This article 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Right now the lead for this list reads as follows:
The following is a list of music albums, EPs, and mixtapes scheduled for release in 2023. These are notable albums, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject.
Should we revise this to add other de-facto selection criteria as evinced in edit summaries for this list and its predecessors? For example, in addition to the notability requirement, we enforce a de-facto requirement that either the album or one of the artists has a Wikipedia article, or a subsection of a Wikipedia article dedicated to it. Additionally, reissues, remix albums, compilations (as opposed to mixtapes), and box sets are outside the scope of the list. Declaring these criteria would have saved me some time and effort when I was a new editor on List of 2022 albums, especially since these criteria were established in edit summaries and not in the lead prose or even the talk page. Project Termina (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an idea. Do you want to take a first pass on the wording, showcase it in this discussion, and let others work and rework it until it fits our de-facto requirements. I have to say that although we do declare that either the album or one of the artists should have a Wikipedia article, bands or albums that don't have one or the other articles pretty much do not receive significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Although we only require one citation, any editor should be able to use a web search and find five or so news or review articles about an album that is listed. We are pretty lax about that for listings that do have either a band or album article, sometimes accepting some pretty weak citations, but that is an element of time invested. I generally don't want to do a web search for every album listed, so I accept the first citation that looks suitable, but for artists and albums that don't have a Wikipedia article I spend some time looking for significant coverage, and I can't think of a time when an album without one or both Wikipedia articles also had significant coverage. I believe we could and should be rejecting more album submissions, but generally I lack the time to patrol all the new albums for coverage.
I would not mind seeing some sort of statement that says something like original music albums, EPs, and mixtapes, but not including reissues, variants, and compilations, but maybe worded better. Mburrell (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the metric of requiring 5 or more articles, I've definitely contributed my fair share of non-notable albums. I think expecting 5 is a little overkill, but if that's the expectation then we should state it plainly. I say we keep the lead more general for readers, and get into the specifics on the talk page for the benefit of potential contributors. How about this for the lead:
The following is a list of albums, EPs, and mixtapes scheduled for release in 2023. These albums are (1) original, i.e. excluding reissues, compilations, remix albums, and other variant releases, and (2) notable, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject.
Entry is an original album, EP, or mixtape, that is not a reissue, compilation, remix album, or other variant release, that was released or is scheduled for release in 2023.
Entry meets music notability guideline, usually by being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.
This points a new editor towards some useful resources, such as the subject-specific notability guideline and the known reliable sources list, but gives that editor some latitude to interpret the notability guideline and doesn't require an album's notability to be supported by those known reliable sources. Suppose that we changed the wording to require an entry to be the subject of three works appearing in known reliable sources -- that would limit the scope of the list quite a bit, which might be what we want.
I see what you mean about notable albums usually having an artist or album article. You're probably almost always right, but I will raise you Boat Songs by MJ Lenderman, which has a Pitchfork review and a Stereogum review, is #10 on Paste's EOY list, and will probably be on a few more. I was thinking about writing an article for the album or the artist, but I haven't worked up the courage/motivation yet. Project Termina (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant is a poorly defined word, more of a fudge factor than a term. Is three good sources significant, is four, or the five I mentioned earlier? How about a compromise between the three and five and ask for four works from known reliable sources. As for Boat Songs, go ahead and list it, and I won't delete it, but it would make some editors happier if you created even a starter article for either the artist or album, but I won't say it is required.
I like your wording both for the list and for the talk page, go ahead and post them. Next, would you be willing to post the same information in all the lists from 2004 though 2022, or would you want me to do that? Mburrell (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think three is a better baseline to start from as that's the typical number looked for to confirm notability in AfDs. Keeping in mind that the whole idea is that there should be enough coverage that an article could be made for the release in the future, I think we should stick with the existing standard.
As for the release type criteria, we've never disallowed remix albums before so long as they're covered independently from the original release. I don't see any reason to change that now. QuietHere (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair then, three good citations is the minimum for significant coverage. And you are right about the re-mixes. Anytime an artist re-does the album, such as Taylor Swift with her re-releases, as long as it is a new recording, we allow them on the list. That applies to whole albums, not a deluxe album with same original songs and extended or re-mixed new songs added on for further marketing purposes. Mburrell (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I'm not sure where I got the idea that remix albums were out of the picture. Here's an updated proposal for the lead:
The following is a list of albums, EPs, and mixtapes scheduled for release in 2023. These albums are (1) original, i.e. excluding reissues, remasters, and compilations of previously released recordings, and (2) notable, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject.
If y'all like the look of this, I can edit the articles and talk pages from List of 2005 albums onwards. My understanding is that when some time passes with no further dialog, an administrator will archive this thread and create a special diff to put in the {{list criteria}} template in place of Talk:List of 2023 albums#Selection criteria.
It occurred to me that maybe we should link to this thread in Talk:List of 2022 albums, in case anybody looking there but not here has anything to contribute to the conversation, but it occurred to me that most of the discussion on that page is from you two anyway. So, I dunno. If I get the OK from one of you I'll make the change across the lists.
Looks good to me. If you look at Talk:List of 2021 albums (January–June), you will see that the two subjects are pinned, which means that the subjects do not get archived, at least for a decade. If you go to the edit, you can see how. I would post that here, but I don't want to accidentally place a pin in the wrong location. Mburrell (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the edits to all of the lists and their corresponding talk pages, except for List of 2018 albums, which is extended-protected (I have not hit the edit milestone yet). Would one of you make the edit on that article? Project Termina (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done does not appear to have received reliable coverage. Check back in if you find any critic reviews or anything of the sort. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where this is coming from all of a sudden, but it doesn't make any sense to be why we're suddenly including "Music" in the names of linked record labels when we haven't been doing so with "Records", "Productions", or any other common terms. Template:Infobox album#label doesn't say anything about exceptions to that rule, and it was my understanding that we were basing these lists' style regarding that column on that guideline. To my memory, we've been consistent about abbreviating labels such as Mom + Pop Music, !K7 Music, etc., and I don't see why that should change now. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list and doesn't really make any sense to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the term "all of a sudden" applies, as we have been including Music in the label listing for years, and it was only recently drawn to my attention that there was some inconsistencies, which I started trying to rectify, but I see that I selected badly on a couple of my fixes. It is true that the majority of Mom + Pop are shorn of their Music suffix, and same with !K7, but a review of the previous five years show a large amount of listings with Music included in the shown label title.
I had commented on the edit summary of 2024 list of albums that five previous years, list of albums 2022 through list of albums 2017, were consistent about keeping Music in the name of record labels. There is a pattern to remove Records, Entertainment, Group, Inc., and other corporate terms, but it is very inconsistent on the removal of Music, with more listings of Music than those that are hidden.
I had at one point considered lumping Music into the same category of label suffixes to be removed, but then realized that many firms used a play on words, such as Mello Music, GOOD Music, Morr Music, Strange Music, Infectious Music, Hear Music, etc. Because of the play on words, this is a listing that I would like to keep, and maybe we should look into consistency.
To sum up, there is inconsistency on whether Music is included in the shown label listing, and we could clean it up by going with the majority of listings by including Music on all of them, or by treating it as a corporate name similar to Records, Entertainment, Group, etc. and remove them, or treating them case-by-case, and removing Music from Mom + Pop because the majority of listing for that label don't include Music, but adding it to others that lean the other way such as Ferret Music, in which case we should maybe agree which ones should be with the suffix and which ones should be without. If we went that direction, I would want the Music suffix on all the ones that are a play on the phrase, such as Morr Music and Hear Music, plus other corporate ones such as Sony Music because there is a whole corporate umbrella company called Sony that is separate from Sony Music.
I would like to poll others on what direction that they want to go. I know I am in favor of keeping Music as a suffix, either for all, or for the ones that have been most frequently kept in the past. For now we can go back and restore Mom + Pop Music back to Mom + Pop while we consider a method if label listings. Mburrell (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this decision could potentially affect more than just these list pages since it is based on the language of infobox album, so I'm going to leave a notice at WT:ALBUM regarding this discussion so we can get a larger consensus involved.
For what it's worth, I don't see why there should be any special consideration based on play-on-words or anything else like that, and I think people can differentiate between the larger Sony company and Sony Music specifically given the column is explicitly for record labels which is only one of Sony's businesses. I understand where those concerns come from, but I don't see them as actual problems. I acknowledge that I didn't actually look back at all the pages to see how consistent this was, but that I have personally been consistently running on the assumption I had already made that it shouldn't be included and I haven't seen my (or anyone's) additions corrected until now on these grounds. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with QuietHere that editors seem to have been consistent about dropping "Music". Even in the examples mentioned by Mburrell above, where the inclusion of "Music" can be considered a play on words, I have gotten used to seeing text and I believe even sources use just "Infectious" or "GOOD" without "Music" following. I don't think much is being missed by dropping the word "Music" like we do "Records" as it seems very much analogous to that word. I just don't think we're missing anything except a little bit of a pun in some instances if we're being consistent. Ss112 07:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112, they're not 100 percent consistent though. Labels without an article that have "entertainment," "records," or "music" in their name is left in the listing. In the List of 2024 albums, I removed "Records" from Wicked Awesome Records in Kid Cudi's entry twice, but it was added back. So I just left it after the second time. Unless a discussion happened and consensus was reached, why is there a discrepancy with not needing it when Wikilinking articles and needing for labels without an article? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. C.C. that's a style decision which has been consistently applied in these lists for a while, and just something nobody's challenged before. Actually, it's good that you brought it up, because it's something I've also thought about but just not said anything before. It is a weird inconsistency which doesn't really make sense to maintain. I don't know anywhere else that handles linked/non-linked label names differently, and I don't think we should either. @Mburrell is this a style choice which originated with you, or just one you've upheld, and do you have any reason why it should continue? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere, it's ironic you replied to me considering it was you that added it back with your edit summary being "Labels without articles get their full names listed." If you think it's good that someone brought it up, you could and should have. You also shouldn't have added it back. It's not up to one person to decide what should be done. Thousands upon thousands of discussions have been had since Wikipedia began to reach consensus on stuff. One should have been done for this with a consensus being reached. I'm of the mindset that it shouldn't be one for this and another way for that. If it's a label, regardless of article or not, it should be consistent. Now that a discussion, on this issue, is happening, consensus should be reached. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was such a big deal that it needed a discussion/to be changed, just a quirk that I wasn't so sure about. I've gotten in enough arguments about the tiniest details of style nonsense on this site and they are very unfun discussions, so I'm certainly not gonna pick at 'em myself if I don't have to. I fix things like that only 'cause I know if I don't, someone else will, most likely Mburrell, so I might as well if I get a chance to. But if it turns out there's a consensus that that's not a fix, and in fact should be the other way around, then I'm fine with that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The convention of fully spelling out a non-linked label listing while trimming off the Records or Entertainment is a style decision that predates my involvement in the music lists, which for me started in 2014. It is one of the styles I have maintained, and still support. It is also why even when a label has a trimmed off short cut that leads to the label listing, I still support the full label listing followed by the alias listing, so that a cursor hover over the linked label listing will still show the fully spelled out label without requiring clicking to the new page to read out the label full name. As a side note, I will mention that Wicked Awesome Records has a section on the Kid Cudi page, so that there are hyperlinks to the section, so that one could do the abbreviated Wicked Awesome, or my preferred spelled out and aliased link Wicked Awesome, so there is no need to do a non-linked listing.
I do not believe there has ever been a discussion in a Wikipedia wide forum about whether to keep or trim off the Records and Entertainments off of labels, or even the Musics which I think are part of the name and not part of the corporate listing. Maybe there should be. I know that I am one that is for keeping them visible in album infoboxes and lists, whether by fully spelling out the non-linked labels or in the hover-text visible of the linked labels, but someone could initiate such a conversation on such a forum as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Mburrell (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BrooklynVegan is now classified as unreliable[edit]
We have two choices here. We can either replace all BrooklynVegan citations with reliable sources, or we can develop a reason why BrooklynVegan is a reliable source or at least why a two input discussion is insufficient to add it to the unreliable list, and remove it from the unreliable source list. I propose that if by the end of January that BrooklynVegan is still in the unreliable list, we go through all the album lists and replace the BrooklynVegan citations with a reliable source. Mburrell (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that listing as inappropriate. In my experience, I see no reason why BV wouldn't be reliable, and the discussion cited is way out of date anyway so a new discussion should be had first before any decisions are made. I would change nothing about our lists until such a discussion takes place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some references in the article have been removed, with an edit summary saying that the album is "self-notable". What are the criteria for determining that an album is self-notable, and therefore does not require a footnote here? I was thinking it would be if the album has its own Wikipedia article, but many such albums are still listed here with a footnote. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-notable" is just shorthand for "the release's article clearly demonstrates the subject's own notability." Not just having an article, but showing clear evidence that the article should be there as defined by GNG and NALBUM. If an article doesn't show notability than our list still needs it (assuming said releases are in fact notable but simply lack the article; if they aren't notable, they should be removed), but if it does then it helps cut down on size issues with the list significantly. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take, for example, Live in London (Christone Ingram album) which you just added. Between at least two reviews from reliable sources (AllMusic and Guitar World) and a Grammy nomination, the album is clearly notable. On the other hand, you have I Got Heaven and Mountainhead, which both have enough coverage for clear notability available, but said coverage hasn't been added to those articles yet so the article itself doesn't support that at the moment. If someone adds those additional sources (which I listed on their respective talk pages in this case) to the articles, then they would both show clear self-notability and we could remove the sources for them from their list entries. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of every album list article is a statement of what is acceptable to post on the list. The first part defines what type of album is allowed, the second part defines notability required for the list. What we require from self-notable album articles is the same notability as required by this list, which is "defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject." Very rarely do albums that have not yet been released meet with self-notable requirements, but around the time of release and afterwards, as reviews of the album are posted, many articles can be completed with news and review citations, which meets the significant coverage portion of the requirement, and depending on the sources (national or regional news and review sources, generally going to be listed on the reliable source table of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Reliable sources, which includes both English-language reliable sources and links to tables for Non-English sources, Korean sources, Latin sources, Christian sources. As a note, be wary of college papers being considered a reliable source, as they are generally not regionally or nationally recognized for reputable coverage. Mburrell (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello QuietHere and Mburrell. Thanks for the responses. What yous are saying seems reasonable, I think. I shall ponder this further. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done does not appear to have received reliable coverage. Check back in if you find any critic reviews or anything of the sort. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)