Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not lambgoat.com ([1]) qualifies as a reliable source for information about living persons. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

How'd this one end up going? One to list at NOTRSMUSIC? Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I would say that adding it is a no-brainer yes, though for what it's worth, I did remove it from all of the articles it was being used on at that time. But I think it would be worth adding to potentially prevent further use, given that it's basically a more classic rock-centric version of the kind of stuff you'd see on Alternative Nation or other similar sites. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it to the NOTRSMUSIC list. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree with your assessment too, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not audaud.com ([2]) qualifies as a reliable source. Feel free to comment your thoughts here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you all are having a good day. At some point in the near future, I plan on fixing the article for The Black Parade, which includes adding a section about the articles songs/music itself, giving a bit of coverage to each song in the album. However, what stumps me and makes me much more hesitant to begin work is that I am not sure how to approach it. There appears to be two standards for "Music" sections in recognized content for albums: dedicating a paragraph to each song (present at articles such as Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning), and going over the albums songs in only a few paragraphs, but in a generally more fluid manner (in articles such as American Idiot, 1989 (album)). I'm personally leaning more towards the "cover each song for a bit" (though I likely wouldn't give each song its own paragraph), but I would like feedback on which approach y'all think should be taken. Additional tips regarding writing these sections would be appreciated as well, as I've never really done anything like this before and this is a very important album. λ NegativeMP1 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to use {{Album chart}} at So Medieval, but I'm having issues. The album charted on the UK Official Record Store Chart (link to the specific week), but I can't see that in the documentation anywhere, and the docs don't say how to specify a custom chart in manual mode. Using "UK" as the identifier in automatic mode links to ...artist/_/Blue Bendy instead of the actual page for the artist, ...artist/blue-bendy. I'd just do the table manually, but I honestly don't know how tables work in wikitext. Could I get some help formatting the template to get this to work? (Originally posted at WP:VPT but didn't get any replies, so I thought I'd try here) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the problem is that the Official Record Store Chart isn't supported by the template. I'm not sure whether it would qualify per the guidelines at WP:CHARTS, but it doesn't appear anyone has asked about it there or on the template's talk page. I would suggest bringing it up at CHARTS' talk page if no one else responds here regarding its validity. For now, I don't think you can include it via the template, so you'd be better off putting it in prose. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I've brought it up at WP:CHARTS. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Until it's fixed, you can edit the table through the visual editor, which is infinitely easier than editing it via wikitext. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 11:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's real, actually - I tend to forget that the visual editor exists :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The Number of the Beast (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) 00:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

If a band is unambiguously and explicitly described as playing a certain style of music on an album, is that generally enough for them to be included on a list of artists performing that style of music? This is a perennial issue, and has come up today at the List of melodic death metal bands and two days ago at the List of death metal bands, !–K (which actually specifies that the band only need have performed death metal for part of their career). Should this be default presumed, with exceptions on a case-by-case basis?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

If the review calls the band a genre, yes.

If the review calls the album a genre, then no. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 ok, thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 what if the band's press releases describe them as that style, but the accessible independent coverage only describes a particular album as that (without disputing the band labeling or implying a departure from the usual?)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I try not to use any WP:PRIMARY sources like press releases in relation to music genre, as I feel they're often promotional and self-serving. For example, it was very popular for nu metal or emo bands to claim they were "never really actually that genre" after the genre fell out of mainstream popularity, as a bid for continued relevance and acceptance. Other band's try to make up genre to sensationalize their output. ("Cinematic rock" and "American Gothic" come to mind.) It makes for interesting talking points in "Musical style and influences" sections when presented in the context of it being the band's own words, but I don't use it for actual genre designations in infoboxes or other areas of labeling. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Right. I've long avoided primary source statements for genre statements, outside of the artist discussing their style as you elaborate above. What I'm referring to is a case where an independent source matches with what a band or record label describes their style as, but the independent source only does so in referring to the sound on an album. It's thus a case where the sound of the band isn't really in dispute between the band or independent journalism, but the guidance of not listing a band unless the band and not an album is referred to as the style would exclude that band as an entry on the list.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't. I'd use the third party source to source the genre for the album, but not use either for the band article. But that's just me, maybe that's me being too strict. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 I personally would, in such cases, because there doesn't seem to be a dispute. However, I do think that such an issue is more of access to the quality sources or else a lack of notability. In the particular case in question, neither myself nor the other editor disputed the label of the band, but what counts as RS for listing the band as melo-death.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@FMSky, pinging you as a courtesy--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, there's an open discussion here about special editions (remixes and deluxe versions). Please do check it out and leave your suggestions. dxneo (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion being held at WP:RSN about whether or not theyeargrungebroke.com ([3]) qualifies as a reliable source. Feel free to comment any thoughts about this source here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The talk of when it's appropriate for a reissue to get its own page above made me think about In Rainbows Disk 2 — not a reissue, but a bonus disc included in the special edition of the 2007 Radiohead album In Rainbows.

Over recent months I found more and more coverage in RSs of the bonus disc and adding it to the main In Rainbows article. It's now grown to the point where all that coverage is pretty juicy, so I've experimented with how it might look split into its own article in my sandbox.

However, the idea of giving a bonus disc its own article sets off all my Wikipedia alarms, so I'd like to hear if other people think this is a good idea or not. Popcornfud (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Much respect for the effort, but personally I would say no to the split. I think it's important to keep in mind (and I'm not sure everyone always does) that the primary concern that leads to a split is article size. In this case, while you're right that there's quite a bit there, it is still relatively compact and unobtrusive. Unless you have a bunch more to add where it would balloon to an unseemly degree, I don't see the necessity. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not convinced of it myself yet either. Thanks for the input. Popcornfud (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've encountered metal-temple.com both in web searches and on used on Wikipedia since around the time I started editing almost 15 years ago. I've considered its reliability over those years but have always landed on unreliable. However, I can't say why more than just vibes. They do have an editorial and writing staff. However, I don't know the quality or credentials of the writers. I've tried to find WP:USEBYOTHERS, but that's been difficult. They've also been around since 2000, so potentially those usages could have gone down the memory hole or are buried in internet archive. I guess they're certainly well-established. And I can't pinpoint anything questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Folk-metal.nl is another source I want to confirm reliability or unreliability for. It being Dutch, use by others is tricky to determine. The name also throws off my search engine as well. They do list their staff, including the editor. I will note that I cite them in articles I'm working on in my sandbox, and I used them for the List of melodic death metal bands recently. I want to confirm that this actually is a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Metal Rules is long established (since 1995) - and called one of the "longest-running" by Blabbermouth.net here - and back in 2007 was getting well over 1 million site views a month (verified by this source). There's lots of use by others, including by The New York Times [4] and Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles [5]. I also found some citations in books for content other than interviews: [6], [7], [8], [9]. The site has an editor and regular staff. I personally say that this one is a slam-dunk reliable as one of the best online-only sources you're going to get for the subject area. But I want to get some consensus to confirm my assessment.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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) I was able to confirm the link regarding the page views through Internet Archive. As of 2017, it was indeed getting over 400,000 views.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  Sergecross73, JeffSpaceman, Geschichte, Graywalls, do we have consensus that the source is reliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, and MusicforthePeople.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have nothing against it being added to WP:RSMUSIC, based on your and Serge's comments above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm all for it being added as well. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• comment Needs better context. I think you're overly relying on WP:USEBYOTHERS based argument. WP:NYPOST is a good example of something which gets mentioned often in other outlets that is specifically classified as not reliable in RSP. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What additional context do you need? I outlined the editorial information we have. I'm confused because I didn't refer to use by others at all. That was MusicforthePeople. Do you mean in how the source is used? Generally, the RSMUSIC list is a list of sources deemed generally reliable for what the sources are typically used for: Establishing notability, critical opinion of works (RSMUSIC has since expanded beyond a list of reliable and unreliable publications for critical reviews), but that was its origins), factual statements about artists and personnel, dates of recordings/releases/concerts, and genre labels. If you're challenging the idea of a list of generally reliable sources, that's fair, I've seen other editors disagreeing with that concept. In which case, I'd recommend an RfC at RS/N about the existence of RSMUSIC and how you propose it be re-tooled. As is, I've recently been trying to add qualifiers or explanatory notes to sources that I think need them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have a specific concern? Or are there disputes or concerns elsewhere or something? It feels like you're asking for a better counterpoint, but I'm not seeing the concerns you want addressed in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's more to it than "it's reliable" or "it's not reliable". Some things are fine for confirming the very basics, but undue for using it to fluff up the article with what the bands would presumably want presented. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that reliability is far more complex than just reliable/unreliable. But what are you referring to with "undue for using it to fluff up the article with what the bands would presumably want presented"? What examples from this source are you thinking of? Have you found instances of this publication writing on behalf of bands, rather than independent reporting?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of that, and did not suggest otherwise. I do not understand why that is your response to me asking you what your actual concerns are, or why you still haven't stated what your concerns are. I'm asking you for your evaluation of Metal.de. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  If Graywalls isn't going to articulate any actual opposition with any sort of substance, then I think we're ready to list it on WP:RSMUSIC. I'm trying to assume good faith, but their participation thus far is getting awfully close to WP:STONEWALLING... Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you or another participating editor wants to implement the change, I'm not opposed. I'm just being cautious after the (rightful) pushback against my bold edit before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll give Graywalls a day or two to respond first, then probably go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73, excuse me, but people have things happening outside of Wikipedia. I was pinged into this discussion and I shared my comment, and it seems to be that because I commented, I have an obligation to you to reply within xx hours. Please visit WP:TND WP:TIND and I'm asking you to hold off accusing others of stonewalling because the discussion apparently isn't moving along at your expected pace.

  @3family6 What I meant is, what is the kind of thing you're trying to support? It could be reliable to support that such and such interview was held, but not really establish notability. I say "could be" since I do not read/write German. Graywalls (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, it was a complaint about the substance of your comments more than your response time. Your initial comment was very vague and your follow up seemed to lecture on points not being made - neither were particularly unhelpful. Sergecross73 msg me 05:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Graywalls The source would be used for establishing notability, describing album/artist genre and style, give critical opinion, and verify basic facts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Graywalls what does The Needle Drop have to do with this? This source isn't self-published. Please reread my rationale above at the beginning of the discussion. Based on that, what are your concrete concerns about this specific source and how it will be used, other than it being in a foreign language?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I missed a letter. That was a typo. WP:TIND is what I meant. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Graywalls ah, that makes a lot more sense.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM is still an essay. I've proposed that it be made a formal MOS guideline. The discussion is here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I remember when WP:VG when through this process years back, we had to make tweaks and changes, we may need more eyes on this depending on how this goes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Bat Out of Hell II: Back into Hell 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) 03:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is Flood Magazine reliable? They seem to have a lot of coverage when I write an album article. On their about page, it shows they have an editorial team, and their founder has a long history in the music industry. They also are available in print, and have cover stories on lots of notable people. Thoughts? Locust member (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. They seem quite reliable to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If a publication has a print format, is established, and isn't a one person zine but with a staff, I'd generally presume reliability. Obviously, if it has a negative reputation (*cough cough* Daily Mail), don't use it, but typically I'd say that traditional print media is desired.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is for Draft:Waylon Wyatt, which is currently mostly primary sources right now. I plan to rewrite the draft based on secondary sources, and there are some good ones like Rolling Stone and Billboard, but I am unsure of the validity of these three sites and cannot find any discussion on them:

• Countrytown: https://countrytown.com/features/waylon-wyatt-bayker-blakenship-til-the-sun-goes-down-jailbreak-interview/KOKWOj08Pz4/22-10-24
• Country Now: https://countrynow.com/exclusive-qa-17-year-old-waylon-wyatt-on-balancing-school-and-a-blossoming-music-career/
• Holler Country Music: https://holler.country/news/breaking/waylon-wyatt-releases-long-awaited-single-o-d/

Thanks for any help y'all can provide. wizzito | say hello! 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I can find so far:

• Countrytown is owned by SGC Media, which also owns the following music news sites: The Music, Purple Sneakers, and Kill Your Stereo. The Music has a WP article and seems to be long-running (since 1990), which seems like a good indicator of reliability to me (not sure what anyone else thinks). Purple Sneakers is listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 46#New Publications (a discussion from 2013) as a "webzine" with "editorial oversight."
• Country Now's about page lists the actual writers of the site, who have college degrees and have written for other publications, mostly in the country music space. Seems to be new, as they claim to have launched in 2019.
• Holler Country Music seems to let freelancers contribute to their site. If you click the top right corner, you find this message: "If you would like to advertise on our site, be a partner or sponsor, contribute as a journalist, work for us or have any other question, give us a holler!" They do have an editorial policy. Their editor-in-chief has won an award from the Country Music Association (not sure how valid that really is). wizzito | say hello! 17:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

All three of those look pretty solid, for the reasons you state. For the third one, yes, getting an award from the CMA for media certainly is valid, and a really good credential for an editor-in-chief to have.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the reliability of Holler Country, also known as Holler? It's currently being used in Chapel Hart, which I am currently reviewing a GA nomination for, but I don't recognize this source nor can I find much information on it. Here's what's being used. Lazman321 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not extremely familiar with RS discussions but the source seems generally reliable. Their writers seems qualified and their editorial policy seems to suggest strong standards and a good review process. They appear to be quite young though and I can't find much other sources talking about them. Justiyaya 14:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I also started a discussion about this source and some others below. I note in that discussion that they appear to let freelance journalists contribute to their site. If you click the top right corner, you find this message: "If you would like to advertise on our site, be a partner or sponsor, contribute as a journalist, work for us or have any other question, give us a holler!" wizzito | say hello! 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a difference between "freelance journalists" and "anyone" though. Lots of RS's use the help of qualified, credentialed freelance writers. However, if they simply let anyone submit stories, then its a WP:USERG problem. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Good observation. I note that other sources that allow people to contribute are considered unreliable, like Sportskeeda and We Got This Covered. I guess those fall into the category of "any old person can contribute." wizzito | say hello! 18:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It gets even more complicated with sources like Sputnikmusic, Ultimate Guitar, and Metal Storm, where there are both staff and users, so you have to specifically check for the authorship of the article/post.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tkbrett recently reverted over ten edits like this that had changed the "title link" for a book citation from an external URL (the Internet Archive full text) to an internal wikilink (a Wikipedia article on the book itself). I understand this to be standard practice, as Template:Cite book says to remove the URL when there is a title link.

Tkbrett says this change needs wider discussion because the Beatles articles typically use URLs in their citations and not title links. My experience is that articles can have both and I've never seen this be a point of contention before. Bringing it here since most of the affected Beatles articles are albums: Apart from any local article consensus on citation style, should title link edits like my example above be reverted or let stand? czar 14:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case, your edits removed the link to the book at the Internet Archive in favour of linking the Wikipedia entry. The former assists with verifying cited material. Not only that, this citation format has been in place for years at an FA like Sgt. Pepper. Why change that? Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I encourage others to weigh in. Here's the Sgt. Pepper example. Note that the Internet Archive URL (which is not a readable full text) is also linked from the book's Wikipedia article's External links section. czar 14:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This is tangential to the discussion, but it is a helpful trick: the Internet Archive made many books only available to patrons with disabilities, but if you use the search function to look for keywords, you can in effect still read the entire text. Tkbrett (✉) 15:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This is certainly a great tip, but I would note that this is also a possible copyright violation and IA may eventually be sued over this if they don't close this loophole. Much of what IA has scanned/uploaded in their earlier years (or added via partner institutions) is not public domain material but just hasn't been noticed by the rights holders yet. I would strongly caution against linking to IA-hosted material that is only available to people with print disabilities, as this content is the most likely to be copyrighted and expressly restricted from non-disability-access-related use (i.e., IA never had permission in the first place to scan/upload, but they're avoiding lawsuits by restricting access to people with print disabilities who would otherwise be unable to read a standard copy of the material, making the scan fair use). I have to think a rights holder is eventually going to notice that the content of the material is available to the public via the keyword search loophole and will one day take action, and at that point the links to those restricted IA copies may just be useless for the general public. --19h00s (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so Template:Cite book also says to remove the title link if there is a URL link; it doesn't favor one or the other. I'm not sure that there is a standard practice. I'd defer to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for Beatles articles in this case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)