Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

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

WikiProject Albums was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 11 July 2011.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81

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

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. [1] (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: Random article / Advertise Us.

As this source supports advertisement, so first of all I don't think it's a reliable source.

2. Headline Planet: Random article / Privacy & Cookie Policy

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.
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.

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. Checked it is marked as unreliable source.

3. Daily Record: About Us.

dailyrecord.co.uk is the online edition of The Daily Record, one of Scotland's most trusted news brands.

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: Random article, Privacy Policy, Submissons.

I can't check "About Us" page, seems not exist.

5. Attitude: About Us.

No advertisement, and they say: 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: About Us. 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: Random article

In contact page, they stated:

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.

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dork is a print magazine and I'd consider that reliable. Official Charts is a WP:GOODCHART, I just don't think there's an official list maintained of those, only the deprecated charts.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we add OCC too? Because Billboard is also good chart and is included in here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could. I'd bring it up on that talk page--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I don't know what to put on Genre section, so I wrote "All genres" in there. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Music began in 1990 as a print magazine, which would usually indicate reliability, but that "Advertise Us" page does not look very promising. Skyshiftertalk 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, but it is a point to consider. Especially if the website doesn't declare what is an advertisement and what isn't. Skyshiftertalk 18:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Hot Press: this discussion identified Hot Press as reliable because Metacritic uses it. However, this post notes that some the reviews included by aggregators aren't reliable. That's said, Hot Press must be reliable; I just don't yet know how to explain this concretely :). this article praises Hot Press. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Attitude: Editor-in-chief Cliff Joannou contributed to rolling stoneUK; content editor Jamie Tabberer contributed toindependent, both of which are considered to be reliable by Wikipedia. I think Attitude is reliable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the archives, print mags (or websites that double as print mags) tend to be considered reliable. Rock City Boy (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kyu Sakamoto Memorial Best has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Compilation albums are not automatically notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected the album to its author Kyu Sakamoto. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I did my typical check for this sort of thing per WP:BEFORE, and found nothing on Google, Google Books, and Google News. Especially since this article has been unreferenced since 2009 and nobody has found anything in the more-than-decade since, I would definitely WP:PROD it for failing WP:NALBUM. Leafy46 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well over a week at this point, so I've just PRODed the article myself. Hopefully that's alright! Leafy46 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are upward of a thousand uses of Gigwise across Wikipedia. It was once a strictly music-centric site, but has in recent times reinvented itself as a kind of celebrity webzine with a music section. Does the community find it to be a reliable source? [2] Thanks. Paulie302 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe its been discussed before, and is considered a reliable source. I believe I used it without issue in the past. They've got an established editorial team, with a lot of members that are professional and college educated in areas like music theory, cultural studies, the arts, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, sorry. Didn't see a discussion on this talk page, or a link to a discussion on the WP:RSMUSIC one. I was leaning toward reliable, since a lot of the music contributors have written for other noted online zines. Paulie302 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I didn't mean it as a "you should have known better" type thing, I just meant it as more of a "I don't think I was the only one who felt this way" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the names listed at the Gigwise Wikipedia page are very well-credentialed.[3][4][5][6][7] Paulie302 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that Gigwise seems to have published AI-generated content. For instance, this article and this article (both being written by Casey Monroe within the last few months) seem to prominently feature AI-generated text, as confirmed through online detectors. Should the usage of Gigwise be given some sort of stipulation in light of this? Leafy46 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Via the Web Archive, I can see that the old, music-oriented Gigwise was reduced to a husk by September 2023.[8] Some shady stuff started happening to the site during 2024: it was taken offline (and declared a former site by Wikipedia),[9][10] resurfaced as a page headed 'Rear of the Year',[11] then became a buzzword-heavy landing page for some "solutions" firm called Études,[12] and then finally morphed into its current "Glam, Gossip, Groves" form.[13] I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the site is now written by AI, as it absolutely does not appear to be in the hands of the people who ran it pre-2024. If we decide that Gigwise is reliable (I believe the old site was); we should probably stipulate that no post-2023 articles are to be used as references. Paulie302 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nothing has been posted on Gigwise's Twitter or Facebook pages since late 2023.[14][15] All the staff photos on the current site look AI-generated.[16] This one very clearly is (look at the hands): [17]. It would appear that Gigwise closed in early 2024 and the domain was taken over by some sketchy, AI-driven outfit. Paulie302 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is some stellar sleuthing! I completely agree with the course of action proposed here, given that Gigwise otherwise seemed to be a fairly reliable source. Leafy46 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any final comments on using the old/real Gigwise (2001–2023) as a source? Paulie302 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the archives, print mags (or websites that double as print mags) tend to be considered reliable. Rock City Boy (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Pie has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reliability of Retro Pop Magazine? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RPM was created by Connor Gotto who doesn't have journalisic background beyond RPM, and he seems to be the only staff editor on the website according to its about page. Plus all the article I have seen are attributed to Gotto. I don't think it's reliable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bandcamp Daily considered a reliable source for music-related articles? I've come across it frequently but have not considered to use it due to uncertainty about its status. According to its Wikipedia section, Its managing editor was jj skolnik, a writer for Pitchfork, BuzzFeed and The New York Times, as well as former author of punk zines. It also claims that its writers have a journalistic background in other reliable sources (Muckrack). Additionally, this "Best of 2022" article names several editorial staff members. If its reliable, can be listed on WP:MUSICRS? Cattos^💭 22:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, Bandcamp Daily seems to be reliable. I checked random contributors: Lewis Gordon worked with Wired and Guardian; Fred Pessaro worked with Vice and Decibel magazine; Jim Allen worked with NPR and Rolling Stone. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with considering them reliable considering the caliber of profession credentials found in its writers, though I think there should be some sort of caution regarding their use on Bandcamp-issued music. Probably something to the effect of what's overviewed at WP:PRIMARY - whether they say it outwardly or not, its corporate function is probably largely to sell music on the Bandcamp platform. We should be wary of overly-promotional framing. Hypothetically speaking, based on the nature of the setup. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A COI (possibly paid) IP editor changed the credit format of the album soundtrack at KPop Demon Hunters but I'm not the most familiar with album formatting. Could someone verify if these changes are correct? I pinged the editor who added the soundtrack but they haven't responded yet. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an acceptable format, if nothing else. I know nothing of the subject, so I have no idea if the content is correct, especially as they claim that the writers of lyrics and music are the same, yet, that's not what the track list previously indicated (unless that's the "errors" they speak of fixing.) But there's generally some leeway in how the track lists are presented, because there's often a fair amount of variation in how musicians document writing credits. Sometimes its as simple as "(Band) wrote (album)", other times, they give a writing credit to countless lyric writer, music composters, and music producers that ever touched it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference between the "Music" credit (which is built into the template) vs the "Producer(s)" credit (which the IP editor added via the extra col)? By shifting the producers to the extra col, there was no longer a col for the performers & they've moved some (but not all) performers into the note col. This added a clunky list of artists inside parentheses next to each song title & there's no heading denoting those are performers. The template only allows one extra col, so ideally I'd like to move the performers back to that for readability. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the "music" and "production" credits are different things. "Music" would be like a writing the material, where as music production is more like supervisory/guidance type stuff. If sports were a helpful reference point, "music" would represent the players, while production would represent the coaching stuff moreso?

The format they chose is popular in the world of pop music, where there's a ton of different music producers involved in each track (Lover (album), Starboy (album), etc) but I do agree that it being more of a "compilation album" of different artists does complicate things here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an eyesore. I agree that it looked a bit better the previous way. If they've reformatted it under the pretense that the information simply wasn't accurate before, I'd think there has to be a better way to format it than what they did. Also, FWIW, I've been told that adding too many columns in a track listing template can present readability issues on certain devices.

And presuming this person is telling the truth that they worked on the soundtrack, doesn't this present a conflict of interest? (See WP:COI.) The Keymaster (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Popdose considered reliable? It's not listed at WP:RSP one way or the other. It's on Wordpress, but they've been at it since 2008 and it appears they've done some fairly high profile work, including a number of interviews.[18]—The Keymaster (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pains me to do this, and I am unsure of the extent, but I have concerns surrounding potential use of AI by an author, Byrson "Boom" Paul, at HotNewHipHop. Author first came to my attention back when I was working on More Chaos and they published a "review" of the album that mentioned the names of leaks and other songs that are definitely not on the track listing. I am not sure/do not presently believe other authors are doing this also but I think a further investigation is needed. Paul's first article was published back in November 2024 so uhhh yeah. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other signs of AI use? Any other explanation for track list being wrong? I'm not familiar with this artist, but I know of other albums in the past that have leaked with alternate track lists or wrong song titles. I mean, getting that wrong and not ever amending/updating/clarifying doesn't say much for them either, but I'm not sure this alone is enough to jump to AI-usage concerns yet? Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I checked with a few AI detectors, and a few more of this guy's articles come back nearly 100% AI-generated (including the more chaos one). Obviously, not explicit proof, but not a great sign. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What detectors are useful? Chchcheckit (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just used GPTZero (again not 100% proof but not a good sign) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, that's much more concerning. Its been happening more and more lately - its a big issue in the video game's WikiProject too. We've been handling it in a number of ways.

1. Reassessing Completely - Reviewing and finding it was never reliable in the first place.
2. Creating a cutoff point - saying they were reliable until 2024, when they started adding AI/slop/promo/whatever bad stuff.
3. Creating a condition - saying its still generally reliable, except for certain conditions, (only use certain staff, ignoring AI/promo/wiki type stuff, etc)
4. Do nothing - deem it to be a one-off issue and just don't use that particular article.

Most of the time, it seems like #2 or #3 are the more likely scenarios, though I'm personally not super familiar with the source. (I don't spend much time editing rap/hip-hop related articles.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I haven't seen AI use in any other HNHH articles, so it might be limited to this guy. I would just avoid using his articles and maybe send the editorial board an email about it. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seconded // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, please comment on Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show/archive1. Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aghibasiin-Lessons on How to Defeat Death has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for almost 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fewer than 1,100 copies were made and sold.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Synk: Parallel Line" is a single released by South Korean girl group Aespa. According to WP:DABSONG per community consensus, this release would be classified as a single album. This came from the fact that South Korean charts consider all physical releases as albums, regardless of the amount of tracks in the release. However, not only does "Synk: Parallel Line" not have a physical release, it is also marketed as just a "single". As a result, Dirty Work, the group's first official single album, is now considered their second. This is usually fixed by simply having the article renamed/merged with the article for the single's lead track. However, in this case, there isn't a single track in the release that was marketed as the lead track, as it was a special release to promote their concert tour of the same name. As such, I'm wondering if it's possible to amend the naming convention to resolve special cases like this, perhaps allowing the use of the disambiguation "(single)" or maybe "(maxi single)"? George13lol2 (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's a content dispute at the above album, if anyone cares to weigh in. Reliable sources have confirmed a piece of information--granted, they could all be wrong--that is being removed by either a fan or someone with some kind of COI with the artist. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Serge. I added two more reliable sources, but I think this editor has a COI, and advised them to disclose it if so. Caro7200 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, fyi. Caro7200 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I’m seeking input on a content discussion at the Raga Aberi article regarding how to refer to Caroline (musician) — specifically, whether mentioning her personal relationship to L. Shankar (e.g., “his wife”) is appropriate, or if referring to her professionally is more consistent with Wikipedia’s tone and standards for album articles.

There’s ongoing disagreement, and one editor has continued to include phrasing that emphasizes the personal relationship, despite its lack of relevance to the album itself. This focus raises concerns about neutrality and undue weight, and I believe a broader perspective would help resolve this collaboratively.

Input from other editors would be greatly appreciated to help reach consensus and maintain a balanced and respectful article.

Discussion is here: Talk:Raga Aberi#Request for Input: Wording and Relevance of Relationship Detail in Article WP_KuruV Chsh1988 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on your talk page, you are removing the information because you are wrongly claiming that the sources aren't reliable--not true. If the information is genuinely incorrect, then offer your proof. But it is of course notable if a wife plays on a husband's album, and vice versa. Not disparaging information in any way. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Creep_(Radiohead_song)#RFC_on_Frank_Bennett_Cover. Popcornfud (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting those in this WikiProject to participate in two discussion topics. They are: topic one and two (stemmed from topic one). Your participation would be appreciated. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Word•Flesh•Stone#Requested move 18 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo (D'Angelo album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythodea has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dirty Work (single album)#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be able to rename/move the file File:Cover small.png to something more sensible sensible like "Deliver Me From My Enemies cover small.png"? I forgot to change the name during upload and now am left with a mistake that I cannot fix! GanzKnusper (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GanzKnusper: Not sure if you've already found this, but I would suggest adding in a Rename media template to the file page. Leafy46 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: thanks that's exactly what I'm looking for! Nice username by the way. GanzKnusper (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think I've ever been complimented on my username before lol. I hope that the file name gets sorted out quickly :) Leafy46 (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I have been rewriting the article for David Bowie's Blackstar album and would appreciate some input on the article's structure. I have provided the details over at the article's talk page. I'm at a bit of a crossroads writing it and would really appreciate some assistance. Thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotwiki & I disagree on if the song "Takedown" is the lead single for the album KPop Demon Hunters (soundtrack) or if it a promotional single (see discussion at Talk:Twice singles discography#Is “Takedown” a single?). @Flabshoe1 provided this Billboard source which states: "The KPop Demon Hunters soundtrack was released through Republic Records on June 20, the same day the film premiered on Netflix. The album was preceded by Twice's version of 'Takedown' as the lead single". Hotwiki believes Billboard must be incorrect & the song is promotional. Since we've stalemated on who has burden (I think they need to provide a source that states it is a promotional single while they think I need to find a statement from Twice's management company stating it isn't promotional single), I suggested we try to get some input from other editors. Basically, how are things like this typically categorized and to what extent sources are needed to avoid OR? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who wants to add or change content has the burden of providing verification in a reliable source. Billboard is generally reliable. WP:SINGLESCRIT says that we should rely on it – including preferring it over other sources – when determining if a song is a single. Since Billboard calls this song the album's lead single, I think that's sufficient to call it a single. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SINGLESCRIT, "The song was referred to as a single by the record label releasing it.". I've asked in the talkpage of Twice singles discography, for a reference directly from JYP Entertainment if they refer Twice's song "Takedown" as a single. Sariel Xilo, couldn't provide a primary reference from the group's record label/agency. "Takedown" is nowhere to be found in the group's official discography page.[19] As for the Billboard reference, just because its a reliable site (I'm not claiming Billboard isn't a reliable site), it doesn't mean, their claims couldn't be questioned or challenged. If the song is a single, there should be a primary reference coming from the record label, especially the group is currently promoting a different single. Hotwiki (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SINGLESCRIT lists various rules of thumb; it's not a checklist of requirements. It also doesn't establish a requirement that a primary source be provided, which would contradict the general preference for secondary sources. See also from the essay: "Media publications such as Billboard and Official Charts Company are reliable for single releases because they monitor charts and have detailed reports in the music industry of the U.S. and U.K., respectively." voorts (talk/contributions) 04:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its Billboard magazine, it doesn't mean they can't get things wrong though. Thats why I'm asking for a primary reference to verify the "single" claim. I've already looked at the group's official websites (twice.jype.com and twicejapan.com) and the official website of JYP Entertainment - jype.com (Twice's agency) and "Takedown" is nowhere to be found. Hotwiki (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are never required on Wikipedia and they are not required to establish that a song is a single. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this scenario, in which I'm questioning the Billboard reference. "This Is For" which was released yesterday as a single, is all over the group's official websites. There's hardly anything in those websites for "Takedown" to view it as a single and not a "promotional single". Surely, a proper single, wouldn't be hard to find in the official websites I've linked. Hotwiki (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing what is or is not missing from a band's website vs. what a reliable secondary source says is original research. You can't impose your own idiosyncratic sourcing requirements on other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to clarify that the record label releasing "Takedown" is Republic Records, not JYP Entertainment. So it should be expected that it will not appear on JYP Entertainment's page. Billboard states plainly: "The KPop Demon Hunters soundtrack was released through Republic Records on June 20, the same day the film premiered on Netflix. The album was preceded by Twice's version of 'Takedown' as the lead single", which as a reliable secondary source is enough to establish the song as a single. Flabshoe1 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others here. Billboard is one of the most reliable sources when it comes to this kinda thing and they very clearly state that it is a single. It more than satisfies the criteria required by Wikipedia. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Hotwiki also raised concerns about Western media not knowing or accurately translating Korean descriptions in the original discussion but I've found several Billboard articles which use the term "promotional single" (BLACKPINK, Olivia Rodrigo, Selena Gomez, etc) so this is clearly a term they know & use. And they're not using it to describe "Takedown". This Billboard podcast compared the two versions of "Takedown" to how Disney includes pop covers on their soundtrack albums (ex: Let It Go#Demi Lovato version). So while I get this release was not done in the standard way for Twice (ie. released first on an American album by an American label), it doesn't make Billboard wrong in their description especially since sources contradicting it haven't been provided. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re·ac·tor#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mis•an•thrope#Requested move 8 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not Classic Rock Review ([20]) and Sydney Unleashed ([21]) qualify as reliable sources. Feel free to comment any thoughts about this source here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No offense - I mean this in a nice way - but I'd recommend learning how Wikipedia works well before trying to take on the massive undertaking of creating a WikiProject. It's a big effort, and requires a deep knowledge of the website in order to do correctly. Case in point, WikiProjects are generally generally themed around a content area (music, video games, film) not tasks (like copy editing.)

We already have the WP:GOCE for general copy editing requests, and almost certainly some WikiProjects themed around the arts and architecture. I'd recommend contributing in those areas while you take the time to learn the ins and outs of the website. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m not sure if you haven’t yet noticed, but I posted this on a lot of WikiProjects. I was tired and my instinct is too set ambitious goals, even when they’re not practical or doable. 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t the right decision. I notice this now. Thank you. 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm just glad you realized it before sinking too much time into it. You're not really supposed to remove comments talk page comments have been responded to, but it looks like no one has responded to most of your comments, so you're free to remove those ones, if you'd rather cut discussion short before you get a bunch of (likely the same) responses from people. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've started a much smaller project instead. Thank you for talking some sense into me. 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that laut.de is often overlooked in album articles, even for underrepresented releases like Deathconsciousness and Velocity : Design : Comfort. I think it's a reliable source, but I wanted to double-check before continuing to add it. Cattos^💭 00:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda mixed on it, but leaning towards it being okay. I can't seem to find a clear editorial policy anywhere on their website, but they list an editor-in-chief and various editors. They also have a list of authors, meaning that the reviews from this source seems to satisfy the basic requirements of WP:A/S. However, I will abstain from making comments about this website's News section, given that I don't know this publication's reputation for fact checking, and since I can't tell if the writing is at a professional level or if it's more akin to a tabloid. Additionally, the site's artist biographies are unattributed, and thus I can't comment on the reliability of those; one was used in a featured article before without issue (Viking metal, its FA discussion), however it may have been used as a "last resort" of sorts when an English-language source wasn't available (in line with WP:NONENG).

TL;DR laut.de should be fine, but I'd exercise caution regarding its News section (out of caution more than because of a clear problem), and would definitely not suggest using it over an English source if possible. Leafy46 (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this 2014 discussion considered it to be a serviceable publications, especially if an album/band get little attention from other publications, but it would've been WP:UNDUE weight to source a genre for The Hunting Party (album) solely from laut.de. BUT, I think undue weight can be applied to most of the under top 10 publications, and I would say it may be added to WP:A/S. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources to this stub. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another album stub, unsourced for tears, to add references. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]