on the album of the year charts over at Vice. But it's hardly noteworthy for a Taylor Swift blockbuster album. But unfortunately, most ors lack that sort of insight and merely say "well someone added it somewhere else so it needs to be added here too". So it's hard to come up with an overall remedy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Contextuality: good point. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 16:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think, can the lot. Those examples at My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Invasion of Privacy (with Awards and nominations still to come there!) and RTJ4 are a joke – an embarrassment. It's as if we're indulging every website's clickbait approach and turning them into notable information, but is it? These rankings are self-sourced; they/the publishers are saying "this is important", and because it's a ranking or a score, ors seem to lap it up. It's reflective of a shallow approach to article writing, in my opinion. (I've said it before: this music project is turning the encyclopedia into trash, because ors are unable to discern between notable information and trash detail for the sake of it.)
It's also as if we've decided to have a new type of charts – critics charts – in addition to sales charts, and in addition to reviews and reviewer ratings in a critical reception. There's a good reason for having sales charts and a detailed critical reception: both areas have a long history in measuring aspects of a song or album's success and are recognised as such by no end of secondary sources. But does this mass annual rankings thing, particularly, have that sort of recognition?
Serge makes a good point about contextually – that it would be significant for an unknown artist to land in a few annual best-album rankings but hardly so for a really established act. But we'd need a secondary source to tell us it's significant, of course. JG66 (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Could I just add a related topic here... the inclusion of mid-year or "so far this year" lists, which to me is taking "best of" lists to even more extreme levels. See the accolades for Set My Heart on Fire Immediately, for example. The next logical step from six-monthly "best of" lists is "best of the month"... and before I'm accused of exaggerating, both NME and Q in the UK used to publish their best albums of the last month in their printed versions, so it's entirely possible for an or to dig up old copies of the magazines and say "Q rated the album as one of the ten best releases in March 2015". Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
*gag* *choke* *hurl* No fewer than three items in that table are articles titled "So Far". What utter rubbish. Maybe we need an article like Best clickbait article (so far) or Clickbait of the month? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that some of these tables are getting out of hand. I vow that we at the very least remove all ones that are "so far...". We can keep them when they're first published as it wouldn't be another six months until formal "best-of" lists are written, and when those are published we remove all "so far..." ones. That way it's safe to say all of those "so far" ones are outdated. Imo that would be a good start. – zmbro (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Zmbro: I agreed, the "so far" lists are especially unnecessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Popcornfud, Binksternet, Kyle Peake, Piotr Jr., and Ronherry: in this discussion if they already know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't formed a clear-cut opinion over this, but I do want to mention that when Folklore was becoming ready for GA, the GA reviewer raised this very same argument as well. Upon his suggestion, I removed dozens of publications nobody generally knows, leaving only the prominent ones on the list. Ronherry (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It is mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice that accolades from publications are suitable in the body of articles, so I am in favour of keeping these. However, they should only be from reliable sources (though No Ripcord is reliable despite the lack of its own page) and unranked ones could do with removal in cases where most are ordered, also maybe there should be a cutoff of how high the rankings need to be for articles with tons like MBDTF? --K. Peake 06:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: As Zmbro pointed out earlier, the "so far" lists are outdated and unnecessary, so I suggest we should remove those first. I also think the unranked lists are not necessary either. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to comment on those lists sorry, yeah I believe those are unnecessary and so are unranked ones, unless these are literally the only rankings I believe they do not warrant inclusion. --K. Peake 07:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Several reliable and very well known music publications have never ranked their year-end albums in any sort of order... Q never did it, and I don't think Rolling Stone does either... they simply had a "top 50 best albums". So are you saying these should be removed? Richard3120 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm with Richard these should be kept. I mean look at 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. I think for the time being it's best to focus on the so far... lists and others from publications that a) aren't reliable or b) aren't notable. – zmbro (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree – these are the most obvious areas to get rid of first, and I don't think anyone can make a good case for keeping them. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Twenty seems excessive to me; ten would focus the article on the most important aspects. The excessive entries run into problems of indiscriminate information. If we standardize a template of ten, in the same manner as album review ratings, ors would more easily adapt. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that, I was going to suggest something of the same idea. Whether it be 5, 10, whatever, there is some value in listing some highlights, if it's done right. Parity with the review boxes would at least help in enforcement I think, but whatever number we can all agree on. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Ten is a better number than 20 for me, too. And I do like the prosey examples linked to by others here. That approach would work really well, IMO. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
At Folklore, the list runs smack into WP:NOHIDE by hiding a large table at page load. NOHIDE says if you're hiding a big list, you should question whether the list should exist at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I noticed that. I think Dan56/Isento/Piotr Jr. did it well at Maxinquaye – the second paragraph of the "legacy" section mentions the year-end lists that the album topped, and the last paragraph talks about the established "best albums ever" lists that it has appeared in. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I started following his lead from Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) when writing Bowie's articles (see Station to Station and Low). I think it's much better to have things in prose rather than one gigantic table no one really cares about. – zmbro (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I think Eddy's Accidental Evolution is great and hilarious, but so what that Aftermath "features" in it? What does that convey to a reader? I'm not a fan of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but it's often just thrown into an article without any of the prose ... even if an album entry includes an entire page of prose ... I don't mean any of this sarcastically, although I know these comments often read that way. Caro7200 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Binksternet: I can go for only ten publications on the table, it's better then what I'm suggesting. Articles such as Folklore and Melodrama was the reason why I start this discussion in the first place. They have these overlong list of year-end or decade-end rankings, which is overkill and I don't know why nobody complain about this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 26:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Just echoing what several others have said, really, but I don't like tables of list rankings, as I feel it visually breaks the flow of the article, and then because in articles like those mentioned they're huge in their attempt for completeness. I'm all for the mention of lists if its in prose and that's how I go about it personally, although I tend to work on articles for albums with less of this sort of canonising. 'So Far' lists I think are maybe interesting if the relevant albums then don't go onto appear in the year-end ones.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that Piotr Jr handled it well at Aftermath – Low looks pretty good too, from a cursory glance. This was something I meant to mention: imagine what pages for "classic" albums from the 1960s and '70s would look like if every single best-album list gets mentioned. I've worked on Beatles articles like Revolver and Sgt Pepper, where dozens of rankings get ignored because there's simply no room for them. (And I'm talking about best album of all time rankings ...) Also, in the sections at Revolver and Pepper, we cite secondary sources in most instances, as these tell us that a particular ranking is significant (rather than the publication telling us). JG66 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
You mean the best album of all time rankings so far. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Aftermath is a pretty good example of rankings expressed in prose, but if we establish 10 as the maximum, it will need a very slight trimming. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally, thank you for bringing up this issue. I fully support cutting the list to either 10 or 20 publications. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you all think the accolades list at Blackstar (album) needs to be trimmed down? I haven't looked at it in a while and it seems to match this convo as well. – zmbro (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's seems that everybody have agreed that the table should be cut down to ten publications, should this rule be added at WP:ALBUMSTYLE? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@JG66: Should this change be added in WP:ALBUMSTYLE? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Guess so, once the RfC is formally closed. JG66 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Album-related articles like Norman Fucking Rockwell!, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Folklore, Damn, RTJ4, and Melodrama, others in general have these multiple year-end or decade-end lists. Should we cut down these tables to only ten publications, in the same manner as the album ratings template? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Define "newer." The Village Voice started "ranking" albums almost 50 years ago ... but I support the larger point. Caro7200 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"First album since members left"[]

I know we've had this same discussion before (here and presumably other places as well) but it's come up again and I just wanna be clear about this: In the linked discussion, I stated my position that "If a band's line-up changed leading up to or immediately following the album, that's something that probably belongs in that article", and it looks like both User:Doggy54321 and User:Popcornfud agreed with me (though if I'm misreading either, do let me know, thanks.) and nobody had any direct objections to that statement. On the Illusory Walls article, however, an or (Presumably just one, though they're an IP or under multiple addresses over the last few days or so) has consistently removed a statement from the lead with that exact kind of info in it. The same has been made five times (here, here, here, here, and here) since Oct 22, and undone four of those times by different ors (the two most recent being by me, and so I'm leaving the current one in case of risking a WP:3RR violation). Despite being told multiple times to take it to the talk page, the IP or has ignored those instructions and continued to remove the statement. So I ask: are they correct to do so in this case? I admit I haven't found much coverage to make it directly clear that that info is relevant to the album, and I don't wanna make a big mess defending trivia, but I'd rather be clear on whether or not it should be there before giving it up, especially when the only argument against it so far is from an IP or whose other ing history is mostly unsourced and frequently leaning toward disruptive. Is this too much of an edge case/do we need to be more strictly specific about making links between albums and band members leaving? QuietHere (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it's generally worth mentioning unless it's something like a sessions drummer only only played on the 8th of ten albums in a bands catalogue or something. An summary saying "not relevant" without any further explanation, is not nearly enough to warrant removing a sourced mention like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that particular band, but I think it's worth mentioning when there is a meaningful shift in personnel. Popcornfud (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
So the same has been made three more times since this discussion, and despite posting a link here in my Undos the IP user has ignored them. Is there something I can/should do about this? Report it somewhere or something? It's getting annoying, and I'd rather have it handled sooner rather than keep -warring with some anonymous non-respondent. QuietHere (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Add to WP:MUSICRS?[] seems reliable? It seems to have orial oversight and a defined team of contributors. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are no input I will boldly add it. Geschichte (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you should go into a little more in-depth of a discussion before adding. It's good to have established ors and contributors, but what else do they have going for them? Do their ors/writers have credentials? Do they mention any orial policy? Have they been around long? Any sort of reputation in the industry? That sort of stuff. I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying there should be more discussed before we list it. There's an awful lot of "Metal (insert random word)" websites out there, and many are just groups of amateur enthusiast/fans with no real authority other than "loving metal since (insert year)", and that's not enough. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternative text for album cover in infobox[]

@WOSlinker: Hello! Until recently, when I was reading an article about an album, and I hovered over the album cover in the infobox, I would see any alternative text that had been set for the album cover image. But now I'm not seeing the alternative text. I'm still seeing it for other images though -- for example, on the Main Page. Is it possible that this broke the display of the alternative text for the album covers? I don't know much about how this stuff works -- I had to ask about it at WP:VPT just to get this far -- but I'm pretty sure we do want the alternative text to display. Though that might depend on someone's browser, or browser settings. I'm using Firefox on a Windows PC. Mudwater (Talk) 11:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mudwater:, Yes, it was that change. This can be fixed by updating Infobox album with this change. Would you like me to do that? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Yes, please do. Mudwater (Talk) 13:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I've done that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Thanks! Looks like we're all good now for the album infobox. Out of curiosity, what was the purpose of the change to Module:InfoboxImage? And, might other infoboxes also be affected by that change? Mudwater (Talk) 13:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
There was a short discussion on the talk page, saying the we really shouldn't be setting the alt value to the title when the alt is missing. I've also update infobox song to set the title now as well, similar to infobox album. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks again for your help! Mudwater (Talk) 15:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Hello again! It appears to me that {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox book}} are in need of similar adjustments. Could you look at those too please? Mudwater (Talk) 00:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Excellent. Thank you. Also, I wonder how many more of these are lurking out there, and if anyone else is talking about them somewhere. Hmm, here's another one now: {{Infobox artist discography}}. Mudwater (Talk) 01:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 11:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal on a Bridget Jones's Diary soundtrack[]

I started merger discussion about the article Bridget Jones's Diary: Music from the Motion Picture, located at Talk:Bridget Jones's Diary#Merge soundtrack article? --George Ho (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to text in track-listing authorship crs, generated by the Track listing template[]

There is a discussion about wording of the authorship crs generated by the {{Track listing}} template going on here, which is likely to be of interest to this Wikiproject. Please join the discussion if interested. TJRC (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Blue (album)[]

Greetings, colleagues. This is the debut album by Spiritbox. It is mostly complete, but missing something important: the album's cover art. I have seen two cover arts for it - there's the one that was known long before the album's release and currently is used on most digital retailers (excluding Amazon which uses the latter), such as Apple Music; on the other hand, there was another art which is shown on AllMusic and is also evidenced, though technically unreliably, by a Redditor who ordered the album on vinyl. Sources I checked seemed to disagree which was used on the CDs. How do we go about choosing which art to add? dannymusicor oops 21:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the digital ion features the blue cover, while the physical ion features the white cover. I'd use the one that's more known, in the same way Rebel Heart solved it. (CC) Tbhotch 21:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Top 100 Singles chart[]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Rolling Stone charts which may be of interest to the ors of this WikiProject. The Rolling Stone charts, introduced barely two years ago, have been discontinued, and the discussion is whether to keep the RS Top 100 Singles charts in chart tables. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sales data on forums[]

There are sales data of for selling albums of the week or year in the UK and other lists for different countries on forums like,, and others. Where are they getting data from? They have more data than official published sources (articles or pdf's publications) - they have numbers from no where. Eurohunter (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't use fora for sales figures. See WP:RS. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 21:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't use sources like this, it fails WP:USERG. This isn't allowed in the video game content area either. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
They aren't official sales figures... the people who post on those forums are people who worked in the music industry and had access to sales data. But all their numbers are estimates based on their personal analysis of the data they had access to... none of those sales are official or verified. No country in the world has official sales figures before 1991, because no country recorded over-the-counter sales before that date... there are only estimates based on record company shipments. Richard3120 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: There are exact sale for top 100 etc. so they have to have access to official data and I think it's the only way otherwise there would be no point in exact numbers like 219,872 etc. I know we can't use them and it's obvious - just curious about how they obtain data. Eurohunter (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: it depends when the data is from... if it's from the last 15 or 20 years, and it's from the UK, it's probably the analysis from Music Week... I know these forums copy and paste the analysis from that magazine every week in the forums. It's official, but them you should cite the magazine,and not the forum, because they are copying the analysis illegally. Richard3120 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: There is no such statistics in Music Week - they have different data or different summaries or periods. Most of the time I can't find data from such forums in published sources - it's like they have access to never published databases. Eurohunter (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: that's not correct, Music Week produces an analysis with sales figures every week... here is the analysis of this week's UK Singles chart [1] and the analysis of this week's UK Album chart [2]. You can't read it all, because you need a subscription, but if you have a look at the forums on UKMix, Buzzjack or Haven, they are posting the full text of this analysis so you can read it all. It even says at the beginning of the posts that it's from Music Week and the analysis is from Alan Jones. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories for discussion[]

The broader discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 20#Works by people not currently known to be notable may be of interest to this WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhapsody of Fire "Glory for Salvation" draft[]

I have recently created a draft for the recently released Rhapsody of Fire album, and had added sources and references to support the article. Do you think it would be possible to take a look at it to see if it is okay? HorrorLover555 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure the concept needs a separate section of its own, if it's just to contain one quote. And for people unfamiliar with the album or group, the quote saying "At this stage of the story..." without knowing what the story/album trilogy is, maybe that needs a line or two to put it into context. But this looks a lot better written and sourced than many metal albums on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be just to be published either. I doubt this would be nominated for any sort deletion if it would be published as is. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


Not sure of the appropriateness of posting here, but I'm never completely comfortable navigating our many guideline and policy pages. Anyway, I published this article, and was in the process of adding additional reliable sources when it was immediately moved to draft space--as in, immediately. This has never happened to me before, so not totally sure what to do--the or who moved the article clearly couldn't have analyzed the sources before they moved it, and posting to their talkpage didn't seem to actually address the real issue. Advice? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems the article has been restored. dannymusicor oops 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw, thanks, although I now have a "Once Bitten, Twice Shy" attitude about continuing with creating short articles... Caro7200 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
If you're feeling edgy about a stubby article you can create it in draft space or your sandbox (you can have several sandbox pages), and when you think you're done with it, you can then publish it to mainspace. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
True, thanks, it may have been more the or, as both Fram and Liz talked to them about their immediately moving articles to draftspace without reviewing. Caro7200 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Caro7200: in this case it definitely seems to be a case of you and the reviewing or having different opinions of how many sources are required to show notability. I've seen all the articles you've been creating recently and I don't see any problem with them – you always source them properly and make sure that there are several reviews from music magazines and newspapers. The reviewing or seems to be a very fair-minded and competent person as well, so I don't think there's anything more to it than your differing views in this one instance, so don't take it personally and please carry on creating these articles... as JohnFromPinckney notes, other admins have come down on your side of the argument. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Headphone Commute[]

Is Headphone Commute a reliable source? Its reviews are cited in a decent number of album articles. The site itself doesn't really say what it is as far as I can see, which probably isn't a good sign. I could only find a brief mention of it in the archives (here), so I think it would be good to reach a consensus about its reliability/usability here and add it to WP:A/S. Lennart97 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My impression: no, thank you. Apparently, it's just some guy (or guyette), albeit with a professional-level presentation. From their About page: "Remaining anonymous is important to the founder of Headphone Commute. This anonymity affords the mysterious HC the luxury of staying true to the writer's opinion and acts as a safeguard to prevent the ego from getting in the way of the one thing that counts: music" and later on that same page, "All of the content on Headphone Commute goes through a thorough fact-checking process, primarily by having the reviewed entity (artist and/or label) verify the writeup to be error-free prior to the post, or by relying on an official press release presented along with a promotional copy of the album. The interviews are posted in their raw, uned form, with the exception of spelling corrections and/or grammar and sentence revision for the foreign language speaking interviewees." (Italics added by myself, to simulate the hair on the back of my neck standing up.) I don't think I'd use it for anything (except possibly my own entertainment).— JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 02:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
JohnFromPinckney, are you insinuating that the italicized portions of the text are what make the source a problem? Because I'm confused, I would think that would be reason to be optimistic. I don't see the context of why you wouldn't use it. I'm not beyond the idea of them having multiple people in one anonymous trench coat, either. It only said that anonymity was the founder's vision, after all. However, more than anything, what bothers me is that the people/person insist on anonymity. dannymusicor oops 04:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry I confused you; that certainly wasn't my goal. Yes, I think it's a problem when content relies on an official press release (although it's nice they at least admit that). And while "a thorough fact-checking process" is clearly a good thing, it appears to consist of asking a record company if they like what HC is about to publish. About the trench coat: sure, it could be a well-disciplined collective of unassailable, uninfluencible, uncoercible music experts, but I really see no evidence that it's not just some individual person working on a laptop in their apartment, and I think (warning: bias!) that that's the more likely scenario. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
While writers not using their real names isn't necessarily a problem, writers using complete anonymity without any known credentials is a huge problem. And it sounds like it's just one guy publishing/repurposing press releases. If that's the case, then he's not going to be meeting our reliability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a follow-up question regarding this discussion. Is there something wrong with using press releases? If there is, I feel like I should've learned that in college by now as a communication student. Or perhaps that is the reason I am blind to it, or I am entirely misconstruing things. dannymusicor oops 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the point is that by definition a press release is not going to be an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Not wrong person se, but they need to be handled in accordance of WP:PRIMARY, as they're basically first party accounts. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, there seems to be a clear consensus that we should view Headphone Commute as a generally unreliable source. Shall I add it to the corresponding section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? Lennart97 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hours (David Bowie album) release date[]

Hey all. So David Bowie's 1999 album Hours was the very first album released on the internet by a major artist. Currently in its infobox, the release date is listed as 4 October 1999, which was its physical release in stores. However, its internet release came earlier on 21 September. As I'm working on expanding it, I'm wondering which date should be listed in the infobox. Per Template:Infobox album, the original date should only be listed. So which date do others think should be listed in the infobox: 21 September or 4 October? Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics, but I very much doubt this was the first one...or maybe the "major artist" part is the sticking point? I recall Billboard articles about internet releases as far back as 1994 or 1995... Feelings Are Good and Other Lies is one such (and don't tell my sister circa 1984 that Taylor wasn't a major artist ;) ). Caro7200 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking further, this may be a case of ordering a physical release via the internet ... although to continue the Duran Duran connection, that band may have been the first to release a single? Maybe something that needs to be explored more, especially re: the "major artist" part. [3] Caro7200 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
To quote Template:Infobox album, "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section". If you can prove with citations that the album was initially released on 21 September 1999, then that is the only date that should be listed in the infobox. The details about that release and others should be covered either in the lead paragraph, or in a table at the bottom the page per WP:RELEASEHISTORY, or for both. There really is not much room for interpretation for the infobox release date.Mburrell (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The sources I have (albeit Bowie biographies) state Hours was the first (there's like three or four that confirm it) so I believe it to be true. It seems I will be putting 21 September as the release date in that instance but I wanted to verify with others first. Thanks! – zmbro (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Weekly charts[]

How weekly charts should be devided? Here Philippines and Japan has separate entry for 2017 and 2018 while 2016 only charts are mixed with 2015-2016 charts. Eurohunter (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

They should be separate tables. The fact that some articles have combined or mixed-year tables is a problem with those articles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 07:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This has come up before, and I really don't know the answer, because I can see the argument from both sides. The issue with separate year tables is that they have the potential to become enormous and totally take over an article, and become overwhelming. This most affects songs which chart every year at Christmas (e.g. "Fairytale of New York"), or perennial best-selling albums (e.g. Greatest Hits (Queen album)). Richard3120 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Yikes. Those examples are rather extreme. They also shouldn't be that way. Especially the Fairytale one: I wouldn't repeat the same weekly charts over and over. The usual convention is to show the peak. That is, 1991, 2005, 2006's UK, etc., shouldn't even be there, IMO. I believe there's consensus to show each chart only once. They are separate tables to show what year the peaks occurred. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 16:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@JohnFromPinckney: so how should we approach this? Just one table with the range of years spanned from first to last chart date? The problem here now is that you don't get an idea of when the peak position happened... unless you read the text of the article, you wouldn't know that the UK no. 1 peak for "Last Christmas" happened more than 36 years after the song's original release, and well after it peaked in most other countries. "White Christmas" is an even more extreme example, where the song has charted over a range of (at present) 63 years, and peaked in different years in most counties... in the Netherlands it was in 1958, in Norway it was 1959, in the USA it was 1962, in the UK it was 1977, and in New Zealand it was 2018. Which are the separate year peak tables that you mention? Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. The Weekly charts at "Last Christmas" are currently presented in one table labelled "1984–2021", giving us the situation where we don't know when in that 36-year-period it hit its peaks in any of those markets. The "White Christmas" charts table is similarly opaque, for half of the 8 versions listed there (unless I counted wrong).
If, however, we had separate tables for each year, as per previous consensus, readers could see when the various peaks occurred. At "Last Christmas", for example, Italy (FIMI) should be in a table labelled "2019", because that's when it reached the peak of 5.
As examples of the way it was (once) agreed to do things, see "Hotel California" or, getting back to albums, the topic of this page, Good Girl Gone Bad. Unfortunately, it seems that many pages are no longer done this way. I can't say whether that's because consensus has consciously changed or because people didn't realize there was a "rule". I know that's what we decided back around 2010–2012, because I remember discussing it with people on my talk page. I should rummage in my archives and try to find the actual wider discussions we had (here, at WikiProject Songs, or at WikiProject Discographies). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I can't see in either of those examples any indication of peak positions occurring in different years. There are different positions in different year-end charts, but that's not the same thing. Edit: hang on, I think I know what you mean now. So you think "Last Christmas" should be in a separate table for the UK that just has "Chart (2021)" at the top and then its peak position of no. 1? Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
We're talking about weekly charts for albums (although the same approach should be taken for singles). At "Last Christmas", under Weekly charts there should be a table labelled "1984" for any of the cited charts whose highest peak occurred in that year. There should be a table labelled "1985" for any cited chart on which the song's highest peak occurred in 1985. If there is a cited chart on which "Last Christmas" reached its highest position in 2021, it should be in a table labelled "2021".
So in response to your last question: Yes, I think, although I haven't gone through every chart to be sure UK is the only one whose highest peak was 2021. (Also, some of these refs don't point anywhere useful, which makes the whole question more problematic.)
Also, the Year-end charts at "Last Christmas" should be separate tables, at least. I'm not convinced we need five instances of Hungary's year-end position, but I'll leave that for another discussion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / s) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with John. There should never be a need for a hyphenated year range in the "chart" column heading. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)