Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Hello, can anybody help me add https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Jolyon_Petch to this group?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainamera22 (talk • contribs) 01:26, July 17, 2021 (UTC)

I started the following discussion earlier this year: Talk:Sex Pistols#FA review needed? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey everybody, it's my first time creating an article. Here it is: Draft:Goblins_from_Mars. Please feel free to tell me what you think about it. Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mirk0dex: I can tell you right off the bat that this won't pass. Every source you have on the page is from Twitter, Soundcloud, or YouTube. None of those are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. What you need is coverage that is independent of the artist, like from a magazine or website article. For music articles, it's always a good bet to start with the sites listed at WP:RSMUSIC, and any others that have coverage of this duo. Try sorting that table by genre to find the electronic-/EDM-focused sites and the all-genre ones, those are where you'd most likely find coverage if there is any. QuietHere (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Thanks for your answer. I will work on the issues described ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: looks like Goblins from Mars aren't suitable for Wikipedia, yet. This is sad. I have found no coverage of the topic on independent magazines and websites. Well, guess I'll have to wait... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the problem - they appear to have no coverage at all outside of their own social media. Unless one of their tracks goes viral in the near future, you could be waiting a very long time. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, AllMusic has been challenged as a reference on Fade into You: an IP editor claims that this song cannot be classified as "Blues" and gives a music theory reason for it. This is, of course WP:OR but let's assume that the claim has merit; can a better source than AllMusic be found to assert that this song cannot be considered "Blues"? I would imagine that the definition of "Blues" is malleable. Of course to my ears that song couldn't be anything but Blues, but if music theory says it's not, well, who am I to judge? Elizium23 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

One of my favourite songs of the 1990s. We've always gone on the basis that if a reliable source calls it that, then it's acceptable as a genre, regardless of personal opinion... if Rolling Stone called this "ambient metal" we would accept that, no matter how ridiculous that sounds. As you say, people are always going to have their own opinion of what constitutes "blues" or any other genre – as a Brit I've never understood why some American critics classify all early 80s synthpop as "new wave", and you will struggle to find any British sources that describe Duran Duran or Howard Jones as this. So as genre definitions are subjective, I don't see what other option we have from accepting the definitions in reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IP's music theory claim is here. And yes, that is definitely OR (and I'm not even sure it's correct) and should be ignored. As for the sourcing question, would there be anything more to it than if an editor finds another source saying "This is note blues" or something to that effect then we remove the tag to avoid the contradiction? It's not like we consider any source infallible, especially not AllMusic with that pernicious sidebar. QuietHere (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard and QuietHere pretty much cover a lot of the points I would have. They are correct. We go by what reliable sources says. Their only realistic policy paced action would be to find source(s) that directly call it "not blues" and amending it to the prose. Something like changing it from "Allmusic described it as a blues song" to "While Allmusic described it as blues, Pitchfork refuted the label, calling it "not blues, but a pop song" (or whatever). I've done that on occasion to paint a fuller picture on some more questionable genre labels from reliable sources in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, are there a lot of other sources that call this song a blues song? You could just make the case that either this is a clearly established majority opinion from a wide array of sources and should stay, or maybe "blues" is just a minority outlier opinion and should be tossed out. We're not required to just blindly repeat what AllMusic says just because the source exists. Second, after looking at the source in question, it's not a page for the song or the album, it's for a compilation album that encompasses many artists across many genres. The way they describe the song is "glorious mope blues," which I don't think the writer is trying to say "this song's genre is 100% blues rock" I think they're being colorful and saying that it's blue as in the vibe is "gloomy" or "melancholy". A case could be made that this source doesn't even directly support the claim in the first place. And third, I've done what Sergecross is describing before. On Crosses (band) the band is described as "witch house" but there's also a fair amount of sources that explicitly state "Crosses is not witch house" and I've combined the two view points. At any rate, I think there should just be more research done before a decision is made—don't go by what the IP is saying but don't discount their point either. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How many sources would we need? Are you saying that there should be a minimum number of sources describing a genre as such before it can be added to the infobox? And you've used personal opinion in your reasoning why this shouldn't be called a blues song. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying we need a minimum, I'm saying we should use common sense. If 50% of published sources call it "alt rock" and 49% call it "dream pop" and only 1% call it "blues", then maybe "blues" shouldn't be included in the article or the infobox at all because it's a minority opinion. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it." But on the flip side, if it's extremely easy to find 100 published sources that say this song is "blues" then just add a couple more to the article to demonstrate that this is exactly what the majority of established publications are saying. Also per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts." Music journalists are not scientists who publish outright peer-reviewed scientific facts, they're just publishing their own subjective opinions based on their owns subjective listening experiences. I don't think editors of music pages on Wikipedia should get in the habit of adding a genre to an infobox just because a single opinion on the entire internet says so. There should be more care and research put into finding and only representing majority opinions on genre in the infobox and having discussion on if minority opinions should be expanded upon in the body or tossed out entirely. And yes, I've used my personal opinion on a talk page as that is what they are for. I personally think the phrase "glorious mope blues" is ambiguous in its meaning and if this song so clearly demonstrates blues music then it should be very easy to find a less ambiguous source that supports this idea so explicitly that it's impossible for IPs and other editors to object to the information provided in the article. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, sure. Minority opinions like that can be ignored, or added as an attributed opinion but kept out of infoboxes per UNDUE. But that's a different question than the "disproving" framing you opened with. There's a difference between a minority opinion and an incorrect/contradicted one, and it helps to keep that in mind when you're framing a question like this so everyone's on the same page regarding what you're wanting to discuss. QuietHere (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't open with "disproving". This is not my thread. I was merely tossing in my two cents. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, misread a name. But, uhh, yeah, still what I said before. UNDUE and whatnot. Makes sense to me. QuietHere (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So I was laboring under the assumption that we editors recognize AllMusic as generally reliable for music genres, but that is not the case. From WP:RSP: Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar. I think it's safe to say that a sidebar mentioning "glorious mope blues" can be safely tossed out in favor of stronger classifications, wherever we may find them. Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not the sidebar, that's from the review. The sidebar is over on the left side of the page where it also lists the release date and whatnot. QuietHere (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. RSP/RSMUSIC is saying don't use all the stuff listed on the side (or top on mobile) - the pop/rock, College Rock, Trad Rock stuff listed. Genre listed in the prose of reviews and biographies are fair game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#musicandhistory.com. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

How do we feel about the widely referenced, self published site, http://acclaimedmusic.net (no SSL; insecure)? Short discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § acclaimedmusic.net and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 99 § acclaimedmusic.net concluded, as I do, that it should not be cited as it is not a reliable source. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't like its use on Wikipedia. As an example, I picked When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? because I knew it would have a very wide listing from countries all over the world [1]. So firstly, how do they calculate their overall score? What happens with the "No Order" lists, does every album on that list get an equal score and how does it compare to the scored lists, or are they ignored for the final overall score? They include some rankings from the likes of Piero Scaruffi and Anthony Fantano, who we have debated numerous times and decided that they should not be used for individual ratings, so how can we include them on an overall rating? Going down the page I see ratings from publications from other countries, but we have no idea if these are RS or not. Mexico's Me Hace Ruido, for example, is a website with no obvious editorial board and articles written by people using aliases. Living in Colombia, I know that Radionica is a radio station, not a magazine or website... it's a national station and a good one, but is their list of best albums chosen by the radio presenters, or a public poll? There are so many unanswered questions about this website I don't see how we can use it as an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Many excellent points. Thanks Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Should probably reopen discussion at the noticeboard... Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: Frankly, despite how short the three discussions have been, they're all unanimous in saying no so far, despite being for different reasons. I think you have your answer already. QuietHere (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that I have an answer, but the wider community doesn't have it in stone; explicit consensus is required to eradicate this trash from the site without a fuss, and pointing doubters to multiple short discussions is unlikely to fly. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My stance is the same as Richards. I think it's ready to be listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Super :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)