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

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, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Is Earmilk (website) a reliable source? Their about page (link) says "EARMILK is an online music publication based out of the United States & Canada which has an international appeal with its top cities being major metropolitan areas all over the world; topping that list – New York, Toronto, Los Angeles, London, Sydney, Chicago, Calgary, Paris, Vancouver and San Francisco" and "*NO ARTICLES ON THE EARMILK SITE ARE EVER PAY-FOR-PLAY. Any branded content will be appropriately recognized for full visibility and article assignments are authorized by the approval of the Managing Editor or Senior Editor only". With this logic, I assume it's reliable, but what do you guys think? RedShellMomentum 02:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have an ethics/editorial policy? Who are their writers? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have used them before on Natalie Sims. The team isn't listed anywhere but given the job openings and the mention of Managing and Senior Editors indicates there's some type of staff structure.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't ensure that they're reliable but this site seems to be regarded as one of the professional review sites by other publications. [1] Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Album of the Year is an aggregator. We don't determine reliability based on the sources used by aggregators. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in commenting on a proposed approach to adding anchors to numbered sub-items in this policy, please join the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Anchors. Thanks! WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this back in Jan 2024 that reached no conclusion. This has continued to bug the hell out of me and I'd like to resolve it.

Consider these article titles:

• Zombie (The Cranberries song)
• Friend of a Friend (The Smile song)
• The Moment of Truth (The Real Milli Vanilli album)

These are all incorrectly capitalized. The "The" before the band name should be lowercase, like this:

• Zombie (the Cranberries song)
• Friend of a Friend (the Smile song)
• The Moment of Truth (the Real Milli Vanilli album)

In fact, there should probably be no "the" at all, like this:

• Zombie (Cranberries song)
• Friend of a Friend (Smile song)
• The Moment of Truth (Real Milli Vanilli album)

This is for the following reasons:

• Per MOS:THEBAND, we do not capitalize definite article ("the") in band names. So we write the Beatles, not The Beatles.
• The fact that the names are placed in parentheses doesn’t change anything. For example, we have articles titled "White Christmas (song)", not "White Christmas (Song)"; "David Mitchell (author)", not "David Mitchel (Author)"; "Mercury (planet)", not "Mercury (Planet)" etc.
• These are fragments, not sentences, so arguments about capitalizing the first letter of the sentence do not apply.

We have hundreds or thousands of articles with this problem. The current naming is contrary to Wikipedia manual of style and we need to fix it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that THEBAND applied to article prose, not article titling. I say this more as an observer, than a participant, as I don't care that much (though I also see little conceptual benefit to "fixing" this either.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit of fixing it is the same as any other MOS fix: to be consistent with the MOS. So the question is whether I'm right in my interpretation of the MOS and how it applies here.

If we say WP:THEBAND only applies to article prose, that would presumably mean we would cap "The" everywhere else, such as in shortdescs ("1965 album by The Beatles"?), infoboxes ("Album by The Beatles"?), and article titles in general, not just disambiguation parentheses ("Bob Marley and The Wailers"?) ... I don't see the logic in that. Popcornfud (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud: I'd love to see this resolved. I understand it as you do and I'd like to see it treated uniformly through Wikipedia, but I've seen requested moves go against it. A decision here would help resolve that. I also think your final point using the example "Zombie (Cranberries song)" should be made the norm too. Nobody says "I love that the Zombies song", so we shouldn't use that unnatural language in our titles. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding that THEBAND was largely rectifying the awkwardness of having a capitalized "The" in the middle of sentences. ("Johnson posited 'Untitled' was the best The Smashing Pumpkins song." sort of stuff.) No such awkwardness exists at a page title like Untitled (The Smashing Pumpkins song), with it just being a name sectioned off with parentheses. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it's extremely awkward, because it would be simply wrong to capitalize "the" for any other type of noun in this situation. In fact, we probably wouldn't write "the" here at all, as SchreiberBike mentions (see MOS:THENAME).

So why do we make this exception just for band names just in parenthesis just in article titles? If you don't find it awkward, I can't convince you to have that feeling about it, but I'm hoping you can at least see that it's inconsistent. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposal. "Zombie (Cranberries song)" is the most intuitive. I would also make the "T/the" variants be redirects (e.g. "Zombie (the Cranberries song)", "Zombie (The Cranberries song)"). WidgetKid ^{chat me} 19:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support omitting "the" if possible, capitalizing it if not. If "the" can be omitted without causing confusion, let's do that, but if not, writing it as "The" is preferable since a lower-case letter starting what's effectively the band name in parentheses would look odd. Gawaon (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - considering the hundreds (thousands?) of articles affected, and the fact that we've only had a handful of participants over the course of the last week, makes me think we're going to need a more widespread WP:RFC to get the sort of participation and consensus we would need for a situation like this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When an article title includes the name of a band (or other musical act) in parentheses, how should definite titles ("the") before the name be treated?

• Option A: capitalize "The", eg Zombie (The Cranberries song)
• Option B: lowercase "the", eg Zombie (the Cranberries song)
• Option C: remove "the", eg Zombie (Cranberries song)

Popcornfud (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option C. This is to me is the most natural and concise, and follows the advice at MOS:THENAME, which says "use a Beatles song, not a the Beatles song). Certainly not Option A as this goes against WP:THEBAND, which specifies not to capitalize "the" before band names except at the start of sentences, and I don't see any reason to make an exception for parentheses in article titles and nowhere else. Popcornfud (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C per Popcornfud, aka per the MOS. This text is in a disambiguator, not part of the title of the work itself, so we should follow regular English formatting rather than potentially stylized title formatting. Toadspike [Talk] 07:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Pings for participants in the above discussion: @Sergecross73@Gawaon@Widgetkid@SchreiberBike. Toadspike [Talk] 07:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option C as long as The The is left alone. Also note this proposal omits singers like The Weeknd. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 07:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  On the former, I think there's a reasonable case for making an exception for "The The". On the latter, yes, as currently worded this only includes bands. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This was an oversight on my part when wording the RFC. I meant to propose we apply this to all musical acts, including bands, duos, singers, individuals etc, as this is what WP:THEBAND says. I've updated the RFC to clarify this, but I'm aware that might not be strictly kosher as people have already voted. If anyone thinks this is out of line, feel free to revert to the original wording (or just ask me to revert it) and we can sort this out some other way. Popcornfud (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option C but let's be vigilant: There are acts in whose title the definite article ("the") is an inseparable part. The Beatles were originally marketed as The Beatles, as were most bands that followed them thereafter, a trend that lasted for some time. -The Gnome (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C per Popcornfud and Toadspike. But in the rare cases where "The" has to be included, it should be capitalized, say with The The. Gawaon (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• (Summoned by bot)Options C with exceptions per Gawaon. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C per above, which reflect WP:THEBAND, which has been consensus for many years. A few exceptions may apply per WP:IAR if it makes the encyclopedia better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C. The first two make my eye twitch. WidgetKid ^converse 15:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C per above – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, aka status quo, as a compromise. Per the discussion above, MOS:THEBAND appears to relate to article prose, not proper nouns in article titles. Keeping in mind the example given above, The Cranberries is the official name of the band. They are listed as The Cranberries on all CDs, vinyls, digital retailers and streaming services. Removing "The" entirely is therefore improper and misrepresentative. Plus, the example above of "No one says 'I love that the Cranberries song'" is kind of splitting hairs. It would be perfectly acceptable to say "I love that song by the Cranberries", however. And I've not seen a single voter above give a policy-based reason why "the" should be removed entirely from article titles anyway. MOS:THEBAND gives no such advice for article titles. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• (invited by the bot) Good grammar rules out "A" and allows "B" and "C". Why not just edit them instead of making up a rule. When editing I'd do "C". North8000 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What a bizarre comment. Please don't discourage editors who are correctly following Wikipedias consensus-building process in the correct avenues. This RFC is about something that has been inconsistently done throughout the website, there was disagreement on how to proceed, and it will affect a large volume of articles. This is absolutely the time to get a consensus before proceeding. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option C (omit "the") per Popcornfud. Blue & Lonesome is a Rolling Stones album, not a The Rolling Stones album. Commonsense exceptions apply for The The and The Who and The Band. Also, disambiguators aren't exactly running text. See also Talk:Officer (The Salvation Army)#Requested move 22 February 2026. But in the rare cases where "The" has to be included, it should be capitalized, per Gawaon. "Zombie (the Cranberries song)" looks like a reference to "Zombie (the song)" rather than "Zombie ([bandname's] song)". See also Talk:Scarlet (song)#Requested move 4 November 2020 and Talk:Angry (Rolling Stones song)#Requested move 16 December 2023 and Talk:Closer (The Chainsmokers song)/Archive 1#Requested move 31 October 2020 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 8#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles (2019). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - Homeostasis07's arguments are persuasive, and I am made rather anxious by how many of the "Option C" votes have the disclaimer "But we'll have to make lots of exceptions." All else being equal, I think we should avoid setting rules where we anticipate making numerous exceptions, and especially so in this case, because I see lots of room for disagreement over what constitutes a "common sense exception" to Option C.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to point out that while there seems to be a consensus forming here for having Option C as a default while allowing for exceptions there also seems to be a lack of consensus on how to phrase those exceptions. As it stands two people have expressed preference for A (specifically for exceptions) while two people have expressed preference for B. Unless one, in my opinion unreasonably, claims that those voting for B shouldn't be considered to also prefer B over A for exceptions if C passes as the default, then this seems to be headed towards a consensus for C with exceptions with no consensus on the format of those exceptions. That will likely lead to you guys having to do another RfC to resolve the disagreement that will inevitable arise over that. That might be prevented if the people voting for C clarifies their preference for how to handle exceptions. ―Maltazarian ^{(talkinvestigate)} 19:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at categories like Category:The Band songs and Category:The Who albums for the three bands and one artist that have been explicitly discussed as potential exceptions. All of the straightforward examples had "The" present and in uppercase (i.e., option A). There is one song with lowercase for which The Weeknd is one of several artists in a list in the title, and there is one redirectTwilight (the Band song) for a song by The Band that uses lowercase. I think a list is more like running text, and I think redirects shouldn't count when looking for styling guidance, because no one looks at the redirect itself. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that DTMF (disambiguation) be moved to DTMF, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any good sources. Please add reliable sources, if you can. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked any of these archive sites of music magazines? There must be a mention of its release in some of the magazines of the day, and probably the occasional review. I see Allmusic has a rating (an impressive 4.5 stars, although it doesn't review it), so there's one. The claim it sold 100,000 is unreferenced, so that has to go. Otherwise there isn't much in the article that is particularly controversial, so it probably doesn't need many references. Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if there's any criteria for adding this kind of category to an album article? I've seen them on articles where said producer only produced one song on the album, so I'm just curious. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 11:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per the style guide, "consensus is that 'Albums produced by X' categories should not be included unless that particular producer worked on a significant portion of the album." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So what constitutes "a significant portion"? Is it based on running time, number of tracks, notability of the tracks, or none of the above? Martin IIIa (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to know whether this website is reliable or unreliable. Whenever the random singers (who are not that popular) announce their new single or album, this site mostly pops up in Google's news section, even though other reliable publications didn't publish anything about them yet. Example: [2]. Any thoughts? As I know, there were some cases that blog site became reliable in Wikipedia, like BrooklynVegan. But there's no author field in this site. About us page Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable - That's got to be the least-helpful "About Us" page I've seen for a publication for quite some time. Even the about page is only attributed to a writer called "InMusic". I can't see anything that helps create an argument for use on Wikipedia here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. There is a disagreement at the {{Did you know nominations/Roshni (album)}}. Anyone interested is invited to participate. Thank you! M. Billoo 07:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled by Motley Crue is considered an EP of three songs, with "Cancelled" as the first song, while "Damn Damn Leash" by Be Your Own Pet is considered a maxi single with three songs, including the two B-sides "Spill" and "Electric Shake." Why is Motley Crue's considered an EP but Be Your Own Pet's is considered a non-album maxi single? Is marketing the only reason they're categorized differently? Kart2401real (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this line from Extended play#Definition sums it up well: Following the introduction of CDs, music downloads, and music streaming to the market definitive distinctions between singles, EPs, and LPs have become elusive. WidgetKid ^converse 17:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much exactly this. We basically go by whatever reliable sources say most commonly because the lines have blurred so much in the modern age, where most music is in digital form anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? A quick skim of Scream, Dracula, Scream!#References shows it to be full of reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:No Title As of 13 February 2024 28,340 Dead#Requested move 10 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Report discussion. DanielParoliere (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reliable from Scott Humphrey that Nikki Sixx played guitar on much of Generation Swine?

Totally True Memoirs of a Metal Producer: Mötley Crüe’s Generation SwineKart2401real (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MetalSucks in a general sense, is a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. I don't know enough about Motley Crue or that albums recording to know if that's a controversial claim or something though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, is the magazine God Is in the TV reliable? I first encountered it in this source while researching about Oasis, though feedback on the publication in general would be helpful too. I searched this page's discussion archives as well as the project source list, and couldn't find any meaningful mention of it. Left guide (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Biti tu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. A search found only Discogs, and a similar song by a different band. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created a tool (User:Widgetkid/RecordingCover) for easily adding covers to albums and songs. If anyone would like to use it or kick the tires on this 'beta', I'd appreciate any feedback. WidgetKid ^Converse 01:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC had been opened regarding the hidden pregap track on the concept album Act III: This City Made Us, to determine where it should be described in the article and to what extent. Interested editors are invited to weigh in via the talk page. PBugaboo (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

In late February of this year, Loud and Quiet announced the magazine would be moving to Substack, with the website serving as an archive for all past articles. While it has been deemed as a reliable source, I'd like to know if the website's move affects its reliability at all. Thanks. Rambley^[who?] 17:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so, so long as the business hasn't fundamentally changed. Nothing in that post says anything about losing writers or editors, and from a scroll of their Substack homepage just now, I see at least six different names in bylines, so it seems the roster is still healthy. So long as nothing else has changed about the way the site operates, hosting on a different platform shouldn't make a difference. Substack, as far as I know, does not exert any editorial control over publications which use it (I've published a handful of essays to the platform and never seen anything of the sort), so that shouldn't be a concern. If there's anything else to worry about, I can't think of it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any clear policy or style guidance regarding the 125+ record label discographies. I would like to develop some consensus on an approach. I would like your help with these questions:

Question / Option		Supporting Points for Option
1	In general, should discographies of notable record labels have their own articles?
A	Yes.	Record label discographies serve an informational and/or navigational purpose. They are also practical from an article size perspective, similar to artist discographies.
B	No. Only labels whose catalogs have sources indicating notability of the catalog should have discographies.	Record label discographies are like all books published by HarperCollins, so should not have a separate article.
2	If no, how should a large record label discography be handled?
X	Split the discography into a separate record label discography article.	Treat large record label discographies like artist discographies, splitting them.
Y	Add the discography to a collapsed section within the record label article.	Keeping all the information contained in the record label article makes it easier to use & reference, doesn't imply the notability of the catalog separate from the organization.
3	What should the discographies of notable record labels include?
P	Could include anything and everything the label has released.	Treat record label discographies like artist discographies, which allowing everything, not just notable releases.
Q	Should only include notable releases (e.g. ones with articles), not the entire catalog.	Record label discographies are like all books published by HarperCollins, so limit to just notable releases.

I pulled together some relevant portions of these policies:

• WP:MOSMUSIC#Discographies: 2. If the discography of an artist, group, or work becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article, it should be split into a subpage list (preferably titled "<Name> discography").
• WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
• WP:NOTCATALOG: 6. [...] Lists of creative works are permitted. Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

My initial positions are A (separate discography article) / X (split out large discographies) / P (allow inclusion of everything). WidgetKid ^Converse 16:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kelob2678, Graywalls, 78.26, Izzy007, Devin, dcljr, Dan arndt, Marchjuly, LingNerd007, Chubbles, Jessiemay1984, Vexations, JalenFolf, FeRDNYC, Richard3120, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, QuietHere, Richard3120, Bearian, A Knight Who Says Ni, Steelbeard1, Zachtron, J04n, Robman94, Another Believer:
As contributors to record label- and discography-related discussions, I invite your input on this topic. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate thoughts are mostly the same as yours, though I think I would vote BXP. My understanding is that these pages should be treated as lists and thus are subject to WP:NLIST, wherein it is said that not all items in a list need to be sourced so long as the group is collectively. A notable record label will have plenty of coverage of its catalogue, and should likely qualify by that standard, so it would make sense to have an associated list. And I think splitting said lists for size concerns is a given. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]