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

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

Per this talk comment, consensus is that if the publisher or site-runner of a website writes for their website, it's difficult to argue that this writing has gone through the same editorial rigor of the other writing, due to the conflict of interest. Thus, they should be presumed to be self-published and not reliable for statements regarding living persons. I'm going to update the sources list here and at WP Christian music to reflect this.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how prevalent this is, but would a general note/reminder on the page suffice? There's...a lot of sources listed here. I wouldn't want to re-check every single one's setup when one general remark would do... Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm planning to do. And for some sites I'll note who the site runner is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A music-related website, Rockpasta.com, is currently being discussed at RSN here. Feel free to comment on the source's reliability there. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2013, I added Chronicles of Chaos to the reliable sources list, per this rationale. I can't find the Reno Gazette-Journal reference to it, the website was probably redesigned in the past 11 years and the article is lost to archives, as I didn't link to it. However, the site is passingly mentioned in Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge, and is discussed by Billboard in a 2009 obituary about the website co-founder Adrian Bromley. That obit notes the site as one of the first dedicated to extreme metal music, and also says that the print magazine Unrestrained! founded in 2002 by Bromley and CoC writer Adam Wasylyk gained widespread recognition in underground metal (not directly relevant, but indicated the impact and reputation of those two individuals. The history of the site is discussed in an academic book, Text Linguistics in Heavy Metal Magazines and Webzines, pp. 187–189. There's also a reference to Decibel Magazine a CoC review by Decibel. There's additional references to interviews in music journalism, academic books, and academic journal articles, but as those are interviews I'm treating those more as references to primary sources. When the site closed in 2015, Daniel Lake of Decibel wrote a piece about the site, noting "Chronicles of Chaos is a piece of metal scene history, and it was often a go-to source of information for which albums would most interest me." Now, Lake says that he wrote for CoC for the four years past, so this write-up is closely affiliated with the site. But, that Lake also writes for Decibel indicates the caliber of the writers for that publication. MetalSucks likewise published a write-up about the site when it closed. It explicitly states "The writers were well informed and well spoken, and the zine evolved into a reliable source of information about interesting albums." I think all of this confirms that the webzine is indeed reliable.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't use it a ton since it's been defunct for almost a decade, but they've been very helpful in sourcing some 90s/2000s rock/metal articles. They produced some really good, detailed, deep dive articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion over Indie Vision Music as a reliable source has not reached a consensus, so I opened up an RfC which can be seen and contributed to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:A Family Christmas#Requested move 3 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADM's article was recently deleted via this AfD, and now the link is being mass-removed from album articles. That's fine by me, I see nothing wrong with the AfD, and it's not my concern. What does concern me is the follow-through by Nyxaros on My Back Was a Bridge for You to Cross where that user has apparently decided that not having an article/being notable (and also not being mentioned in prose, though that's an easy fix if it's really necessary) negates the source's reliability, and has removed it. So I suppose I should bring this concern up here; does not having an article negate a source's reliability? Should it be removed from Template:Music ratings? There was a brief discussion there the other day asking the same in which I and one other editor said no, but another editor wasn't convinced. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I stand by the source and think requiring an article is nonsensical. Notability and reliability are two different and totally separate principles with no apparent value in conflating the two. We've had an established consensus for nearly a decade and I can't remember ever seeing any active music Wikipedia editors dissenting from it. Seems pretty much cut-and-dry to me.

And for what it may be worth, the same edit with the same logic was made by the same user at Crash (Charli XCX album) and 143 (Katy Perry album), and neither has been undone. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you. There are several sources at WP:A/S without articles. The fact that other publications/authors don't write about them (so we can't write articles about these sources) doesn't mean they are less reliable. Should we start removing any mentions of journalists who don't have Wikipedia articles about them? That's absurd. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not having its own article is a non-factor. That's flat out not a valid reason. Nyxaros is free to start up a new discussion on a completely separate thing - reliability/usability - but until there's a new consensus that supports it, he should not be removing it on those grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSMUSIC, the last discussion on it was here in 2016, where a widely participated in RFC gained a consensus in its use. A (poorly participated) AFD on its notability has no bearing on that, let alone overturn it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: QuietHere, reading comprehension is very important but you clearly have not understood what I wrote. I have written nothing about not having an article and not being noteworthy negates reliability and I find it funny that the discussion continued with this mentality. ภץאคгöร 22:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you removed it from the article if not for it being an unreliable source? You stated twice that it should be removed because of notability concerns, which would imply the ADM article failing GNG. You also stated that it was not exactly "reliable" (I'm not certain what the quotes implied). What does "not being noteworthy negates reliability" mean? Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twice in edit summaries you mentioned not being notable as part of your reason on removing it. I'm at a loss for alternative explanations here. You literally wrote "Yeah, being notable is a requirement". This is a complete failure on your part to communicate clearly. You only have yourself to blame for this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask simply instead of jumping to conclusions if it's too vague right? Also you should know better as an admin when to revert. Check before reverting to avoid reverting other non-related changes. Apart from the notability and reliability arguments, you keep adding back numbers to the tables that are not mentioned in the prose, which should not be done. ภץאคгöร 22:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding back numbers to the tables that are not mentioned in the prose, which should not be done
Would you mind showing a guideline that mentions this? Thanks in advance! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer the question or not? You literally wrote, as linked above Yeah, being notable is a requirement. What did you mean by that? You accused another editor of lacking reading comprehension, so you better have a good explanation. What was the intended take away from that? What are you citing when you say having an article is required? The rest can be easily addressed - a source is already present so a mention in the prose can easily be done. And your concern about reliability is overridden by the current Wikiproject consensus. So what's the hold up? Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course now Nyxaros redid the edit again. At least this time the edit summary was clearer, though that is their third attempt at the same edit in a row so I left an edit-war warning on their talk page. Nyx, it would be a lot more helpful if you had left that summary as a comment here since it's clearly relevant to the discussion and also contains things you haven't already said anywhere else.

And since we're discussing that summary, here's my response: In practice, I've seen very few (if any) album articles include ADM information in prose. As for why I don't, that's mainly because you'd mostly be restating the same information which already exists in the table anyway. ADM doesn't offer any sort of additional ranking like Metacritic's "Universal Acclaim"/"Generally Favorable"/etc. scale, nor the critics consensus writeups of Rotten Tomatoes, so the only thing that one could include is the average rating and the number of reviews. One of those numbers is already in the template, and perhaps the other could be included as well but I'm not too worried about it either way. But the clause you're referring to is regarding album reviews full of prose which also have star ratings, and how a star rating alone does not explain well to readers what the critic's opinion on a given album is, so quotations from prose or some other excerpted information from that review is preferred. I don't think whoever wrote that clause had aggregate scores in mind, and I don't think you're gonna find a consensus for changing practice so that they should; honestly, you might have an easier time finding agreement in suggesting we get rid of Template:Metacritic album prose and have no prose from aggregate raters at all (I can vaguely remember at least one inconclusive discussion on that or a similar subject from the last few years). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, Quiet, you felt compelled to send the generic template due to your grievances against me 😒. Anyways, this may come as a surprise, but we don't just use optional templates and write nothing in prose. If we did, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia to begin with. We also don't follow a practice that the table comes first and then the text, because the table is optional. You have inadvertently introduced another argument: the redundancy of ADM. As you mentioned, ADM is only used for its review scores and is extremely similar to Metacritic but has fewer features. The aggregates and their contents are not general information known by everyone, so you should not expect the average reader to understand the context just from the numbers in the table. ภץאคгöร 11:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confused. WP:VG has a guideline about not using GameRankings or OpenCritic when they're redundant to Metacritic. WP:ALBUMS has no such guideline with ADM. Until you get a consensus that supports that, that is not enforceable. You're free to try to get a consensus...but you don't appear to be persuading anyone of anything here so far here, so you'd probably better change your approach.

As far as removing ADM from review tables because its not mentioned in the prose, you're just wasting your time. The source and content is already readily available, so its extremely simple to drop a sentence in the prose. You'd be better off adding content to the prose than continuing to try to revert it out of the articles. Otherwise you're just going to keep getting your edits undone, like it continues to happen. Not sure if you've noticed, but there are a lot of editors who are quite persistent about adding aggregates to Wikipedia. It's not something you're going to be able to force your way through alone. You'll just find yourself spinning your gears accomplishing nothing, with a side possibility of receiving another edit warring block. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just pointed out what Quiet wrote about ADM's features since it wasn't mentioned before. No enforcement whatsoever. Where did WP:VG come from? Not "revert it out of the articles", more like you delete it as you delete any information that is not fit. Also, there was no need for a very weak threat for a block that is not going to happen. ภץאคгöร 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your comment You have inadvertently introduced another argument: the redundancy of ADM. I was informing you that removal on your perception of it being redundant would be invalid. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyx, your confidence is astounding. Serge is an administrator and could easily do it himself were grounds provided. Anyway, I see no difference here between "revert it out of the articles" and delete it as you delete any information that is not fit in this case, and would like clarification. Not to mention you're still being obscure about what you're arguing about here. I'm confused; if you feel so strongly about it lacking a place in the prose, why is your first thought to delete it instead of literally just adding something mentioning the source? Is that so hard? mftp dan ^oops 19:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why they felt that was appropriate given this ongoing discussion. They posted here before making that edit so they know what they are doing. Do you not want to discuss it or something, Nyxaros? First you claim that this discussion is a result of a miscomprehension of what you said. Then you hammer on a separate rationale through an edit summary on that article? Then you avoid responding to what Sergecross73 wrote and instead change the subject. Strange. Not sure what the rush is. Clearly the community is interested in building consensus. You're not going to effectively communicate your points that way. Οἶδα (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with its use in articles, per the reasoning outlined by Sergecross73. I also noticed the AfD when it was too late and found there were 3000 backlinks. I would have appreciated a fuller discussion given that. Especially considering 4meter4 seems to be the only meaningful participant. But I am not certain if the AfD would have ended differently. And those backlinks have now been removed by TechnoSquirrel69. Nevertheless, that is not a judgement of the source's reliability and hence use in articles.

Requesting more opinions here on the inclusion of this award, per UNDUE. In 2020, GoldDerby.com, an Oscars prediction website that gives out the Gold Derby Film Awards, started a music award. It's a fan vote on the site with at or under 2,000 fans involved. In their own comments, they nod to the fact that this has just been a Swiftie vote for four years now. There is no independent reliable coverage of this award...at all (Yahoo and MSN are reposts of GD website posts). Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Chappell_Roan#Awards with @Medxvo, but I'm starting a discussion that may get more eyes since I removed the award from the <100 pages that included it yesterday. In many of those articles, the GMDAs was the only award that didn't have it's own coverage on WP. To flag other discussions where editors discussed the site, "Gold Derby Awards" was deleted at AfD, the larger website was redirected, and one year of the GDMAs was deleted at AfD. I also asked about the site at RSN, which wasn't about DUE, although that came up. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion, @Alyo. I'm also noting that the editorial team behind the Film Awards and the Music Awards are almost the same, and that the Film Awards has been mentioned by Awards Daily in 2024 and the Los Angeles Times blog in 2011. The Film Awards are used in List of awards and nominations received by Peter Capaldi which was promoted to FL status six months ago with zero concerns at its FLC regarding the inclusion of the Gold Derby Awards. Medxvo (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll only say here that I have less objection to the film awards since this website + team at least claims expertise in film. It's an Oscars site, etc. No such factors apply to the music side. And again, what little coverage there is, is about the film awards, not the music awards. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the website and the editorial team claim expertise in music as well. For example, Daniel Montgomery, one of the editorial team behind both of the music and film awards, has published several music-related articles in the past couple of days. Medxvo (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a very convincing case against inclusion. We don't include user reviews from sites like AllMusic, AOTY, or Rate Your Music, so I don't think a fan-voted award should get automatic inclusion without independent coverage either. And besides, Taylor Swift already has plenty of awards; there are probably already more listed on that page than necessary, and adding more just because they exist would just further crowd it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about these on the reliable sources noticeboard and didn't sufficient responses. I'm re-posting those here that a consensus did not seem to become clear. There also is the on-going discussion about Indie Vision Music that seems to have reached an impasse, so I opened an RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Home - Staff - About

I'd always assumed that this one was unreliable, even though there's no discussions saying so and it isn't included on the Unreliable sources list at WP:A/S.

- It has a professional editorial and writing staff, some with impressive credentials. The site claims Metal Maniacs, Decibel, Resound, Metal Edge, Hails & Horns, Unrestrained!, Exclaim!, Outburn, Blistering, DigitalMetal and MetalReview. I can't confirm all of those, especially since they don't clearly indicate who wrote for those publications (a knock against the source, imo), and some aren't necessarily reliable, but some of those are significant publications (a big positive to the source, imo). I could confirm that the site founder, Eric Thomas, worked for Metal Maniacs and now for Hails & Horns.

- It does have some usage by other sources, an indicator toward a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Some interviews from the site had excerpts re-published at Blabbermouth.net - here and here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Home - Staff - About

This is another one that I've long presumed was not reliable. There are no discussions of it that I can find, and it's not mentioned one way or the other at all at WP:ALBUMS/S.

- It does have a professional editorial and writing staff

- There are some mentions of it in established RS that can indicate a reputation for reliability: MetalSucks: [1], [2], [3]; Metal Injection: [4]; Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles [5].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(sockpuppetery) Graywalls (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Uproxx to be a generally reliable source especially for music. Im surprised it isn't here at all or in the sources section. This0k (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was one ongoing issue regarding Uproxx being owned by Warner Music Group from 2018 until April this year. That conflict of interest makes use of Uproxx as a source a touch more difficult, especially with how many massively popular artists are signed to WMG labels which Uproxx was still reporting on (though always with a disclosure at the end of the article). I know there's been a bit of discussion regarding how to handle issues like that, and while I don't remember any solid conclusion I think they all tended toward avoiding using it for conflict-relevant articles. Whether it's reliable beyond that, I couldn't guarantee, but it always seemed decent to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? You didn't present any actual argument in favor of its use. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find it to be a better than both Billboard and Rolling Stone which I know sounds crazy but those editors do their research and are heavily non-biased which is where I think both Billboard and Rolling Stone differ from it which is why I think it should be added. I've used Uproxx in multiple articles for a reason and it seems many think it is reliable they just are worried if it is associated with a COI so it will probably never be added anyway. This0k (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have of this claim? mftp dan ^oops 04:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced for 15 years. There is a Japanese version of this article that is sourced, so perhaps … they were big in Japan? Bearian (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of Metal.de to the list of reliable sources was reverted, and it was suggested that I discuss it here first. Metal.de is a long-standing (since 1996) German online metal music magazine. Per the imprint information, it's published by Versus Media, and has a professional staff under an editor-in-chief who is legally responsible for the content. The property was managed by a company that managed, among other properties, properties such as the German versions of Metal Hammer, Rolling Stone, and Michelin. There has been a re-brand or transfer since then, but the new company still manages many of the old properties, including Michelin. Thus, this resource seems to be a digital equivalent to traditional print media. I tried to confirm the claim on the wiki article of 400,000 regular pageviews, but that link is dead. I don't doubt the popularity, and the magazine also has its own music festivals, so it's certainly a significant presence in Germany. Is there any reason to presume that this source is unreliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to 3family6's post – it's been used as a source in the following books:

• The Cambridge Companion to Metal Music by Jan-Peter Herbst (ed.)
• Satanism: A Social History by Massimo Introvigne
• Medievalism and Metal Music Studies by Ross Hagen and Ruth Barratt-Peacock (eds.)
• Looking for Europe by Andreas Diesel and Dieter Gerten
• Sicherheit und Vertrauen by Matthias Johannes Bauer and Tom Naber (eds.)
• Unheilig by Corinna Siebert
• Odin by Klaus Böldl
• Banale Kämpfe? by Paula-Irene Villa (ed.)
• Odin rules by Serina Heinen
• Bezugnahmen auf den Nationalsozialismus in der populären Musik by Reinhard Kopanski
• Dancers to a Discordant System by Peter Hinrichs
• The Virgin Internet Music Guide by Dominic Wills and Ben Wardle
• Die besten Web-Seiten für Senioren 2017 by Mathias Weber (ed.)
• No fear of the dark by Hartmut Rosa
• Analyzing Black Metal by Jakob Schermann, Nikolaus Urbanek and Sarah Chaker (eds.)
• Gender, Macht und Recht by Markus Hirte (ed.)

Searching "metal.de" on Google Books gave me a lot of junk results, so this is the best I could gather from there. MusicforthePeople (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are more convincing than others. The interview citations I don't think do much for establishing reliability, as interviews are essentially primary source statements from those interviewed. The exception would be if the editorial content from the reviewer or publisher is what is being cited. Which doesn't seem to be the case. For reference, those books are the first 10. The remaining 6 are perhaps more convincing, because they cite news or review articles, which are statements from the publication themselves. Of those, Gender, Macht und Recht lists but also a bunch of primary source citations to YouTube, so I don't think that's a clear case. Analyzing Black Metal cites Metal Archives as well as Metal.de, and Metal Archives is user-generated and thus not reliable for Wikipedia. Metal.de isn't user-generated, so that's a notch for reliability, but since that book also cites user-generated content (which is perfectly fine for a book to do, Wikipedia actually has really high standards - which is good!), it's still a bit of a question if it's actually helping determine a reputation for fact checking and accuracy for Metal.de. No fear of the dark I couldn't verify, so I'll AGF on that one.

Die besten Web-Seiten für Senioren 2017 is better. It's literally a book of best websites. The other two websites listed are Rock Hard, which is also a print source and is currently on the MUSICRS list per consensus, and Powermetal.de, which, though not listed as an RS, in my experience of the source and of usage by others here on Wikipedia is a reliable source per how reliable sources are defined. Thus, I think this particular book is helpful for determining if Metal.de is RS.

The Virgin Internet Music Guide I can only see a snippet of, but it's a specific entry discussing the website. I'll AGF that it speaks positively of the source. And Dancers to a Discordant System cites a news article from Metal.de for statements of fact, so that's a clear use by a reliable source for determining reliability.

--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeffSpaceman, you recommended bringing this to the talk page. Was that simply procedural to ensure that my addition reflects consensus, or do you have concerns about the reliability of Metal.de?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such thing should not have been unilaterally declared reliable by you anyways. It's a very bold change that was rejected. It should deserve a RS/N discussion. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of discussion doesn't mean the considering it reliable is solely constrained to me (it's not - example). However, my addition to the list was unilateral. I agree with JeffSpaceman's reverting edit and request to discuss it, because that indeed was a bold edit to make.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently Geschichte brought this up for discussion 3 years ago. And there wasn't real discussion or result, then. Sergecross73, do have any thoughts regarding this, given the above from myself and MusicforthePeople?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by User:Graywalls basically sums up my thoughts. Any source added to a list of reliable or unreliable sources should have at least minor discussion to support its classification as a source. There are sources on the WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC lists that only have a single discussion here or at RSN listed, because there was enough consensus established in those single discussions to support what they would be classified as. I'm not particularly familiar with Metal.de, but I'd recommend that when you add sources, you have discussions about their viability to support what list they end up on. Just my advice. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The reason I ask is because your edit was interpreted in a deletion discussion as challenging the reliability of this source. Whereas I had understood it as you and Graywalls explained above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable - largely to the strength of 3family6's argument, thought the USEBYOTHERS, while I tend to put less weight on, doesn't hurt the situation either. It's a long running professional publication. I didn't so much object to its 2021 addition as much as I just wished for that editor to give a rationale for its inclusion, which they never did, and then it was simply dropped. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I have nominated this article at FAC. Any and all feedback would be welcome. My hope is to get this promoted before Spiritbox releases their second album on March 7. Much appreciated, mftp dan ^oops 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed a merger of House in the Woods (album) into Low Roar a week ago. Only got one response from the former article's creator so far. Could use more eyes. Thanks in advance. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetery Graywalls (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though Live 365 has most definitely had to have been discussed here before as it is of course quote a well known website despite calling themselves a blog.

Another one I wanted to bring up though was Euphoria Magazine aka Euphoria. They claim to be a Magazine but are a blog as per when you copy it says Blog. To be fair

Euphoria Magazine has done interviews with well known celebrities such as Paris Hilton. See here I would like consensus on both of these. This0k (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like consensus on both of these. You'll need to provide more information about both sources first. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Live 365 I don't find it to be that reliable in the slightest and all seem to be WP:RSSELF by a woman named Katheryn. I would also like to ask about Euphoriazine, a blog that calls themselves a magazine and has sufficient information and well written sources and also does interviews with celebrities such as Paris Hilton. This0k (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should at least provide links to both sources. Second, you should share information that is relevant to determining if they meet the criteria at WP:RS, such as any conflict of interest/fact-checking policies, the names of the publishers and their expertise, their reputation in the music industry and their use by other sources, etc. You should not expect others to do research for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]