Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Major music competition" 2

Would the national level of a junior competition be a "major" musical competition? Question is specifically in regard to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007, where the articles on all the national winners were nominated for speedy deletion: Lisa, Amy & Shelley, Trust (2007 band), Alexandra Golovchenko, 4Kids (group), Made In Greece. Articles from 2006 national winners include Andrey Kunets. The international winners seem notable enough, and Thor Salden went on to a more clear independent fame. What do others think? Gimmetrow 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thor Salden seems to have charted so thats his notability. Andrey Kunets, however, doesnt seem to be notable. the guide says has won or placed in a major music competition. If they havent won or placed in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007 then i dont think they can claim notability. The best bet would be to see if you can find some reliable articles on them if there arent any they probably arent notable enough for an article as there wouldnt be enough source to make the article any more than a stub. Non-notability is not a valid reason for a speedy delete request. It could only be done by proposed deletion --Neon white (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All these groups have won their national junior competition. My question is whether a national junior competition is a "major" competition. Apparently a few admins don't consider winning a national junior competition even a *claim* to notability. Another factor is that many of these groups will never do anything else, either because they don't succeed or because they split up. Personally, I would merge the brief descriptions to the article on the international contest, and only split out ones who become independently notable. Gimmetrow 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

DJ's

Maybe I missed it but I do not see DJs in this guide. Do they fall here or under WP:Bio? Do we need specific criteria on them? Gtstricky (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they might be governed by WP:Music#Others in terms of criterion #5. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be cosidered under 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' --Neon white (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Contestants

Would contestants for an upcoming musical competition be notable? Say, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007?-Carados (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. They are not just contestants. Gimmetrow 22:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Three separate stubs, or one bigger article?

I am about to create a series of articles pertaining to Texas musician Trent Summar, and the two bands that he is/was members of (Hank Flamingo and Trent Summar & The New Row Mob). However, because all three are on the fringe of passing WP:MUSIC, and because sources are scant, I'm not certain if I should make a separate page for each act, or do some combining. Here are the facts:

• Trent Summar meets criterion #1 for composers and lyricists, as he co-wrote a single for Jack Ingram and an album track for Billy Currington.
• Trent Summar & The New Row Mob meet criterion #2 for musicians and ensembles, as they entered the U.S. country music charts in 2000 (albeit with a single that peaked at #74). They also seem to meet criterion #5, as two of their albums were on marginally notable labels: VFR (a label that, while very short-lived, was also home to Mark McGuinn and Hometown News) and Palo Duro Records.
• Hank Flamingo, then, would meet criterion #6, as Summar was a former member of it back in the 1990s. They recorded only one album (although it was on a major label), and never charted. The only reliable source I can find for the band per se is their bio on All Music Guide.

I would like to know what anyone else thinks is the best option for handling these three pages. So far, I'm thinking that the best option would be to make Hank Flamingo a redirect to Trent Summar and make a separate entry for Trent Summar & The New Row Mob, but I'd like to hear some feedback from other users regarding how to handle these three pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TenPoundHammer. Your approach sounds plausible to me. Alternatively, if you find there's not enough sourcing to sustain the three, you might want to make one page for Trent Summar & The New Row Mob and redirect both of the other articles to it. With Trent Summar being bandleader, I think that approach would be sensible, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 9

"A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:... 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."

• Two major problems:
  • 1) What is a major music competition? How is it defined?
  • 2) What does "placed" mean? 2nd? 3rd? 8th? 137th? Very unclear. Especially on such articles as minor American Idol or X Factor contestants. (Are these even major music competitions?)
• BLACKKITE 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For Australian Idol, we generally just have winner/runner up getting their own article, and anyone who releases after the show has to garnish notability through other means (releases on notable record label, reliable sources discussing them specifically (not discussing the contest), etc.). But I'm not sure what the deal is in other cases. And I would consider Aus Idol to be a "major" competition. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that Aus Idol is (and the two that I mentioned too). But then again it's difficult to draw a bright line at a certain point. BLACKKITE 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say we could certainly draw a line with Idol/X Factor competitions - preferably the line I noted above. With other competitions I don't know. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:IDOL is that the finalists for each country's idol get articles, and the others are redirected to the season (or series) if they aren't famous for some other reason. I would say typically only a winner or runner-up in a music competition could use the criterion here. As for what the major music competitions are, though, is hard to brightline. I would say anything at a national or international level would be enough of a claim to keep the article from speedy deletion, but it may need discussion at afd to decide if the competition were significant enough. A good rule of thumb, that I often think of with the 2 or more albums rule, is whether the competition is notable in its own right, i.e. whether it does (or should) have its own article. Of course that just pushes the discussion to a different article, but you can consider how widely-reported it is (in reliable sources) and so forth. Rigadoun (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, if the competition isn't notable, you'll have a tough case trying to assert criterion 9 on such a case. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for musicians and ensembles #11.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Could we perhaps be more specific with this? Spin (radio) defines light rotation as 5-15 times a week and medium and heavy as progressively more (yet it isn't sourced). It think we should either specify using that article's criteria or our own what level of rotation is adequate. Personally I think if a song has never hit at least medium rotation (10-25 plays/week, then its notability could still be questionable, as with independent artists that make a release, sure it makes it to the radio, but it never really gets much in the way of listenership(made up word?).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have examples of a song that has hit light rotation that isn't notable? Examples make discussions easier. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how I would get an example of a specific song. After all, if they're non-notable, even in light rotation, why would I or anyone else really bother taking note of them? I do have one possible example from a previous deletion discussion that I'll try to look up.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the original afd where this occurred to me:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuphoriaX. Its not major but the person who created the article seemed to support the idea that the band had received light rotation, but given that this page never specifies what amount of play qualifies as "rotation" in the first place its hard to say. Also a lot of radio stations and networks have something akin to a "local band hour" or something similar, and it might be a good idea to be specific about whether or not this is included. Personally I think the spirit of the guideline is that these things are not qualifiers for notability, but that it is sufficiently ambiguous to lead to unnecessary disputes/confusion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:MUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble IS notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria" In my opinion, a claim of notability based only on one single guideline as ambiguous as # 11 would be hard to support if the subject does not meet or at least half way meet any other criteria. The truth is, it would be unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely for an artist who has never had any press coverage, never been on a national tour, and/or never released a record on a major/notable indie label to end up in national rotation on a major network. In other words, if an artist is getting national radio play, chances are they're already notable for some other reason.

As for the question "what qualifies as national rotation?". This would obviously cover the network approved play lists that are transmitted to the affiliate stations from the corporate offices of the major networks. I'm not sure however that this includes things like syndicated programs and local broadcasts that are produced independent of the networks. Such programs are generally scheduled by the program managers of the individual stations and often target specialized markets, demographics, or genres outside of the major networks regular audience. Thoughts? Ky Music Nerd (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Query on "national music charts"

An AFD discussion that was closed as a no consensus brings up a question about what qualifies as a "national music chart." In this case, a listing on an iTunes chart was, according to the [admin], one of the reasons for the no-consensus. (For the record, I mildly disagree with the close, as by numbers the debate was 9-3 for deletion, but not enough to contest it vigorously.)

I'd like to know what the view of such charts based on individual websites or sales outlets such as iTunes - are they considered "national music charts" for the consideration of WP:MUSIC? Personally, I feel that it should be a chart that's put out by a recognized independent publication like Billboard, as nobody's really sure what the reasoning for the chart numbers expressed by something that makes its money by selling said music might be, in my opinion. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed - I don't believe that should be counted as a national music chart (especially as it's a specialist chart) and that AfD should really have been closed as Delete. We've had this situation come up before where bands/songs have been claimed as notable through appearing in such niche charts as Christian Rock or Drum'n'Bass. BLACKKITE 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume a national chart would refer to a national singles chart not a genre chart or any website sales chart. If itunes' charts are allowed then supposedly we would have to allow any online sales chart. --neonwhite user page talk 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any criterion listed in the notability guidelines means "If X happened to subject Y, we assume that Y has been covered by enough independent sources for us to write an article. Clearly in this case the band has not been covered by independent sources, so the assumption doesn't hold. Btw, the chart in question was the iTunes Dance subchart, not the overall iTunes chart. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any reliable record of historical placings on the iTunes charts? I found current top 10s by country, both for sales in general and for specific genres, but I can't find any way to verifiably claim that "song x reach #y on the iTunes deathgrindcore charts in 2006," for instance. This would make it hard to use those charts as evidence of notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifying what non-trivial means

Can we further define what non-trivial in relation to non-trivial published sources. Obviously what is considered trivial is subjective so i think it would be a good idea to specify a little. Are we talking the length of an article? what is contained in the article? Does it have to be a featured on the subject? --neonwhite user page talk 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe non-trivial has to do with the relative importance of the mention in the published source. There's a footnote exemplifying it at WP:N, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfc: C4 International concert tour

The current criteria is that an international tour reported in a reliable source establishes band notability. However, some non-notable weekend cover bands, junior high school marching bands, and other non-notable bands probably meet this. This Rfc is to discuss refining the criteria to make it less inclusive. 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing earlier, and I think this criteria needs to be tightened up a little bit. Perhaps if attendance / sponsorship and so on is taken into account here it would make for a more concrete qualifier. As it stands right now, this is subject to a lot of interpretation. For example, it is MUCH easier to tour internationally in Europe than in The United States, Canada, and Australia, simply for geographical reasons. Also, a band with sufficiently wealthy members could fund an international "tour" much the same way a group of people would go on vacation together, and it says nothing of whether anyone actually bothered to listen to them or if they were received well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that the tour has to be covered in reliable secondary sources which cuts out alot of non-notable tours. --neonwhite user page talk 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Reliable newspapers will often have articles or blurbs on local music scenes. CM (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Local music scenes aren't national or international tours. If they have coverage that would make them notable. --neonwhite user page talk 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If a non-notable band meets a notability criteria, they are, by definition, notable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your statement is tautologically true. I just restated the Rfc to make the point of the Rfc more clear. The point is to discuss whether or not the criteria is too inclusive. CM (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

DHMO, That seems like an incidence of doublespeak to me. Wikipedia's guideline is really more of defining what "degree" of notability something has. Personally I would recommend assessing it as when someone refers something as "non-notable" it is more or less a colloquial representation of "not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia."--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood the original request. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strike criteria Strike the criteria. 4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources. It is not necessary. The other criteria are completely sufficient. CM (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...suggest we let some other people discuss this too? So far (as far as I can see) nobody has supported striking, etc. Personally, I don't think the criteria is too inclusive, as it's covered by the reliable sources quota. I wouldn't object to a number (eg. 2 reliable sources) and the requirement that the band/musician is specifically covered, but I think the criteria should be kept. In any case, I reverted you on the main page until we get more discussion. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. At least one user is ignoring the reliable sources when it comes to speedy deletes, though.[1][2] Of course, a speedy delete is something different than an Afd, and this user might have just been wrong. CM (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD criteria is far more lenient than notability. It only asks that there is any assertion (rather than a sufficient assertion). 2 albums and a tour is an assertion of notability, not necessarily enough for AfD (per this policy, although I think it is) but enough for CSD. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i support adding 'non-trivial' as a quantifier to the reports. I do agree that it shouldnt include minor mentions such as a supporting act getting a brief mention in an article about the headlining act. --neonwhite user page talk 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, independent specific (non trivial) coverage sounds good. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can go along with this. Who will make the change? CM (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't remove this. A national tour is unquestionably an indicator of notability. Should it be automatic that national tour=inclusion? Probably not, but removing it altogether is not the right approach. Music has benefited on Wikipedia by having one of the more liberal and objective notability categories. There's no reason to start hacking away at it haphazardly. Torc2 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• add "non-trivial" to the criteria. Something like: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Dlabtot (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• add "non-trivial" to the criteria, as per Dlabtot. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Change made. [3] Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is really bad. What is "non-trivial" coverage? What coverage is needed for a tour aside from dates and locations? Would local coverage of one date of a national tour be sufficient? How about local coverage in several cities? This needs to be discussed more before the change is made. Torc2 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is non-trivial and trivial is largely decided on a case by case basis. Guidelines can't cover ever situation. --neonwhite user page talk 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This change makes it so it doesn't cover most situations. The question stands: if there's an ad in a San Francisco paper that says Band X is playing at the Fillmore on May 10th, one in a Seattle paper that says they're playing the Crocodile on May 12th, and so on, does that qualify? It should. Torc2 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why it should be removed, it's unecessary. If a band is the subject of reliable independant articles then they are notable. --neonwhite user page talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. The band is the subject of independent coverage, not "articles". The fact the coverage isn't in full-length articles is irrelevant; that level independent coverage is what is appropriate for all parties concerned and sufficient for notability purposes. Torc2 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another issue with this criteria is what is a national tour? How many dates/performances make it a tour? How far do you have to go for it not to be a local tour. Should tours like Lollapalooza count? Are we to rely on a secondary source describing the tour as a national tour for all these points? --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• May as well get rid of it. If the band is genuinely notable, sources will exist. If no one's written about them, nothing else (toured this, won some award that), makes a bit of difference. Enough secondary sourcing is present to write an article, or not. (I have no objection to presenting guidelines as to when a search for sourcing is more likely to prove fruitful, but only if it's made clear that if it does not the subject is still not notable—because it hasn't been noted. That's really all it comes down to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, if reliable sources exist that cite a national tour wouldn't that qualify an artist under the 1st criteria anyway? --neonwhite user page talk 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly, and that's why I don't like the sub-guidelines. If something mentions in passing that Band X toured, and that's the only independent material available, Band X is not notable. If there's substantial material available on Band X in independent and reliable sources, an article is justified. While it may seem counterintuitive, notability has nothing to do with importance or significance or accomplishments. Notability is verifiable. It is verified by having been noted by independent and reliable sources and they having written significant quantities of material, not something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The notability of music is different to general notability guidelines, hence the seperate, it was obviously decided by consensus that criteria for music needed to be more inclusive. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If Band X is playing mid-sized venues (say, 250+ capacity) nationwide, they're sufficiently notable regardless of the amount of material written in papers about the dates. The host venue is an independent body; that notability requirement is satisfied by the host venue believing the band is notable to host them and not having the band play tiny 50-person bars, and by local papers listing the concert in their schedules; that's really all the information necessary. Torc2 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's rubbish. Notability is based on verifiable sources. Advertising is not a criteria for notability as it is self-published. As the policy says 'anyone can pay to have a book published', in the same way 'anyone can pay to go on tour and pay to have it advertised' but if no-one goes or cares much about it, it's not noteworthy. --neonwhite user page talk 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The bands themselves do not published the ads; they are independent of the primary subject. Anybody can go on tour, but not anybody can be booked into multiple large venues across the country. Torc2 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can finance their own tour. Advertising and promotional material is self-published and not an acceptable source for notability. Self-published doesnt necessarily mean that the artist themselves is involved in the publishing, it just means it's not second party or independent. --neonwhite user page talk 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Financing your own tour is not the same as getting booked into a decent-sized venue. Listing events in a calendar is not advertising and is not self-publishing; it's an independent body (a paper or magazine) publishing information about another independent body (a venue) hosting the subject. That's short coverage, but it's all the coverage the event needs, and should not be dismissed as "trivial". If the band was not notable, they would not play major venues and the dates would be ignored by the press. I've seen enough shows at 50-seat venues to know they're not listed on most papers' event calendars. Torc2 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Financing your own tour can meen anything, if you have enough money, you can play anywhere you want. An advert is self published and can never be a valid source for notability. Please see the WP:N policy, specifically the part on being "Independent of the subject" which includes "self-publicity and advertising". Publicity and advertising is paid for, anyone can do, it doesnt make you notable. Notability stems from journalists and editors considering you are important enough to publish. The size of venue is irrelevant is the media do not consider it notable enough to print. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No band has that kind of money, and it's an unrealistic argument. Bands that tour nationally don't rent large venues from the owners, they make agreements with the owners to play there. Can you find any source that argues otherwise? That bands rent halls out on nationwide tours and hope they break even? It doesn't happen that way. Also, calendars of evens are not ads and are independent coverage. Torc2 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have knowledge of the amount money every band has? There have certainly been bands created by persons wealthy enough to potentially finance their own tours personally. You pay to use a vanue usually through a third party such as a promoter, they don't invite you to play there based on how notable they think you are, unless it's a festival, those are usual done by invite. I repeat "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc Please read the guidelines, lists of dates are clearly promotional material and therefore not independant and cannot be used as evidence of notability --neonwhite user page talk 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. Is it remotely possible that somebody could finance their own cross-country tour at known and expected great financial loss? Sure. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this has actually occurred or is standard practice for more than a fraction of a percent of national tours? Go ahead and provide it. More than likely, if such evidence is presented, it would make the band that did that ineligible under this rule, but it's exceptionally, painfully unlikely that this affects any of the bands we've admitted using this standard. And I don't know how to say this any more clearly: a local paper printing a calendar of upcoming events is not advertising. It is not promotional material any more than a calendar saying yesterday was Valentine's day is promoting Hallmark. It is not self-publicity. It is not advertising. It is not self-published material by the subject (which is the band, not the venue). It is not an autobiography. It is not a press release. It is nothing remotely published by the band itself. It is information published by a third party independent of both the band and the venue about upcoming events that is provided for no other reason than the paper's belief that their readers might be interested in knowing the event is occurring. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't remotely possible, it's possible and been done, otherwise notable artists have funded their own tours. So an artist who isnt notable could easily do the same. A list of dates is advertising, it is created by the subject to advertise the event and for no other reason. Valentine's day is a religious holiday it is not a commercial event. Please cease these pointless arguements and false analogies. The guidelines are quite clear that adveristing and promotional meteral is not independent of the subject. I think you are being incredibly niave in thinking that events are published in a newspaper because an editor thinks they might be of interest. This is ludicrous. They are printed at the request of the artist, if they didnt request it, it wouldn't be there. --neonwhite user page talk 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being uncivil and grossly overstating how often bands rent out halls instead of being booked into them. This is what a booking contract looks like; if a promoter doesn't believe a band will be popular enough to make the venue money, they will not sign the contract. Being booked us not remotely the same as renting out the venue as a private event and charging admission. Do you run a venue? Have you toured? Or even read a book about touring? Do you have an evidence whatsoever that bands renting out venues themselves occurs regularly enough to disregard this notability criterion? Can you name even ten bands who weren't already popular that have done this for an entire nationwide tour? Can you name a single band that has been accepted into Wikipedia via this criteria who actually rented large venues themselves instead of getting booked into them? Valentine's day is religious? OK, fine, substitute Secretary's Day - the point is the same. You are arguing that information about events published without compensation by an independent third party is "advertising", and you're calling me naive? Do you have any evidence that supports the assertion a band personally asks a local paper to print a calendar of events for an entire venue? Do you believe that if a band doesn't personally call the paper and ask to be included in the calender of events, it doesn't happen? Or that any press release issued will automatically be published by the local papers? Tone it down and provide support for your assertions. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Contracts have nothing to do with a venue thinking a band is popular. A promoter organises a tour, it is up to them to decide whether an act can make them money, the venue has no input in this, they just exist to be hired by the promoter. The promoter decides what venues to use and what size is necessary. If you dont fill a venue or sell tickets, it is the promoter that usually loses money, not the venue. Obviously there may be other systems of business but this is the usual way i believe. See Promoter (entertainment) for more info. We are talking about professional national tours here not a small band phoning round the local bars to get 30 mins on stage. I think it would be common sense that advertising in a local paper would be classed as advertising. Of course it wont be in the paper if nobody requests it. How are they going to know about it? Ultimately, this discussion is worthless, the above consensus is obvious that simply going on a tour is not evidence of notability unless reliable sources report it. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

However i do believe that adding tours that involve a major promoter (i.e. one that has promoted tours of several other notable bands) would improve the criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Either the promoter or the venue are independent parties from the band. Either one making a decision to book a band on a national tour into large venues qualifies as evidence of notability. You continue to mistakenly insist that a calender of events is "advertising"; you have no evidence to support this assertion, or really, any of your other assertions. You have also yet to provide any examples of any bands who have reached notability through this criterion who are not in fact notable. I really see no reason to continue this discussion until you provide any evidence this is being misused. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit late, here, but it's also worth noting that this criterion helps establish notability for non-mainstream-pop groups as well. For instance, a Chinese folk ensemble which tours the U.S. and gets a writeup in the New York Times could then be definitively established as notable. Same with classical chamber ensembles and so forth. As long as there's a reliable source to back it up, an international tour is a fine indicator of a group's notability. Chubbles (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main arguement from my point of view is that the criteria is obsolete. If an act has reliable sources then they qualify as notabile anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true of all of these criteria. These are indicators which help us determine whether the group is of sufficient popularity or critical acclaim to merit an article. Chubbles (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't true of all critera, nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 don't require the usual second party reliable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A group whose tour is generating independent press already has sources for notability elsewhere, so that this will be a non-issue. The fact is that any "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" is a usable source. Cut point 4. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Symphonies

This guideline doesn't say anything regarding articles about symphonies, like the articles linked from the lists seen in Category:Lists of symphonies. Now, I think it's obvious that a symphony by a notable composer is notable, but this guideline should probably address it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Notability is not inherited, many could probably receive brief mentions in the parent article. What matters is sourcing regarding the specific subject, not who wrote it or whether they're notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITSA is a myth. Is it referred to anywhere besides WP:AADD? Besides, a symphony is analogous to a book, and we do allow a book to be deemed notable simply because its author is. Torc2 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:ATT link

So given that WP:ATT died a fairly impressive death and is now maintained only as an essay, does anyone object to my rephrasing the last paragraph of the introduction to point to WP:V and WP:N instead? --jonny-mt 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done --jonny-mt 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-broadcast radio networks

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles criteria 9 states that musicians and ensembles can be considered notable if they produce a work which becomes put into rotation nationally by any major radio network.

• Would a satellite-based service such as XM or Sirius count?
• Would a cable-television based service such as Music Choice or Music Choice Extra count?
• Would an internet-based service by a very large provider such as AOL.com or DI.fm count?

JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to listeners. The spirit of the criterion is that acts that get significant play on a wide-reaching network are likely to be sourceable. Nationwide repeated play on a major network would reach people on the order of millions. I seriously doubt that individual XM or Sirius channels, or Music Choice rotation would lead to millions of listeners. The internet ones, I'm not as familiar with. DI.com, for instance probably shouldn't count -- they apparently have many different simultaneous broadcasts, so rotation on one of those wouldn't reach that many people. And I do think millions is the kind of numbers we should be talking about: in borderline cases, we ought to just look for sources. Mangojuice^talk 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't like this criterion at all. I would agree that it seems rather arbitrary. If the move was to eliminate this national rotation criterion, I might be inclined to support that. But to summarily denounce one or more of the above for one article, while accepting, for example Westwood One for another, seems too arbitrary. Perhaps it should only apply if the network in question was listed in Radio network or its associated daughter lists, or shows up in Category:Internet radio. Or for an unmanipulatable resource, perhaps the MIT radio locator? I dunno. This criteria is too spongy the way it is, IMHO. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the way I see this. For most subjects beyond music, the criterion is basically the existence of adequate sources. That makes sense because in any event every topic must be verifiable anyway. For musical topics, that is still the minimum requirement, but there's a gap between sourced and sourceable. If someone thinks a subject should be deleted, they are asking for sources. When a subject's apparent importance is clear, lack of sourcing is not a good reason for deletion, but rather a matter for eventual improvement. The purpose of the other criteria beyond #1 here serve to describe cases where it should be clear that the group is notable, and that the article should therefore not be deleted because sources seem highly likely to exist, even if none have been brought forward. So, a group being played repeatedly on a broadcast with millions of listeners makes sense -- they must be significant enough that good sources exist somewhere. Mangojuice^talk 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Major labels

Criterion 5

What are the major labels? Which labels are major indie? Are there criteria that make a label 'major'? Is this label satisfying the criteria, if they exist? Thank You. Welt^anschaunng 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always gone by the logic that if it's got an article, it's sufficiently major. Others may disagree with me here though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if it has an article, it's either major or "an important indie". I'm sure there's a more technical definition somewhere. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I go by number of notable acts signed -- at least a couple notable artists (i.e. notable for something more than just being on that label) probably means the label's notable too. For example, Broken Bow Records has five acts signed right now: Jason Aldean, Crossin' Dixon, Lila McCann, Craig Morgan, and Megan Mullins. All five have charted singles, and two of the five have put out multiple albums for the label (Morgan has three, one of which is gold; Aldean has two, one platinum and one gold). Just the label's current roster alone is enough to illustrate notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The currect criteria says many of the bands should be notable. I think this criteria needs work as there is often confusion. Why does it add to an artists notability that they have released material on the same label as someone else who is notable? To me this just doesnt add up. I think there needs to be better criteria for defining non-important labels or the criteria itself needs to be reassessed. --neonwhite user page talk 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A label is independent of the band; being signed and distributed by the label means they believe the band is notable. It's like asking "Why does it add notability for a subject to be covered in the New York Times? Just because they've covered other major stories?" —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No that's not the same at all, it's like saying all products made by a company are notable because one of their products is. Music is the product of a record label so if it makes several notable products, it doesn't follow that all their products are notable. Obviously some independant labels have a distinct history, [2 tone], [Sub pop] etc but the majority do not. I believe this should be defined solely by significant second party coverage of the labels' histories and not by the fact that they may have had a handful of barely notable bands signed at one time. --neonwhite user page talk 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Music is the product of a record label so if it makes several notable products, it doesn't follow that all their products are notable. Your argument is flawed. The label does not record the album and is under no obligation to release the album (unless the contract states as much, which is a different indication of notability for the artist). Stories are the product of new outlets, so if a paper has released reports on several notable subjects, do we assume any subject covered is notable? Yes, actually, that's how we define notability. Do we automatically accept articles from all newspapers with equal weight? No, because we require the journalistic body to have a certain reputation. The same goes for labels: do we assume every album released on any label is notable? No, only the labels that have built a reputation. The same thing goes for the analogous situation in just about any other medium: an artist who has an exhibit in the NYC MOMA is going to be notable based on that alone; an exhibit in Bob's Museum on 12th isn't. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Their is no flaw. The label does produce the album. They own the recording and the rights to reproduce it, so it is their product. The subject of news is entirely a false analogy as wikipeida relies specifically on published sources for notability. A better analogy is in sports personalities, you are not necessarily guaranteed notability because you play or played on the same team as another sportsman who is considered notable. What is a 'reputation'? the only way to have a reputation is through second party reliable sources as i suggested. What we have to consider that there are potentially hundreds of tiny labels that have had a handful of artists notable signed to them at one time or another. Does that make them an important or a major independant label? --neonwhite user page talk 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Any player on a professional sports team is automatically considered notable, so that's another analogy that goes in favor of keeping this. The relationship of labels to artists and their recordings is not cut-and-dried. To say the label "owns" the recording isn't really accurate. They might own the master tapes and the copyright. In any case, this might establish a link between a label and an album, but the label and the band are still independent bodies. That the label invested in the band and released their music is proof that the label believes the band is notable. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not say a professional sports team, please do not misrepresent my posts, this is considered incvil and bad ettiquette. Labels almost always own a recording, if they did not they could not make any money. I still disagree that notable artists effect the notability of other artists that just happen to be on the same label. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that you said "professional sports team", so please don't accuse me of misrepresenting you or being uncivil. I said the precedent in Wiki for analagous situations is already clearly established: athlete:recording artist::professional sports team:major label. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the problem of a "walled garden" in which the label and its bands are not really notable, but because the label has blue-linked bands on its page and the bands have a blue-linked record label, it passes the guideline? Blast Ulna (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would a non-notable label have an article? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotion, Torc? :) (I have speedily deleted at least a handful of "record labels" for failing to assert by WP:CSD#A7.) Blast Ulna, I follow the blue links. Neon white, in my opinion a better analogy is publishing houses. Vanity presses aren't going to attract reputable authors because they're vanity presses. Publishing houses who have signed significant talent are more attractive to other authors and can afford to be more selective. Likewise, as Torc says, a record label with a roster of notable bands is more likely to be selective in signing their acts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't guaranteed and not necessarily so. It may be true that certain publishing houses can afford to be selective but that doesnt mean everything they publish is by a notable author. We also have to consider that the publishing house may not always have been in the position to be selective and may have in the past published many un-notable works, much like a record label may have. So by simply saying any band having a release by a certain label at any stage is notable is problematic. I completely disagree that independant labels are always selective when it comes to signing bands, especially one without a business philosophy. We just cannot assume this. Indie labels are known for taking chances on bands that may not become notable. Consider a small DIY label having released two very low budget albums by a band that were never heard of again, many years later the label signs a couple of bands that happen to go on to become notable artists. According to current guidelines this would make the original band notable even though they achieved very little. What about bands that own their own labels, does that make any bands they sign instantly notable? --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Band-owned labels wouldn't qualify unless they also signed several other notable acts and survive for a while; note that by definition important indie labels require "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". As for your other suggestion—non-notable band slips by on the inherited notability of later acts—do you have some specific examples? They're always helpful when discussing the application of rules. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just glancing around, how about Lucid Records? A couple of their acts are up for deletion. Blast Ulna (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Hmm. Kind of looks like they're doing okay at AfD, though. But it looks like a potentially interesting test case, since there's a whole lot of marginal notability in that line-up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but that band Hey Mercedes isn't one of Lucid Records' acts. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• You probably didn't notice that the AfD is a multiple artist AfD. :) The Lucid artists that I see up for AfD—The Firebird Band, Chris Broach and L'Spaerow—are all included by reference in the AfD for Hey Mercedes. That's where their deletion is being debated. Where there different Lucid artists you had in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• They are connected through one artist and by being on the same AfD, but I just looked at the acts listed on Lucid's page. I think this whole notable ala Kevin-Bacon-six degrees-of-separation thing is untenable. We should go back fall in line with the rest of Wikipedia to normal methods of establishing notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Go back"? This criterion was included when this guideline was created in 2005. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Go back to pre-January of 2005, you mean? While the language has evolved, that's been part of the music criteria since this guideline was established. The second edit to this page was placing the specific definition. It seems pretty well established as "normal" at this point. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucid Records itself looks like it can be deleted if no secondary sources are added. I don't see anything fulfilling the notability requirements. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Moonriddengirl) That's the point. The bands can still be easily deleted once their non-notable label is deleted. You could even make it part of the same AfD (like NN bands and their album articles, which is actually a perfect analogy for this). I think that's why we don't have circular requirements. The purpose of #5 is to say, "OK, this label has established themselves as an respected authority. Their attention is valued at a premium, and if they're going to give it to a band long enough to release multiple albums, that's evidence of notability." —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, given I found a "walled garden" in a matter of minutes, I think that this problem is real. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't though. You found a label with an article that possibly shouldn't have one. As far as I know, there are no criteria allowing a label to establish notability through its acts. (I can imagine a few situations where that might occur, but they're going to be rare and involve acts that are already very notable.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

People argue all kinds of things at AfD. The label and all acts listed on its page are all tagged for lacking refs and a couple are marked for deletion. This was the first record label I looked at. I didn't find it by looking in AfD, either. Shall I go find more? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Currently, the example you found doesn't demonstrate that these bands are non-notable. So far, only the nominator has !voted to delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's because the nominator included too many things in the AfD. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Finding NN labels with articles isn't an effective argument against #5; it just shows that people write articles that don't belong here, not that our criteria for inclusion is flawed. Go ahead and look for them - for no other reason, it'll help improve the quality of the Wiki. I would tag those articles first and maybe do a quick Google search before going straight to AfD though; that an article lacks sources and needs cleanup isn't necessarily proof that it should be deleted. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• What about this label, Goldenrod Records? If I nominated one of its bands for deletion, then people would argue they were signed to an important indie label, and the proof that the label was notable? Many blue-linked bands. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• That would seem to be a reason for making a well-stated AfD nomination. It's possible to be complete without running afoul of WP:TLDR. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is frustrating for me; I don't get what you mean. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• "the proof that the label was notable? Many blue-linked bands." - where is that listed as acceptable sole evidence of notability for labels? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• What I was getting at was that the band article cannot be deleted if the label is claimed to be important. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it can. If the label is NN, AfD the label. When the label AfD closes, AfD the band. There is no deadline and no harm in following proper procedure. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point, labels can be notable with having notable artists signed. The point i was making originally is that the criteria #5 is so vague on what counts as an important indie lable. A history of a 2 years isn't exactly that long for a label to have existed and i think the arguement here is that label could be argued to be important simply because they have 2 or 3 bands that have an article. Regardless of the quality of those article I dont see why this would make any artist releasing material on that label notable. To be this goes against the main guidelines. --neonwhite user page talk 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the wording of #5 to be any more vague than much of the general notability guideline. The criterion makes sense: an important, notable indie label has built itself a reputation as an respected authority on music; their published (i.e. released) opinion on what is notable is as authoritative and influential as the opinion of an important magazine. Having two articles on your band appear in Pitchfork no less of an indicator of notability than having two albums released by SubPop or Matador Records. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that no indie label is important, there are many that are but alot are not and i think the criteria is too inclusive if it allows a label to be considered important simply for existing for 2 years and having a couple of notable(in wikipedia terms) artists signed to it. I wouldnt consider such a label important . I think the reputation as "authoritative and influential" should, at least, be 2nd party sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said labels do not have to have secondary sources? Where are you getting that from? Where is that in this guideline? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's an experiment. Pick 5 indie record labels at random. Note that some of of the bands are redlinked. What in the WP:MUSIC guidelines prevents the creation of articles for all those bands? As I read it, nothing. If you say, "well, those band articles were deleted," then that suggests that the guideline is being applied unevenly/unfairly. If nobody is creating those articles, then it is because they don't consider them notable enough for Wikipedia. And since these tend to be the same guys that created the page for the label and some of the bands, this suggests that even they know certain bands just aren't notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's at least four faulty assumptions there: (1) The assumption those articles should not be created, (2) the assumption that if the article was deleted, the fact that it satisfied the notability criterion was known and consciously ignored, (3) the assumption that anything notable will already have an article and (4) the assumption you can infer editors' intent from the creation or lack of creation of an article. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, suppose that the record label has one band that did well ten years ago, a handful of bands that have articles but are not successful, and some red-linked bands. How do I get one of the unsuccessful bands deleted via AfD? I will be told that because their label has that one successful band, all of its bands are immune from deletion. If a member of one of those blue-linked bands has a side project that hasn't even cut a record, it cannot be deleted because his other band is notable, and his other band is notable because it is signed to a label which had a successful band ten years ago. This can go on ad infinitum. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your contradicting yourself. Does the label have one notable band or several notable bands? "Success" has nothing to do with any of this. Your question about side-projects is also totally off-topic, but isn't a concern because the criterion specifically says that in such a case, it may be appropriate to cover it via redirect. You're making far too much out of this than there is. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• When I say "blue-linked" I don't mean notable--just that an article exists, which might be on a notable band, but might not. "Success" has everything to do with this; how else do we decide if a corporation is notable? By sales or some other metric. My whole argument is that there are clusters of band articles, all held together by the lynchpin of being signed to a label, and because there is an article for the label, people assume--without reliable sources--that the label is notable. If the band articles and the label article are all unsourced, they could be the work of promoters. There are consultants on the internet now for people to try to get their product onto Wikipedia and keep it there--they study our rules and exploit our weaknesses. It would be best if every article had some kind of source demonstrating its notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• But there's no criteria that allows labels to satisfy notability based solely on the bands they have released. You keep insisting that there's some kind of loop that can be exploited, but there isn't. Nothing in WP:MUSIC sets the threshold for label notability. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you are right. If I find a label that has no reliable sources and nominate it for deletion, I will let you know if anybody says "keep" because it has many bands signed to it. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a question about how inclusive wikipedia should be? and i don't think this is going to be answered here. Why is it that music has different criteria? --neonwhite user page talk 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that it is mostly historical. If I'm not mistaken, the guidelines are "organic." Blast Ulna (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm hoping to gather an understanding of the issues involved here, and formulate a couple of changes to the guidelines that most people will mostly agree with. I haven't really figured it all out yet; if I had an answer beyond every article needing reliable sources I would have proposed it. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Why not? Books do; people do. I listed a whole bunch of them right below the arbitrary section break. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any are as inclusive as these criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 05:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Music does not have "different criteria". WP:MUSIC simply demonstrates how the notability guidelines apply to this group of topics; it's the same criteria adapted for this medium. It can't be different from the notability guideline, because it is the notability guideline. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You have to admit that there is some controversy over these guidelines. Can you think of some way to tighten them up so that notable albums get to stay and non-notable albums go? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't see anything wrong with the guideline. I don't see the proliferation of album articles as much of a burdon, since they're essentially information about the band itself that has just been arranged into logical chunks. The album info could be included in the band article since it is appropriate content, but that'd look really ugly and make the article tough to read. It may also preclude the use of album covers due to copyright restriction since we wouldn't be using them on articles about the album itself. The other thing is that because this guideline is the definition of what is notable, implying there's something not notable that satisfies the criteria of the notability guideline kind of doesn't make sense to me. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Earlier you said the guideline was to help interpret WP:N for music, now you are saying it is the definition. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy? What controversy? Someone asked a question and from there the discussion degenerated into an argument between, let's see, about four or five people taking different sides of that old, old argument: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. We're right back where we started. Grimhim (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: "the rest of Wikipedia"

• I see that you've changed your note above, Blast Ulna, to a suggestion that we "fall in line with the rest of Wikipedia to normal methods of establishing notability". The rest of Wikipedia has plenty of specialized criteria for specialized situations that rely on nebulous or ill-defined definitions of the notability of other things. We are expected in such circumstances to exercise reason in identifying whether those "other things" qualify. For example, in WP:BIO, an individual is notable if s/he "has received significant recognized awards or honors". Creative professionals are notable if "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries". Entertainers who have "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Porn stars are notable if they have "won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award". Academics may be notable if they have "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." Books may win "a major literary award". Film, even more nebulous, may be reviewed by "nationally known critics" or receive "a major award for excellence" or be taught at a "college with a notable film program" or be produced by a "country's equivalent of a 'major film studio'." Web material may be "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". A book may be notable even if there is no reliable sourcing, so long as "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources". I'm a big fan of clarity myself, but a good deal of individual interpretation seems to be included in all of the guidelines that I looked at, except, possibly, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Wikipedia's "normal methods" seem often to require interpretation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, everything needs interpretation. I'm not the best arguer in the world. It just seems to me that there are a lot of articles on non-notable labels, bands, albums and songs out there (an impression I gathered by hitting Random article link). When I see articles at AfD, there is never any attempt to show notability by sources, but instead by what I consider impossible-to-counter WP:MUSIC guidelines. When I tagged articles for sources, I get told that none are required by WP:MUSIC, not even for WP:V. So I am casting about here, trying to find a way to tighten up the guidelines a little bit. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're being simplistic, contrary and petulant, Blast Ulna. I deleted your RS tags on some articles and contended they didn't need verifiable sources. Those articles were all (as I recall – correct me if I'm wrong) stubs on albums by notable artists. I argued that because the stubs consisted of little more than an infobox, tracklisting, personnel and a one-paragraph intro, all of which obviously used the album liner notes themselves as their source, there was nothing there to source. I argued that under WP:V and WP:CITE, sources were required only for statements likely to be challenged. It's reasonable to assume good faith on those articles. But I emphasise: they were albums by notable bands and therefore bestowed with an implied notability because of that. Here's the bottom line: I would very much like Wikipedia to contain a knowledge base of recording artists and albums that exceeded that of AMG; that made Wikipedia the first port of call when seeking information on an album or a band. If that requires some flexibility in terms of notability and verifiabilitym it's a small price to pay. Grimhim (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Near as I can figure, WP:V makes no exceptions, and I am not going to debate it here. If Grimhim wishes he can go to the WP:V talk page and see how well his notion is received. Blast Ulna (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Let's keep it civil, shall we? As far as RS tags on album articles, this guideline says, "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true." Requesting reliable sources is hardly out of line with that. I've done it myself on occasion while doing album quality assessments for the project. That said, at the moment, I believe that the criterion is okay as it is. Not perfect. But okay. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I interpret the quoted line to mean that every article must have third party sources attesting to the notability of their topic. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Albums articles are essentially considered subarticles of band articles. The concept of "subarticle" is still developing (there's a good discussion of it over at the Wikipedia_talk:FICT, but in practice, if there's a source for it in the band article, the default assumption is the album is notable and the basic facts about the album are confirmed unless reasonably disputed. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Most band articles are short enough to have their albums on the same page. I hope this concept of subarticles fails. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• To a certain extent, I interpret it that way, too, Blast Ulna. (Although as I noted above there are some book articles regarded as notable even without secondary sourcing.) Without some kind of sourcing, an album article could be a hoax. (I've seen a number of those come through CSD.) Torc, even an AMG link will verify that the band does, indeed, have such an album, and if the band is notable that's all it takes, imo. :) Blast Ulna, I suspect album articles are here to stay. Indeed, I hope they are. I'll also note that we've wandered a bit off topic...which never happens on Wikipedia. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind album articles, but I would mind every album ever made having a Wikipedia page. I've seen Moonriddengirl and Torc2 around and know you guys do good work. What I am hoping to do is close some loopholes in the guidelines to stymie people from keeping their truly non-notable label/band/album/side project/band member/song articles on Wikipedia. If you look at my comments at various AfDs, you'll see that I am happy as long as there are sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Brevity isn't the issue; it's organization and logical hierarchy. WP:SIZE allows for article split based on either size or style. Nobody wants to see band articles that have five or six tracklists and info boxes on a single page; it makes more sense organizationally to put that on a different page, where it is accessed easily only by those who want that information. There's a reason it evolved this way even though most album articles viewed it total isolation don't stand up to the strictest interpretation of the WP:V policy and WP:N guideline: it evolved this way because it makes sense to present the information like this. It's generally understood that it does meet these requirements when viewed in conjunction with the band article and its sources. If together they're lacking, then that's a problem. That's why associated album articles are often deleted as part of band AfDs. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't really argue that something is correct or should continue to be done because that's how it always has been done and how consensus decided it long ago. Remember consensus can change. Every article should meet WP:N and WP:V criteria. If there is sufficient info to warrant a page spilt then it will likely pass notability. --neonwhite user page talk 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be true if it was remotely what I was arguing. I'm saying editors have embraced these precedence for a reason, and the reasoning is clear and logically sound. Consensus can change, which is why subarticle structure is going from just being common practice to being fully accepted by the guidelines. If you're saying consensus might eventually go against album articles, that's, except it isn't not and shows no signs of doing so. Also, nothing I said above is contradicted WP:N or WP:V. WP:N continually uses the word "topic", not "article", so it's clear that it's referring to a broader scope. WP:V states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" but qualifies the method of attribution: "alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions". An album article with basic information makes no assertions that are not verifiable by primary sources (i.e. the album itself) (aside from maybe "this exists", and verification of that is in the main article, the band article). Adding a reflist whose sole entry is the album itself is pedantic to the point of absurdity; it's assumed that the primary source is reference. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Procedures change and the discussion here is testament to the fact that not all editors think non-notable albums should have articles and i have seen many deleted/redirection by afd because they had no second party sourcing. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot ask for sources for an album that you suspect may be inaccurate or non-notable. Every article needs to assert it's article. may i remind people that wikipedia is not a database of record releases like discogs. --neonwhite user page talk 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• (Hang on, Neon white has just inserted a comment above mine and now it seems like I'm agreeing with him. Take a bit of care!) To User:Torc: Agreed. It's all about common sense and reason. User:Moonriddengirl argued above that some album articles are hoaxes. Any of these, of course, could have cited the album liner notes as the source to satisfy a demand for verifiability, except of course that the liner notes would be as fictional as the album. The fact is also that an AMG link doesn't always exist for an album, nor is the lack of one an indicator of NN. There are many significant, notable Australian or New Zealand bands, for example, that have not yet appeared on the radar of AMG. Reason: AMG is going to be primarily concerned with American releases. Grimhim (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, sources were available every time I pressed the issue. Look, I'll take a review in the local alternative weekly; I know that teenage kids in a garage band are unlikely to get a even a local write-up or signed to even the lamest of labels. A counter-argument is that it is easier for bands from smaller countries to achieve notability; being voted the best metal band from Andorra would be much easier than being voted the best metal band from France. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's true that AMG is not available on everybody. It's a good resource, but not an exhaustive one. I've invested in a couple of reference books to help me out with my album articles, and even they don't always help much. I recently did an article on the debut album of B. B. King, Singin' the Blues. It's not even mentioned in The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll. I'm lucky it was reissued multiple times, since the various AMG articles allowed me to cobble together something seemly. :/ The debut album of a musical legend, and I couldn't find a single other review...no local alternative weekly; no major music magazines. Five charting singles. I found nothing. (And if you do, please add it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I found two nice sources for your album article. By the way, one of my sources calls it Singing the Blues, not Singin' the Blues. The other goes into lots of wonderful detail on individual tracks. This is exactly why sourcing is so important--it makes for better articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Elapsed time to find two high-end sources; 39 minutes. Time wasted arguing at AfD etc instead of finding sources? Blast Ulna (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• None if it's not AfD'd. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the sources! :) And, yes, I agree that sourcing makes for better articles. I'd have been pretty surprised, however, if somebody had nominated B. B. King's debut album for AfD, particularly since it had sources. I can't imagine why they would, unless they were being pointy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point was that even an experienced editor like you needed help finding sources. You said you had had trouble. I pretended you had put a refimprove tag on your article, and added a couple of refs. My other point is that certain editors spend more time complaining about people asking for sources than just providing the sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion, refimprove tags are not an attack on an article, but a request for assistance. When I am working on articles, I usually look for the references myself, but when I am addressing CSDs or rating articles, I will myself sometimes place them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazon MP3 Download frequency list = National Chart?

So, a guy who's been trying to get his kid added to Wikipedia for a while now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dotson Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ride Wit Me (DBF song), etc... is back here: Chrishan and here 2 Late 4 Us. The sole claim to notability is hitting #1 in Amazon MP3 download charts. Given his history of trying practically anything to jumpstart publicity for his son's recording career (and the fact that the only two reviews of the single on Amazon are over the top glowing reviews from two people that have never reviewed anything before), I suspect some sort of shenanigans (a programmed bot that downloads the song over and over?) That's just my possibly paranoid suspicions though. Anyway, the question is: Does a #1 chart position on the Amazon Hourly download chart satisfy WP:MUSIC? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is no. All stores have a chart but they aren't considered a national music chart. If this is a problem with a particular editor and he/she has been warned then i would recommend taking it to the admin noticeboard. --neonwhite user page talk 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased albums

I just have a question as to what "unreleased" means in this context: is it referring to an upcoming, to-be-released album, an album that was recorded with the intent of a release, but scrapped by someone along the line, or an album that was recorded with no intent of a release, but has seen distribution -- by means either legal or illegal -- on par with a regular label-sanctioned release? —  MusicMaker5376 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would take it as meaning any of the above except if it was never intended by the artist for release but was released legally by the label anyway. If the material is older and is released well after recording, it's generally termed "previously unreleased" or in some circumstances, "archival". —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the third instance is what's giving us a little trouble. There are signifigant, notable unreleased albums that end up being leaked to the general public. They don't get the "signifigant coverage" required by the guideline because they were never distributed by normal means to music magazines to be reviewed in any way, but, nonetheless, fans of the artist distribute them widely among themselves. Some of these albums are important in the overall discography of the band, but the songs don't see radio play and the albums never chart. Not everything gets the press of The Lillywhite Sessions or Smile (Beach Boys album), but that doesn't mean that they're not notable. —  MusicMaker5376 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased Album, Demos, Mixtapes ETC..

I would have Started this in the previous section but my concerns are a bit broader. The section covering albums needs some major work as it currently in my opinion being abused by User:Mdsummermsw. Take a look at his user page and look at some of the Prods and AFD's he has proposed. Some very notable "unreleased albums" are on the list. If a notable artist records something that is never released that can pass WP:V I see no reason why it should not be included in wikipedia. I understand the intention of this section but it falls short and is very ambiguous. Ridernyc (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Putting up the pelts of articles he got deleted up as trophies is in very poor taste. Are you having trouble finding sources for a particular article that you think should be kept? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed on both counts. What makes the albums notable? If a third party has documented them sufficiently to pass WP:V, they're going to be notable enough to keep. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at a few of them, many are unlikely to survive. I deprodded one that had sources already. Other than that, are there any you are sure are notable? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album seems rather notable. As does The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday. —  MusicMaker5376 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I found a good source for The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday and added to the article and the AfD. Couldn't find anything believable for The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album, claims that it will be released are stale. It must be awful. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • First to be clear I would rather see the guide line fixed then focus on one editor. But I found these 2 nominations rather disturbing [4], [5]Nominting an album that will be releeased in 2 weeks in just plain insane. The second was prod'd as a unreleased which shows that he is not even reading Things when he prods them. He has also had severel albums by The Residents albums prod for little to no reason. I'm actually going to be spending alot of time in deltion review since albums like Baby Sex should not have been deleted. The whole thing is really getting out of hand. Ridernyc (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The Residents articles are so devoid of sources that they could be mistaken for an elaborate hoax. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
            • For the most no album articles on wikipedia have any sources at all. The main Residents article is in the middle of a massive rewrite. If you take a look at the revision history you will see how much content I added, I still need to add references but it will get there. There is also the major issue of the fact that most published sources on The Residents are out of print and highly collectible making sourcing information hard to do and a very expensive endeavor. This is the issue with many of these articles not just The Residents, you just can't do a google search and source information from the 70's and earlier. There maybe 100's of articles in magazines like Melody Maker, Rolling Stone, etc.. but none of that is online. These articles are being prod'd with 0 warning. Ridernyc (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
              • No sources on most album articles is a problem. He invited you to dispute resolution. Since all you want is to slow him down, you will likely find agreement there. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
                • As stated before I consider certain editors current actions a separate issue. The issue here is what I consider to be a flawed section of this guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, I'm here to get the guidelines tightened up some. Wouldn't it be better to ask on the WP:CRYSTAL talkpage? Blast Ulna (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • I don't see it as being a WP:Crystal issue. Ridernyc (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • I changed the language a bit, made it more positive. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reset Indent not really. I personally feel aproject by a notable artist that can pass WP:V is notable. I think the album section is over reaching the boundaries of notability and pushing into the teritory of limiting content that should have nothing to do with notability. Once the Artists notability is established the only thing that matters is WP:V. Ridernyc (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Could you give an example of the overreaching? Keep in mind that album information can be merged to the artist's page, space permitting. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would consider this a better practice for unreleased albums unless there is a significant amount of info about them. --neonwhite user page talk 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• • see that just points out how dumb the issue is. If it passes criteria to be included in an article then it passes criteria to have it's own article. What you just said is only artist that have short articles have the right to have "non-notable" albums include in the project. Ridernyc (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. Notability guidelines only apply to articles not to article content, albums judged not to be notable enough to have an article are often included in a artist's article instead. All released albums are generally listed in the artist's article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Might want to read what the guideline actually says since you are contradicting it slightly. I'm also still waiting for anyone to to contradict my statement. Any project by a notable artist that passes WP:V should be included in wikipedia. So far no has justified the need to prove notability after you have already established the artists notability. Ridernyc (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Having "every" project by a notable artist would run into WP:NOT#DIR. Let's take an example from painting. The Rembrandt article lists 19 "selected" works. He painted about 300, and yet even some of his "selected" works are redlinked. People on the talk page talk about reducing the size of the list, and actually mock the long works list on the artist Botticelli's article. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, listing every project from a notable artist would in no way violate WP:NOT#DIR, because there is a justifiable reason for including them. If the Rembrandt regulars are mocking the Botticelli list, they are wrong. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Or being encyclopedists rather than compendists. Even some articles on different plant and animal species get deleted/redirected for not showing notability--they were only described in the primary literature. The justifiable reason for not including things on Wikipedia is that no secondary or tertiary sources exist. I have updated the main page of this article with a couple of the ways I use to get sources; Google book searches and Google scholar searches. Also, somebody on the project should get or go to the library for The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (8904 pages) for material before 2006. Many of these books are searchable online. We can find sources for things. Really. I'll help. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So so far I see no rational other a total misinterpretation of WP:NOT#DIR. Ridernyc (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's analyze the Albums sections line by line.

your are ignoring notability. Verifiability doesnt not always been notability. --neonwhite user page talk 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.

Again I ask why? So far no one has a giver a rationale for this at all. If the artist is notable his projects are notable. I argue that this really should cite verifiable not notable.

In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

"In general" and "May have", without explaining the criteria involved this vague line is meaningless.

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.

If we establish that notability is with the artist then this is not as much of an issue.

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable.

So far there has been zero rationale given for this statement that is limiting content. This is stepping into policy area. Articles on projects by notable artists are notable and as long as they pass WP:V and other policies they should be allowed in the project.

unreleased albums can be notable if they have substantial coverage in reliable sources.

This line actually contradicts policy. It contradicts WP:Crystal. Also as we have seen from previous discussions this line is trying to talk about multiple interpretations of the term "Unreleased Album", not really something that's acceptable in a guideline.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting.

This is a style issue and has nothing to do with notability and should not be covered here. Ridernyc (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on Riderinnyc's comments... The first line, the basic Notability requirement, is the only hard-and-fast rule. And since it's a reprint of an existing policy, it's only here as a reminder. All the others are simply clarifications and guidelines as to what to watch out for. The line about demos is not strictly correct. It may or may not be true, and it's not exactly relevant. Demos, et al. are not usually notable, but can be with enough notable sources. The line about unreleased albums does not contradict WP:Crystal, though, because that policy does not contradict WP:N. What I'm saying is that according to Crystal, articles should not consist of or contain speculation, and according to WP:N, articles should contain only things that other sources say. These two neither contradict each other or the unreleased album guideline. -Freekee (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask the rational for why a album by a notable artist is not considered notable. Show me something here, another guideline a policy anything so far I have a lot of hot air. Second, they are all hard and fast rules and are being interpreted that way by certain editors. Show me the line that shows were it exaplains that the first line is the only hard and fast rule. 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

After this topic was brought to my attention from Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), I think Ridernyc has a point, but I'm not sure about the way he words it. I do not feel that an album is automatically notable, simple because it is the work of a notable artist. This falls under the concept of "Notability is not Inherited", and in terms of other notability guidelines, I've only ever seen such a case in WP:BOOK, which I gather from reading discussions to be a bit of a compromise to facilitate improvement. However, knowing Ridernyc's edits I'm sure he's well aware of this. The point he seems to make in earlier comments here is that it be an album from a Notable artist that is also Verifiable. I should think this would come close to something acceptable. I should still think that for Inclusion Criteria, more than simply Verifiable, the album should be verifiable through an Independent Reliable Source. I shouldn't think that is unreasonable, and for notable artists, even if such sources have not yet been found, there is rarely reasonable doubt that they exist so as to justify an AfD. If it is a work that is unable to meet this, then the content can still exist, either within the main article of the artist, or as a WP:SUMMARY style sub-article titled something like, "Minor works by <artist>". Ridernyc, I realize I'm making some assumptions regarding your positions, so could you tell me how this sounds to you? -Verdatum (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example. John Zorn immensely notable. Has won the MacArthur grant, insanely influential jazz musician, startrd an influential record label, one of the founders of The Knitting Factory in NYC. He has a discography of 268 albums [6]there is no way you could ever make everyone of these albums individually satisfy notability criteria. Are they suddenly not notable albums? Did he his influence magically diminish? If he was an artist with 3 albums we could merge the information into his article, but because he has 268 albums we can't include them?. If the artist himself is insanely notable how is his work not? How far is notability going to go, are we going to start limiting biographical data to only the notable portions of people lives? "Nope you can't mention anything about George Washington before he was a General, that part of his life is not what he is known for." Ridernyc (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In a case such as that, personally, I would suggest a separate discography page. The major albums can be linked from there, and the less-notable ones can, at least, be mentioned without cluttering up his main page. In a case like that, I would probably break up the discography into separate pages for decades or groups of years since, admittedly, 268 albums is INSANE. (Did he ever sleep?) —  MusicMaker5376 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED used this way is a myth. It has no basis in any policy and is not reflected in the notability guideline. The only place it appears is the WP:AADD essay, yet somehow it is believed by some as truth. Even in that essay, all it says is that blanket arguments without support are wrong, and given the default assumption of notability granted to articles on geographic locations, certain political positions, books, schools, and professional athletes, even that statement is faulty. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll need a little longer to reply to Rider's comment, but I wanted to say I agree with this, and it's a valid point. However, it begs mention that no mention of the converse statement that notability is inherited is made elsewhere (in WP Policies or WP:N) either. I believe this is because in the general case, inheritance is completely isolated from notability; they have nothing to do with eachother. In concensus chooses to form guidelines defining notability for specific inheritance relationships (as in WP:BOOK), then jolly good for consensus; it's to help improve WP overall. Again, I'm new to this document, but I suspect prior contributors to this guideline did not feel the need or desire to define such a relationship. That said, I see nothing trumping such a claim, and thus no reason consensus couldn't concievably change. I reserve my opinion on the matter pending further thought and investigation :) -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rider, in response to your query, they are all hard and fast rules and are being interpreted that way by certain editors. Show me the line that shows were it exaplains that the first line is the only hard and fast rule. The rule is not on the page. The rule is WP:N. This project's rules can be trumped by Wikipedia's policies. Let's look at those bold sentences. The first one is a restatement of the broad Notability policy. The second one includes the word "may" very prominently, and leads me to believe that albums must meet notability criteria on their own merits. Third sentence: says that album articles should be sourced, just like any others. Fourth sentence includes the phrase "in general." To me, this means assume they're not notable unless you can prove otherwise. Fifth sentence: restatement in part of WP:N. Sixth sentence: an obvious suggestion about what to do with a certain kind of thing. If an editor is taking these loose guidelines as proof that their article deserves to live, they need to be corrected. (I'd like to mention that I'm not arguing for the appropriateness of these guidelines, but that I'm explaining how I think they should be interpreted.) -Freekee (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rider, in response to I ask the rational for why a album by a notable artist is not considered notable. Show me something here, another guideline a policy anything. I believe the rationales are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. An album without any Reliable sources cannot be verified to have notability, which is required to have an article. It is my opinion that the line, In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. is not a good guideline. If it weren't for the word "may," it would be in direct violation of WP:N. -Freekee (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More side stepping the issue, If an artisit is notable how is his work not notable?

His works are a component of his notability, but some always count more than others. If no reliable sources whatsoever can be found for an album, perhaps the critics thought it was not noteworthy. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridernyc (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Another Point "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). " So an artist can inherit notability from a record label, but an album does not inherit it's notability from the artist? Ridernyc (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I argued strongly against the idea of being signed to a major indie automatically conferring notability already. For example, Carly Smithson, on American Idol, met many of the requirements for notability, including being signed to MCA and winning a Meteor Award in 2003 for Best Irish Female Singer. Yet nobody created an article for her (in spite of a source being available at the time). Interesting, huh? Perhaps the guidelines are an attempt to define success rather than notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, the example tells us nothing except Wikipedia is not finished. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems some editors need reminding that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Just because something exists, it doesnt mean it automatically gets an article, this applies to songs, albums and artists. We should not create articles just because we can. They have to be useful and if including albums in an artists page is better for reading then that makes a better encyclopedia, which is the agreed aim of every editor, not creating as many articles as you can. To cover the point made by User:Ridernyc, i disagree with parts of criteria 5, the subject is not only inheriting notabilty from the label but from other artists on the label too. --neonwhite user page talk 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are yet again misquoting things. There is nothing indiscriminate about listing the works of a notable artist. Amazing how these little policy catch phrases take on a life of their own and lose all meaning, "notability is not inherited", "Wikipedia is not a directory", "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" this stuff is constantly thrown out there and totally misquoted. Ridernyc (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The main notability criteria of coverage in reliable sources seems to me to be the key issue. Most albums by notable artists/released on meaningful labels (i.e. not just some home-pressed CD-R's) will receive reviews, which could be added to articles about those albums, and there will often be interviews with the artists where they discuss the album, so it seems reasonable to treat such releases as notable as a starting point. The main problem with articles about albums is that many don't have any sources included in the article. This is often easily addressed (or properly tagged), but unfortunately some editors seem to prefer deleting articles, deciding that no sources means not notable, rather than trying to improve the articles by adding sources. The fact that an album hasn't been released, either because it was shelved or because it just hasn't come out yet, should be irrelevant if it has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It would be helpful, however, if editors who create album articles could go beyond a picture of the album sleeve and a track listing, which is potentially WP:USEFUL but less than what's required for an encyclopedia article. Whether albums have their own articles or are incorporated into articles about the artists or their discographies will, to my mind, depend on the content of the album articles, the number of albums by the artist, and the size of the artist's article. In any case, proposing a merge would be the constructive approach. Article deletion generally isn't going to help this project. On the topic of the artist's record label affecting their notability, I think that releases on major or large indie labels indicates notability because they will indicate substantial investment in the artist and (generally) significant publicity and exposure. Releases only on small labels, or even self-releases, do not in my view indicate a lack of notability, however, which appears to be the assumption of some editors. Many artists sign to small independents or set up their own labels for various reasons other than just being unsuccessful or unimportant, it just means that significant coverage cannot be assumed. Another trend that worries me is the assumption that no article on WP means not notable. A while back, a band's article was deleted in haste due to lack of sources, while an article about one of their albums was kept as it had sources. A little common sense and a constructive attitude would go a long way here sometimes.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another problem I have noticed is an over reliance on google. People seem to think that if there are no hits on google it automatically means no sources. This can be very hard when dealing with topics over 20 years old. Ridernyc (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Recently, I nominated Out of Control Raging Fire and a couple other songs for deletion, since these songs did not enter the charts and have no notability attached. After a dispute with the creator of these pages, I have discovered that for the most part, he wishes for the pages to be kept. I have suggested a merge/redirect to the albums, but he won't hear of it. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? That AfD was closed as delete, so it's really not like the creator has much say in it. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's no longer an issue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Notable Concerts

This seems to be getting a bit out of hand. There are no real criteria for inclusion, so it just keeps growing and growing and growing. I have no idea how to deal with this one so any assistance would be a good thing. Pairadox (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's missing Rock Against Racism too, for shame! I assume the template is collapsable for starters? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is indiscriminate. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very indiscriminate template. I say take it to TfD before it gets even more out of hand. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for "unreleased"

This has been mentioned above, but it seems like some editors are taking "unreleased" way too far. "Unreleased" in the context it is used here appears to me to mean albums that have been scrapped or lost, such as Smile (Beach Boys album), Songs from the Black Hole. Cigarettes and Valentines, etc. That is, an album with a confirmed, sourced release date in the near future is not intended to be considered NN as "unreleased" (nor is it WP:CRYSTAL, as it isn't unsourced speculation.) The phrase about Demos, mixtapes, etc. being "in general not notable" is being abused to discount any independent coverage of these works. I would like to change the text to clarify those two things:

Current: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; unreleased albums can be notable if they have substantial coverage in reliable sources.

Proposed: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; however, these unreleased albums may be notable if they have independent coverage in reliable sources. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag.

I don't want to make the change without some discussion before. Input is appreciated. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the word "unreleased" in the phrase "these unreleased albums may be notable....". —  MusicMaker5376 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would remove "unreleased albums" and leave it as "these may be notable...." —  MusicMaker5376 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, demos and mixtapes can be legally released, and even promo recordings were legally distributed, just to limited audiences. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's a step in the right direction, it at least makes the language more neutral and seems to be more inline with the wording of other notability guidelines. I would still like to see notability changed however something like "projects by notable artists are considered notable and can be includes as long they pass WP:V, and WP:RS." Ridernyc (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the guideline to Torc's wording, minus "unreleased albums" as suggested. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. -Freekee (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep in guideline

I think that the guidelines diplay instruction creep and should be split up and trimmed. First, we are all generally in agreement that bands must have reliable sources showing notability. Much of the rest of the guideline is more of a list of reminders of what makes for a successful band, and where sources can be found. Second, many of the guidelines represent impossible situations, such as a band's tour having sources for notability without the band itself having any sources for notability. Third, some of the guidelines cross into the territory of WP:ALBUMS. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section covering bands is great and one of the most well written and easy to follow notability guidelines we have. After that though it turns into this strange,contradictory, and sometimes poorly written essay that tries to cover way to much area. The album sections tries to cover notability, style guidelines, WP:CRYSTAL, etc.. I think the first section more the adequately covers everything that needs to be established in this notability guideline. We are also beginning to see that some sections of this guideline are open to misinterpretation and abuse. Ridernyc (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if you take a look at this guideline how it was year ago you will se that it has suffered from major instruction creep over the past year [7], of note is that the album section says exactly what I feel it should say, how it went from controversial to having consensus to be changed to the total is opposite in one year hints that there really is no consensus for this section. I'm still digging through the archives trying to find when and why it was changed. I think way to many people have had there hands at editing this guideline over the past year. Ridernyc (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The 25 February 2007 album section is poor, it contradicts established notability guidelines and reads like the first post of a new inexperienced editor. The current version is significantly better. It has been developed to meat the needs of the community. The amount of disputes involving this makes it absolutely necessary ot have very clear and comprehensive guidelines. Remember it is combined albums and songs. it's not any bigger than sections of WP:BIO or WP:COMPANY and i cant really see anything that you can leave out. --neonwhite user page talk 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry don't really see a valid point in here at all. The current guideline also contra dicts other guideline like WP:Fict, please stay away from other stuff type arguments. Pretty much all the notabilty guideline contradict each, and they almost all contradict AFD outcomes. Ridernyc (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you want all the topic guidelines brought into line with WP:N, then? Because that's what many people want. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Albums and songs

The wording regarding notability of albums and songs appears unncessarily tentative and tends to undermine the point of this part of the guideline. I'd suggest the sentence that reads "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" be altered. The word "may" would be better as "should", so "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums should have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The point being that if a band's notability has been demonstrated and accepted, their albums would therefore normally be regarded as also being notable, subject to the usual requirements for sourcing and verifiability. The current wording, in effect, could require notability to be proven for an individual album (or, indeed, all albums) if the band's notability may only apply.

An artist or band, Led Zeppelin or Paul McCartney, for example, will have a career that fluctuates, with albums topping charts at one point in their career and barely making the Top 100 in another. Yet all are significant markers in their career and each warrants an article because of the noteworthiness of the artist and the part those albums played in the fluctuation of their career. But to say any particular album only "may" be notable provides a dangerous allowance for its notability to be disputed, leading to an AfD. Grimhim (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• As you can well imagine, I and many other people completely disagree with this notion. This is not, and will never achieve, consensus. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading through all 7 pages of the archives I have found that there never was any real consensus for the albums section at all. The section on Demo's and bootlegs etc.. was added by one user after on other user agreed with him, that's far from enough consensus to change a guideline. It's seems over the past year people just got tired of fighting over the guideline and gave up. This caused it to slowly creep to the point it is now. I would say there is ample consensus for the bands section but anything past that will never have consensus and should be removed. Maybe making a note that guidelines for albums never reached consensus and noting both sides of the argument. Ridernyc (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Refer to WP:NB, not every book written by a notable author gains immediate notability, so an album/song should be no different. User talk:Grimhim's suggestion is wholey incompatible with basic criteria and principles of notability. Every article should be able to assert it's notability. I support removing this line. --neonwhite user page talk 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and once I'm done here I plan on moving on to there and changing that guideline. This would be somewhat of a other stuff argument. Ridernyc (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to regard most of the album articles as nothing more than directory entries, such as Those Who Are About to Die Salute You and thousands like it. I fully realise not every article will be as detailed as say The Beatles (album), but articles should have more than just a tracklist and other basic information. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a huge number of album articles lack detail, but they're not directory items as alluded to at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The Colosseum album you cite is probably a good example. It isn't without merit: it contains a tracklist, songwriter credits, track running times, release date, producer, a link to an AMG review, and an alternate track list for its US release. One view might then be to suggest that it lacks notability on its own merit (ie., no chart placing reference, no mention that it was a pivotal album in their career) and therefore should be deleted, but that would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater: because it needs more information, we'll just delete all the information we have on it. All these album articles, stubs though many of them may be, combine to make a powerful online information resource. Hence my concern that the use of the word "may" as discussed above may be used to exclude albums that ought to be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't supposed to simply copy information that exists elsewhere which is what that would be. It would be a sales catalogue. It has to have some notability other than being a product for sale. --neonwhite user page talk 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If Colosseum is accepted as a notable band, then an article on their sixth or 16th or 68th album – provided it meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:CITE – has a place here. Neon White's claim that my suggestion "is wholey incompatible with basic criteria and principles of notability" is nonsense. WP:N says "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." If Colosseum, or David Bowie, or Roger Waters is a notable artist, then those who buy their music and follow their career will certainly regard each of their albums, at the time of release and as an historic overview of their catalogue, as notable. Grimhim (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No it isnt nonsense, every article should be able to assert notability. The basic principle of notability is that a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Note the use of reliable secondary sources rather than fans of David Bowie or Roger Waters. Notability certainly is not decided by the opinion of fans. It's almost inevitable that albums by important artists will have sources but this doesn't mean we should alter criteria in a guideline to include such broad presuppositions. If you disagree with that then argue it on the notability page but you simply cannot randomly suggest that it doesnt apply to certain articles. Not all albums are going to be notable regardless of the artist and WP:NB is a good precedent for this. --neonwhite user page talk 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Using that criteria, whether or not you follow the band or composer, those articles would be notable. I'm not generally an inclusionist, but, in the light of recent arguments, I fail to see how an album from a notable artist could be considered anything but notable. Is it possible to have a notable artist with no notable albums, assuming that artist has released at least one? Conversely, is it possible for an artist's entire discography to be notable, but the artist fails notability? The answer to both, I would assume, is "no". Even if a first album, second album, etc. goes widely ignored, when the artist eventually reaches notability, those albums become notable because they went widely ignored. You're not going to find sources on them because no one paid any attention to them. You might find references to them in later sources, but contemporeanous sources would be nil. This doesn't mean they're not notable. They are "worthy of note" without being famous, important, or popular. —  MusicMaker5376 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly possible for an artist to be notable but have no notable albums, wikipedia is full of them, a one hit wonder for example would be notable for that hit but the album may not be. If an artist has released a notable album then it follows that their notability would be the releasing of that notable album. The basic principle is that is a subject is worthy of note then someone will have noted it, if they haven't then it isn't worthy of note. Remember wikipedia and it's editors do not decide what is worthy of note we just review and include it. What User:Grimhim has suggested goes against that principle. In the end there simple is no point in having articles for albums that are of no importance. --neonwhite user page talk 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to chime in here, because something that's been bothering me is frequently, when I hit "Random Article", song articles come up that only assert notability by chart statistics. There are hundreds of music charts worldwide, and thousands of songs that chart each year, very few of which are independently notable (WP:N#TEMP). I think song entries, therefore, need to be held to a much higher standard. I would reverse the above arguments, and say that album and artist notability arise from the subsidiary work (i.e., the songs), not the other way around. There are albums and artists whose notability stands on its own, but these are the exception, not the rule, and I believe the guideline should reflect that in some way. Non-notable albums should be merged with artist articles; and non-notable songs with album articles, artist articles or deleted.71.218.247.89 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neon White you really need to move on from your argument that every article needs to assert notability. There is no policy which states this, there is no consensus that has ever stated this, and there are thousands of articles on places, professional athletes, biology, science,.... that have a clear consensus that they should be included in the project regardless of individual notability. Note that the word topic or subject is often used, not article. There is not, never has been and never will be consensus that every article needs to individually demonstrate notability. Ridernyc (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a guideline. WP:N states The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice".. It is also a criteria for deletion which suggests that an article that fails the guidelines doesn't belong. There is and has been for a long time a clear consensus for this principle. Obviously there are exceptions but they are just that exceptions to the rule. --neonwhite user page talk 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply to this statement is already covered below. I'll however once again explain this. Even in this guideline we state the artists are notable if the record company releasing their albums is notable. Nothing other then that needs to be established, they inherit notability from the record company. So if I say in the first line of an album article "This album is by Artist X" as long as artist X is notable then the album is notable. There is no need for me to provide multiple sources to establish notability, I just need to satisfy verifiability. Just like saying player X plays for Team X as long as the team is notable he is notable, this has long had consensus. So your claim of every article needs to establish notability and can not inherit notability is clearly wrong. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your kidding, right?WP:N71.218.247.89 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AS I pointed out note the word topics is used not articles Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.. The topic needs to be notable not the article, once you have established notability of a topic you can write as many sub-articles as you like concerning the topic. Individual articles do not need to meet notability as long as the topic is notable. That's why every person that ever played for a professional sport team is considered notable. Ridernyc (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The topic is the article and no you cannot write as many sub articles as you like if they are unecessary they will be merged or deleted. The reason sports players are considered notable was because that was decided. I disagree with it. --neonwhite user page talk 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what you say, Neon white: The Buggles were a one-hit wonder and their page is well-written, informative and referenced. Their debut album is notable for containing their hit single and for reaching #27 in the UK. Their one other album, which gains a four-star review from AMG, is notable for being their follow-up album that flopped and effectively brought on their demise. My guess is that if they'd struggled on with more crap albums, none would have sold, few people regard them as notable and probably no one would care enough to write a WP article for them. The difference between The Buggles and Colosseum, cited above as an example, is that The Buggles were a one-hit wonder and are famous for that. Still, if some tragic did doggedly write an article on those successive albums, I'd be inclined to leave them there: they add to the knowledge base and are there should other tragics be interested in finding out what else The Buggles did.

Your contention that "wikipedia and it's editors do not decide what is worthy of note we just review and include it" doesn't make a lot of sense. There are dozens of vigorous debates going on all the time over the perceived notability of subjects, so it's a subjective thing, worked out through consensus, a community view. Grimhim (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be utterly pointless and worthless to have an article on an album that was of no importance. Wikipedia is not a directory, It isn't intended to record everything that every exists or negligable info about every album that is released, i think that is the point people are missing. It has limits which is what negligible is for. I think it might help if you checked out some of the afd decisions on non-notable albums. --neonwhite user page talk 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes complete sense, it is the media, journalists, authors etc that decide what is of note not the editors, that would be original research. The debates are actually about whether the sources are sufficant enough for the guidelines, they arent debating what is notable but whether a subject has been 'noted' well enough to be included. If you look at a good afd you'll see that the participants aren't expressing original personal views about the notability of a subject but whether there are sufficiant sources for notability. This suggestion here is doing exactly what editors shouldnt do in trying to decided 'originally' what should be noted and what shouldn't rather than proving notability with sources. You have to rely on second party sources or any article would be permissable. --neonwhite user page talk 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Q. How can something be said to be notable if nobody has noted it? and if an album has no sources how can you gaurantee it's accuracy? or that it isn't a hoax?--neonwhite user page talk 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said the same thing, and was castigated for it, until backed up at AfD. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go with the catchphrases again "wikipedia is not a directory". The arguments get more and more outlandish and misquote more and more policies. Ridernyc (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more than a catchphrase, some people believe in it. Statements like that do not promote consensus. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact it is policy WP:NOT#DIR. It was made because wikipedia was not intended to be a collection of every single piece of information. There are other directories of music releases. Wikipedia isn't discogs.com. --neonwhite user page talk 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability, as stated in the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, comes initially from the artist. The question we're discussing is how far that extends to the artist's albums -- whether "usually" or "sometimes". And at the moment we're discussing notability, not sources. Grimhim (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and sources are connected, though. If multiple sources comment on an album, it's notable regardless of who made it or how it performed. If nobody comments on it, then not only isn't it really notable, there really isn't much to say about it, and it should be mentioned in the article on the artist or get a line in the discography. Ditto with songs. If there is little more to say than "it's song #5 on album Z", say that in the article on album Z. Many articles on even *charted* songs have so little content that they could just as well be handled by a redirect to the album article. Gimmetrow 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A discography can combine an artist's sourced and unsourced works into something that could survive an AfD. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that discussion got us absolutely nowhere. Two people, Blast Ulna and Neon white, disagree with my suggestion, Musicmaker agrees (that's two-all so far) and Ridernyc thinks the whole guideline should be abolished because of gradual erosion by a tiny number of editors. I appealed for input over at WP:ALBUM, without eliciting much of a response. Does anyone care? Looks like it's just us here, lobbing grenades at each other from our trenches. Grimhim (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a tool that allows you to see how many people view a particular Wikipedia page. It's listing for the Waters Rising album by Lillian Axe shows 162 views in January (I used the Random article link to find it, all the figures are for Jan 2008.) By contrast, Lillian Axe's article was viewed 1,246 times. Then contrast that with an obscure but somewhat remembered band, Fishbone; 12,441 views. Their best selling album, #49 on the Billboard 100, got 901 views. If you take a biggy, Nirvana got 266,347 views, and In Utero got 46,122 views. (The Australia article got 512,979 views for a point of reference.) Even the older group King Crimson's album In the Court of the Crimson King got 14,514 views. So you have to ask yourself, do people care? It depends on the band and on the album. Some things are just more notable, and the users bear this out. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget me? I think very few songs should have articles of their own. If we can't say more than a couple paragraphs, it can be said in the article on the album. Just to grab an example, "Generation Sex" (top 20? single) from Fin de Siècle (album) (top 10?). Notable, right? Sure, but both these "articles" have essentially no content. I would discourage making separate articles for every song, even charted songs, unless they are highly iconic. Gimmetrow 08:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you already mention the tool? If so, I'm sorry. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Three things: (1) Notability is not popularity; (2) Notability does not degrade (and Fishbone would have gotten a lot of page views if Wikipedia existed in the 80s); and (3) people consider Fishbone obscure? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1) If notability is not popularity, is surely is tied to it. 2) I know. I brought up the tool for a variety of reasons. If one takes an artist at random, their page usually receives far more views than all their album and song pages taken together, suggesting that an artist is more than sum of his parts. 3) Most of the people on Earth would have no idea who Fishbone were. Music buffs need to recognise that our goal here is to provide encyclopedia entries for people, and provide links to external sources (that sometimes are commercial in nature) for those wanting to learn more. I'll give an example: If you murder someone and leave your car's tire print behind, there are experts that can go through a database of tread patterns and figure out what model tire it was. Then, in court, this can be used as evidence against you. Does this mean that Wikipedia needs to have individual articles on all the tires ever made? No! All we really want is a way to get to the information, to know that it exists. Why should Wikipedia be like the Library of Congress and have a copy of everthing? Wikipedia's strength in the eyes of the average person is that it cuts out all the spammy BS and self-promoting websites and tells us what is important. If Wikipedia had an article on every band and every album ever made, then that is lost. Wikipedia should not try to be a mirror of Discogs or All Music Guide. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, "notability" and "popularity" are distinct (though occasionally similar) concepts. WP:N: This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. - So something being popular can make a topic notable, but being unpopular doesn't make the topic non-notable. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should not try to be a mirror of Discogs or All Music Guide.". Damn right. It can be better! More thorough, more comprehensive, reflecting the passion of fans and enthusiasts rather than -- er, whoever AMG represents. And that requires an Inclusionist mentality. But still demanding quality and yes, demanding sources. Grimhim (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'Better' in this case would be wikipedia not simply being a directory of music releases. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. I think perhaps every album should be decided on it's own merits which should involve second party sources. --neonwhite user page talk 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as there are sources... Blast Ulna (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Album covers and track lists are the minimum information necessary to start an article - they're essentially placeholders where more information will go later. Some editors prefer to work on one album article until it's stellar, while others prefer to create album stubs to make sure the album is included basic information is present - Neither side is wrong. There's no reason any stub album article on the site can't be expanded to good-article or feature-article level, but it's unrealistic to assert that this has to happen before the album article can exist, and removing the stubs isn't going to improve the site or force editors to improve other stubs. The statement "'better' in this case would be wikipedia not simply being a directory of music releases" is hyperbole: the English Wikipedia has 2.25 million articles on it; album articles are a tiny percentage of that. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough but if the only source for a tracklist and therefore the entire article is an internet directory then it's simply creating an article from copied info which is not the policy of wikipedia and why so many end up at afds. Guidelines would suggest that the best place to begin such an article is on a more broader page such as a discography or artist page and then split the article if enough info presents itself. This is the way it is usually done. --neonwhite user page talk 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion when there's only a tracklist, but when the infobox is comprehensive – with producer, studio, year of release, etc – and personnel is included as well, it's logical that it then demands an article of its own. Interesting you say the source is likely to be an online directory; I've created many album articles, and in every case I've sat there transferring information from the CD liner notes or album cover. Maybe we're talking about different standards of album articles. Can you cite one or two that you think are particularly flimsy? Grimhim (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That would still just be a clone of a discog entry, a catalogue like discogs can't be used to assert notability. Articles with info from a primary source only (i.e copying info from a record sleeve) makes the article almost inevitably non-notable and is often a basis for deletion. I would consider the article Abbey Road (album) to be of the highest standard. I would consider this article Telescope Eyes E.P. to be of the poorest standard. I would consider this article Ride the Tiger (album) representative of the minimum we should expect from an album article. I think reviews in reliable sources are a definite indicator that an album deserves an article. --neonwhite user page talk 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor, of course, is an album article, evan at stub stage, in any way a directory. The term is ridiculous. Grimhim (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling other editors' opinions ridiculous is not civil. People are calling for a tightening up of the guideline, and it will have to be tightened up, for consensus. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• People will need to package their ideas into clearly readable form and gain consensus, or, by default, change does not happen. This, in my experience, is the usual outcome of guideline & policy debate. Once those ideas are packaged and in a clearly marked section, it will be a good idea to run it by village pump. Do that prematurely however, and we have completely wasted our time. Village pump is as capable of producing crickets as anywhere else on Wikipedia, and WP:TLDR is a very real phenomenon, I believe. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll clarify my earlier point, as it's been slightly misinterpreted. I was only using Those Who Are About to Die Salute You as an example of a type of article, not suggesting albums by Colosseum aren't notable. Look around, you'll see thousands and thousands of similar articles, that contain little more than an infobox with the usual information and a tracklist. Calling them stubs isn't addressing the problem, as they are being created at a far, far quicker rate than they are being expanded, so the problem is only going to get worse and worse. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you consider it a problem. Seriously, what's bad about having articles on notable topics? And I fully agree with Moonriddengirl's tl;dr concerns; I've read through the last 5 or so sections and have no idea what Blast Ulna and co what to change (short of redirecting every notability guideline to WP:V). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument is against User:Grimhim's proposal, which, as i understand it is that we should pressume any album by a notable artist is itself notable, which i strongly oppose as there are more than enough unsourced album articles that contains little other than basic info and a tracklist copied from discogs with no claim to notability or encyclopedic content. My belief is that it is better for albums that cannot be be well sourced to be merged with an article on the artist or a discography of that artist to stop wikipedia from becoming a catalogue of record releases. --neonwhite user page talk 04:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Grimhim. "i strongly oppose as there are more than enough unsourced album articles that contains little other than basic info and a tracklist" --> WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I disagree with your belief re. merging to artist articles, and think that Wikipedia could do a lot worse than catalogue album information. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you are in complete misunderstanding of what wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia not a directory. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 01:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, H₂0's argument essentially admits the articles are crap. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(to Blast Ulna) No, it doesn't, but your rebuttal admits that you're incapable of clicking a link and reading what comes up on the screen. My argument was that saying "oh, yeah, we have enough already so let's delete this one" is a horrible argument per OTHERCRAPEXISTS which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. (to Neon white) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have articles on albums. There is no deadline and album articles are given a chance to improve and grow over time. And that's got consensus. You don't. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under a misheprehension, this isn't a deletion discussion, there is no proposal to delete any article here. This page is for discussing the guidelines. Encyclopedias are not and never have been catalogues of music releases. Articles do not have to be given any time to improve if they have no worth they will usually be deleted. --neonwhite user page talk 04:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems with the "directory" argument. First off, just because it's information duplicated on another site such as discogs.com does not make it "directory". Second, a directory means a list of names and label numbers, that's it. The addition of a track list, label, release date, and album cover moves the article well beyond the scope of "directory" - it's easy to overlook that this is a good chunk of information. I think the fact that every album article includes basic information has caused a little loss of perspective; if you see the same kind of information on article after article, you stop seeing it altogether and the article looks empty. Third, albums articles are clearly covered under WP:SPINOUT and may gain some of their notability from the artist. That they're separated off onto a different page is an issue of structure and organization, not content. Fourth, that the articles are currently only basic information does not mean that they will always be that way. Lastly, the claim that there is not consensus for these albums is false: there's six or seven people talking about the details of them here, and a few hundred editors actually using Wikipedia who have embraced the guideline to write several thousand of these articles. Album articles by notable artists, on the rare instances they are even nominated, almost always survive AfD. The times they are deleted are due to other factors such as evidence the album might be a hoax. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A directory is not just a list it refers to information without any real context which alot of album articles clearly are. Duplicating catalogue informatino is not encouraged and does not make a good encyclopedic article. Splitting a page is only appropriated where there is enough info to create a decent article that can assert i certain degree of notability. We don't so it arbitrarially for no good reason. It is fundamental to wikipedia that pages arent simply created because a product exists. What exists on wikipedia is not a consensus. Articles do not almost always survive AfD, they are usually merged. You have misrepresent alot in that post. Be careful to edit in a civil manner. --neonwhite user page talk 04:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, first off, don't accuse me of misrepresentation and then immediately turn around and warn me to be civil. You're way, way out of line. Nothing I said was even the least bit uncivil.

Album articles do have context within the main artist article; that their content is on a different page is totally irrelevant and not contraindicated by policy. You can continue to insist that basic album information is "directory" information, but make no mistake: you are point blank wrong about that. Your interpretation is not supported by the text of WP:NOT#DIR, and reading through the WT:NOT archives shows nobody is even remotely thinking that WP:NOT#DIR is aimed at situations like this. The notability and sources for the artist's article does carry through to the album article per Wikipedia:Summary style#References, citations and external links; primary sources (i.e. the album itself) is allowed to be referenced for details and is not WP:OR since the use is entirely descriptive and not analytical. There is nothing in any policy or guideline that forbids this structure; if there was, it would not have taken three or four years for anybody to challenge it.

I did not say "articles almost always survive AfD"; I said very specifically: "Album articles by notable artists, on the rare instances they are even nominated, almost always survive AfD." Who is misrepresenting whom? WP:N specifically refers to topics, not articles, and WP:SIZE specifically allows for topics to be split for size or style consideration; the community has agreed the best way to organize and navigate through the information is to have album pages and navboxes that organize the information and navigate chronologically through albums (which also puts the album in context). Editors and readers like this - it makes sense. It would make no sense to put some albums as articles and some as part of the artist's article and then try to use navboxes to navigate through them.

That the articles exist is not the reason it is consensus; that far and away most editors have embraced the guideline, which has remain fundamentally unchanged for several years, except for four or five people complaining here is the reason it represents consensus. No Wikipedia content will change even if a more strict guideline is adopted. Even if everything is merged back to artist articles, the redirect pages will still exist. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific Proposals

This debate has been going in circles. I call for specific, brief, itemized proposals, and ask that discussion of them be correctly formatted.71.218.247.89 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would if I knew what the formatting should look like. I'll delete this text as soon as somebody else posts here. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Example

problem

• proposed solution, item 1
• proposed solution, item 2

expected result (signed)

comment

comment on comment

comment unrelated to first comment71.218.247.89 (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Opera Singers

I am looking for a little consensus for opera singers. As a group they do not receive the coverage of a pop group or singer. What guidelines apply for notability. (this started on the talk page of Ryan Allen). Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

the guidelines at WP:N would cover it. Ridernyc (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They receive as much coverage, but it's in a different form (and usually more academic than pop music). Classical music performances for major cities are usually meticulously covered in local papers. Published program notes or recording liner notes might work as well if they weren't supplied by the singer or her agent. Ridernyc is correct: these same guidelines should cover it sufficiently. Wikipedia:Notability (people) may also be appropriate. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Policycontroversy}}?

The use of this template seems like overkill. Who here is questioning that this should be designated a guideline? I see some disagreement about the content of the guideline, but I have not noticed any disagreement about that basic fact. I have removed the template for now; if this is being debated, it will of course be returned. (Watch your 3RRs, folks.) But if there is honest debate to be had about removing the designation of "guideline" from this, then that needs to be clear here, and we will, of course, village pump it. I'll put it back if it turns out that there's a meta conversation buried up amongst the details. It needs a prominently marked section. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of additional clarity, from the template documentation page:

“ This template is only for ongoing, active disputes that are evidenced in talk page discussion. It is not intended for flagging a projectpage or section as vaguely controversial, nor for indicating a personal dislike of the document. There is no such thing as an indefinitely disputed policy or guideline. For disputes about the wording of the policy or guideline (as opposed to the "designation", what this template says), use {{underdiscussion}} instead. Disagreement over the wording of a policy or guideline does not imply it is suddenly not a policy or guideline any more. See WP:POL for details. ”

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's generally right, so I'll acquiesce to her point of view. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no agreement on albums and songs

There's a lot of discussion on the Albums and songs section. Everyone seems to think it needs some work, if not outright overhaul, but I'm not sure even two people are in agreement with each other about what should be done. The discussions above kinda wander around, never really getting anywhere. I would love to come to some kind of agreement about it. What are the specific problems that you see with the album guidelines? -Freekee (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any number of compromises are possible. I like the idea of having one discography page rather than numerous album pages. A discography has many advantages; it allows the user to follow a band's musical output, it allows for better oversight, and it can prevent some albums from being deleted for lack of sources. I think that if an album has secondary sources (importantly, the word "sources" is plural) that actually say something about the album (such as reviews, as opposed to mere mentions or listings), then it can be spun off into its own article. When people are looking at band articles, they are interested in more than just the output of the band. They also want to know the band's influences, and who the band influenced. They want to know how the band was received at the time. The arguments by some here on the talk page that a band is the sum of their albums is rather like arguing that a scientist is the sum of his published papers. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding. So your view is that albums shouldn't have articles unless there is something to say about them beyond reporting the details from the jacket or booklet? Do you have any further opinions about the album guidelines? -Freekee (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Albums and Songs" section is largely fine. My last suggestion, over the substitution of one word – "may" to "should" – in the judgment of whether an album article would be notable met some agreement and some heated disagreement. For the sake of peace, I'm prepared to leave it as is, although my concern would remain that it in some circumstances it would place an unncessarily high burden of proof on an album article to provide notability on its own. You can read my reasons at the discussion above.

Blast Ulna's suggestion in his first response to your question is unacceptable. Wikipedia has thousands of perfectly acceptable album articles that meet what Neon White regards as the minimum standard (see his post dated March 1) – a standard I also see as a minimum for quality and references. Blast Ulna's suggestion could – in the hands of zealous editors with an agenda – result in the deletion of those thousands of worthy articles because they lacked the detail of (again, to repeat an album already cited in discussion) Abbey Road (album). Combining them all into a discography article would mean that in the case of an artist with a lengthy catalogue, a long and unwiedly article that could not provide the detail of track lists, times, credits, personnel, studio details etc the current system of individual articles does. His view suggests that he is less a user of these articles (and hence unaware of their value to music buyers and enthusiasts) than a quality controller. Grimhim (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. User:Grimhim's "capitulation" to leave the guideline as is only an attempt to save non-notable articles from deletion. What he and others may need reminding of, is that since discography articles would only require a couple of sources for notability (and a few sources for verification), more information would actually survive on Wikipedia. A look over the past few months of AfDs will show that albums from notable bands have been deleted, in some cases even if the guideline about notable albums from notable bands being "inherently notable" was pointed out. Furthermore, the information on dicography pages is more likely to be accurate, since more eyes will be on the article. As for usefulness, that is not Wikipedia's job. In fact, Wikipedia's job is to provide encyclopedic knowledge, not all knowledge. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• As for other problems, I've seen some, and talked about others, above. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blast Ulna, you've said your piece. Freekee has invited comment in order to gain some consensus. It might be nice if you backed off a little now and waited for others to make a comment instead of jumping in as soon as anyone makes a contribution to reiterate what you want.Grimhim (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Trying to muzzle me? Sounds uncivil, especially since you started out your interactions with me by continually removing my legitimate sources tags. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I waded through all that discussion above, once or twice, and had a lot of trouble distilling opinions enough to come up with issues on which to take sides. In other words, no sides - no consensus. I'm going to start a new section to discuss the big one. -Freekee (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Songs Notability

The proposed notability criteria do not appear to recognize music other than popular recorded music. Some songs should be regarded as inherently notable, like Child ballads. I would consider any song still being recorded 50 years after it wad written as being "notable. Pustelnik (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Album Notability

Here's what the Album guidelines say, as of this moment (and seem to have said for some time):

All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

Here's what I think it means:

First sentence: See WP:Notability. This is important. While WP:N is not technically a policy, we shouldn't contradict it, because it's a good one, and this is a subpage of it. Besides that, AfD won't buy an argument that contradicts it, regardless of what its subpages say. I think the first sentence should stay the same.

Second sentence: This is a suggestion on what to look for in a subject. It starts with "in general" and and and "if", and includes a prominent "may."

Some have suggested that all albums should be considered notable, simply because they are major published works belonging to that artist. I disagree. A published work by a notable artist is not inherently notable. WP:N states that a subject must have significant coverage by reliable independent sources. How can you have notability without that? -Freekee (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence? It must stay. So in creating (or assessing) an album article, the question, as raised by implication at WP:NN, is "Is this album worthy of notice"? This is explicitly distinct from an assessment of the album's popularity and fame. The album is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately this immediately creates an inherent bias towards newer albums and against older albums: the internet makes it relatively easy to find independent references to an album by, say, Beck; less so to find the same for, say, a 1969 Marvin Gaye album. The Marvin Gaye album may have had extensive media coverage at the time, but unless you have kept old copies of contemporary music papers and magazines, those aren't going to be easy to find, thus robbing an otherwise noteworthy album of "notability" under the strict application of WP:N guidelines. Hence my view that there needs to be a built-in bias towards notability by artists whose notability has already been established. This was the reason for my suggestion in the discussion above (and here we move on to the second sentence).

Here, for the record, is my argument, restated: If a band's notability has been demonstrated and accepted, their albums would therefore normally be regarded as also being notable, subject to the usual requirements for sourcing and verifiability. An artist or band, Led Zeppelin or Paul McCartney, for example, will have a career that fluctuates, with albums topping charts at one point in their career and barely making the Top 100 in another. Yet all are significant markers in their career and each warrants an article because of the noteworthiness of the artist and the part those albums played in the fluctuation of their career. But to say any particular album only "may" be notable provides a dangerous allowance for its notability to be disputed, leading to an AfD. Please note that I have never argued that all albums by a notable artist be deemed notable; I'd prefer the guidelines use the word "should" instead of "may", thus providing a measure of bias. Grimhim (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument that pre-internet source are hard to find is false; numerous "Encyclopdia of Rock"-type sources exist, see this Google book search. One of them has 15,000 entries. Article creators should avail themselves of a library. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given my contribution history, I am understandably biased in favor of album articles. :) I do agree that they should be sourced. I support the claim that RS on the band help to substantiate notability for their albums. In comparison, Wikipedia:Notability (books) has dispensed altogether with the need for secondary sources for book articles in some situations. (See criterion 5.) But, while I don't believe album articles need to reinvent the band's notability, their contents do need sources for verification, according to WP:V. Primary sources, like liner notes, can serve for track listing information and whatnot, and I have referenced liner materials in articles (especially when written by notable individuals, like Richie Unterberger), but as WP:OR indicates, we should be using secondary sources for interpretive claims and analyses rather than advancing them ourselves. Sources = good. I'm not especially fond of the "track list only" album article and have on more than one occasion boldly redirected or proposed mergers of same to the band article in keeping with the recommendation of this guideline. My question, I guess, would be how you would change the guideline. What, specifically, would you like it to say, keeping in mind that as WP:N says notability guidelines are "an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability" but do not govern article content, which is the provenance instead of other policies and guidelines? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with this. Album articles are WP:SPINOUT articles. Guidelines involving those are currently in flux, but the general assumption being made is that it will allow articles like album articles (such as articles about specific fictional elements) to exist without having to totally reestablish notability from scratch. It's a little premature to be working on this guideline until that work is finished, but I'm all for hearing suggestions. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly Wikipedia:Notability (books) has not "has dispensed altogether with the need for secondary sources" at all. The guideline clearly says that a work should have been The book has been the subjectof multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Criteria 5 only says The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. This does not apply to all notable authors but relatively few. An album is not a content fork, it is a seperate article. Content forking applies to long articles that need to be broken up not to elements such as works. therefore WP:SPINOUT has no value in this discussion. May I remind several editors that this kind of policy cherry picking and gross misinterpretations is considered to be 'gaming the system' and is incivil behaviour. --neonwhite user page talk 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Under the circumstances, I'm really not sure how to interpret this statement: "May I remind several editors that this kind of policy cherry picking and gross misinterpretations is considered to be 'gaming the system' and is incivil behaviour". It seems odd, given that you cut off the sentence of mine that you quoted right before you hit the words "in some situations" and my note about which criterion describes those situations. The words "in some situations", of course, make what I said absolutely true and your rebuttal contradictory, since you go on yourself to confirm that, yes, in some situations they have dispensed altogether with the need for secondary sources. In other words, you seem to be demonstrating cherry picking & misinterpretation in responding to my comment, which leads me to wonder if you are writing tongue in cheek. Or perhaps you just misread it and didn't notice the qualifier? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize i misread it. I think it would be better to say that this criteria is unlikely to be much use to this discussion, it is clear that it only would apply to a few authors. Whilst there are historically significant musicians it is unlikely that their albums would suffer from lack of sources, this discussion is more concerned with less famous artists. What is more useful as a precedent here is the paragraph In some situations, where the book itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book. --neonwhite user page talk 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up. :) I thought I might just be missing your point. I am inclined to the belief that most commercially released albums by a notable band are going to be notable, partly because what makes a band notable is likely to be its commercial released albums. (Some bands, of course, qualify for other reasons, including widely publicized tours or significant enough inclusion in other media that they themselves become the subject of widespread secondary sourcing.) I do believe that there are exceptions where separate articles may not be appropriate. Reissues with alternate tracks or even altered names, for instance, are better included in a single album article, in my opinion, with a redirect from the alternate name as necessary. Sometimes series can be combined, I think, as I personally elected to do at The Best of the Girl Groups. I also personally think articles that consist of little more than a tracklisting are pointless as stand-alone articles and would be much better incorporated into a discography article (as I believe Blast Ulna has suggested, and I'm sorry if I'm misremembering that; this conversation is growing a bit sprawling). But that's already in the guideline. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument that pre-internet source are hard to find is false - No, actually it's extremely valid. Albums made after the popularization of the internet were documented directly to the internet and never went away. Albums made prior to that were reviewed in magazine articles and radio shows. These sources are not as easily accessed as sitting in front of your computer and hitting "search" in Google. Saying it's just as easy is like saying the details of the history of 2000BC is just as easy to find as 2000AD because we have history books. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-internet sources are not hard to find, but they are harder to find. But it's not merely a matter of having ready access to information without leaving your home, it's also that there are more publications nowdays. Even if you had all the music magazines and books from the 1970s in your basement, there are many times that many that cover current music and are available on the internet, and many of them are more specialized. The only thing you have to be careful of is that said sources are reliable. I think there's another related bias here, in more editors who are concerned with the latest thing. -Freekee (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A comparison with Wikipedia:Notability (books) may be in order. Look how tighter the guidelines are for them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BK isn't significantly more tight than WP:MUSIC, and the two are analogous in appropriate places (right down to WP:BK allowing inherited notability in some cases). Who's to say that WP:BK shouldn't be loosened up to match WP:MUSIC? I still see nothing wrong with WP:MUSIC, and see no information that is included that doesn't belong or can't be handled by the existing guideline. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that WP:BK appears to be more successful, whilst WP:MUSIC is questioned and controversial. What would just suggest appears in a book article that has no second party sourcing? --neonwhite user page talk 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I would not call WP:BK "more successful" and I don't see that WP:MUSIC is more controversial just because a few people complain here. There is more discussion here because the scope is larger; WP:MUSIC covers artists as well as their works and has been stable and embraced by the community for much longer. If you want to see "controversy", look at WP:FICT. Your last line is kind of incomprehensible; what was the question? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some good points have been brought up, including those by Blast Ulna in the previous section. Does anyone else have anything to add? (I'd like to keep this moving, but we need to give everyone who wants to join in, a chance to do so.) I'd like to get everyone's ideas and opinions on the table before we start trying to hash out the answers. If you brought up something important in the long debates up above, please feel free to restate them here, so we can have everything in one place (and, as I mentioned before, I kinda got lost up there, and didn't come up with any take-away points). -Freekee (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think the guidelines work as they are but am not averse to considering alternatives. I do not believe the guidelines as they are imply that album articles do not need to meet WP:V. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Just that combining many sub-notable entries into larger articles has been used to reduce controversy over at WP:SCHOOLS. There, elementary and middle schools (and the occasional high school for which no sources can be found) that are deemed not notable enough for their own article are merged into school district articles. Similarly, an emerging compromise over individual TV episodes and TV characters has been to have them merged into seasons and lists of characters. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that where little info is available on albums that a 'discography' article is far more use and a lot easy to read. No information is lost it is just presented in a better way. --neonwhite user page talk 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neon white, this sounds a reasonable suggestion, so long as we are talking about album articles with very little information. I noted yesterday a series of Morcheeba album articles with next to nothing in them; each could be expanded to something decent (personnel, for example) in time, but they would possibly be candidates for such a display. The Lemon Pipers article contains some album information that I find perfectly acceptable within that article, but perhaps a Wiki style needs to be created to standardise these. You might also identify a Discography article containing the sort of display you suggest. Once album info reaches the standard of the album you cited earlier (Ride the Tiger (album)) they would be better as their own article. Can we agree on this? Grimhim (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i can agree on that, as long as the article contains more than simply a copy of a directory (discogs for example). The only style info for discographies is Wikipedia:Discography#Discographies which doesnt suggest that tracklists etc. cannot go there. I don't know if there is an example because non-notable albums currently are generally being deleted rather than merged. --neonwhite user page talk 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• While combining less notable albums onto a discography page does make sense, I see the potential for the pages to get over-long—even excessively so. One workaround might be collapsable track lists or even having every album entirely collapsed. That could work, yeah. I could get behind that, I think. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The splitting of over long articles is just general editing practice, it goes without saying that if it was that long to need splitting there would be enough info for seperate articles. --neonwhite user page talk 05:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful with your language, brother. It could be argue a "less notable" album would fail to meet WP:N. (However if a band's notability was accepted, the topic of that band's album career would be justified as being notable.) I see it more useful, and it would need to be expressed so in the guidelines, that it is for albums for which there is little detail. Can I refer you, also, to the concise, but informative, discography in [[]]. One of these albums, their debut, does warrant an article of its own, and this is linked from that discography. But the idea of creating a system of collapsible detail within a discography article sounds good. Grimhim (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Album notability (subsection)

We seem to have a consensus in that all album articles must stand on their own with regard to notability, Verifiability and sources. We need to come up with form and wording. I believe that just about all of the first paragraph is a restatement of WP:N. Do we keep it as-is, or can we improve things a bit? Do we want to expand examples to get a bit more specific and/or provide guidance? Do we want to use bullet points, or stick with prose? And most important, what other aspects do we want to include? As Hello Control mentioned below, I think the wording about unreleased albums still needs some work. There are suggestion about discographies, and I think a mention (at the very least) will have to go in about them. What do you think? -Freekee (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there is consensus on album articles standing on their own with regard to notability, Verifiability and sources. The combined discographies proposal is a good solution when dealing with album articles that lack detail, but I still think it should be arguable that albums by a notable artist tend to, or should, be regarded as notable. This question will still arise when there is sufficient detail and sources to warrant a separate article for a particular album and it should be spelled out in the main guidelines. Grimhim (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there definitely is not such a consensus for that, at least not in the sense that an album article has to stand or should be analyzed in complete isolation. Album articles as they currently stand are subarticles or spinout articles. They are essentially just content for the main article that has been split off due to size or style considerations, and therefore are governed by WP:NNC and allowed to use primary sources for basic descriptive information. Whether they were left as separate articles, merged into a discography article, or merged into the artist's article, the overall content is identical. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Torc and Grimhim that the notability of an album article and the band are interconnected. (That said, I'm all for verifiability through reliable sourcing.) I don't think every album by every band is necessarily notable (I've mentioned this above; one example, retitled re-releases. Two more: demos & promo releases), hence the guidelines should (and do) allow for exceptions. Further discussion of discography articles seems like a good idea, although not much as that heads into content area and could conceivably take is into instruction creep. And speaking of instruction creep, one thing we will need to consider (although that's not the provenance of this guideline) is the fair use implications of images for discographies. If we are going to be encouraging people to create discography articles, we should at least let them know that as things stand they cannot incorporate the album cover unless accompanying critical commentary. I wonder if it would be better to create separate document—perhaps a sub-document at Wikipedia:Albums building off of Wikipedia:Album#Discography—on discographies and simply wikilink "or discography article" to it. The proposed discography section on musician article seems to have stagnated, and if we're talking separate discography articles that's more our arena anyway. (Our=people involved in WP:Albums, to be clear.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I should have read the whole page. :) (Moving down to see what's up there.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing about the main notability rule. According to one of Wikipedia's most basic tenets, every article must stand on its own merits. Notability is not inherited. If Led Zeppelin ever put out an album for which no valid sources could provide information on, we could not write an article about it. Why? because if no independent sources exist, we can't write about it because no independent sources exist for us to quote. Besides that, as I said above, we can't give more lenient criteria for notability than Wikipedia does in general.

Grimhim, I agree that albums by a notable artist tend to be notable. Albums by notable bands will almost always be notable (note the implausibility of the Led Zep example). We should not say that albums by notable bands are notable. The current phrasing is "...then officially released albums may have sufficient notability..." This is correct, though it seems that some people ignore the "may" clause. -Freekee (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

More on unreleased albums

I take issue with this change of wording (specifically the removal of "unreleased albums can be notable if they have substantial coverage in reliable sources"). It seems to me that the new version is predicated on the assumption that a notable artist's albums are notable, which, as I can see from skimming the above discussions, has not been decided and, in any case, the guideline still states that such albums only may be notable. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I added that text, originally proposed by Torc, since it seemed to be the general consensus (see a few sections above). It seemed harmless to me, since anything which "has independent coverage in reliable sources" may be notable. Are you saying the new language is too permissive, or too restrictive? Blast Ulna (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I fear that the new wording could be interpreted as "Any artist with a Wikipedia article can have an article for their upcoming album with only their own website as a reference". The previous wording made it clear that there had to be independant coverage of the album, and more than just an assertion that the album was planned. I do realize that a balance has to be struck between keeping the guidelines succinct and preventing too wide an interpretation. Rather than changing WP:MUSIC a piece at a time, perhaps a complete overhaul (as recommended above, I believe) with all changes "going live" at the same time would be preferrable. I've never taken part in policy discussions before but since the vast majority of my edits are in Music, I'd be willing to dive into a project like that. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Many heads are better than one, perhaps you will be better at language than I. I don't think the intention was to make the guideline less permissive. Blast Ulna (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed that more participants are good. :) Caveat that major policy overhauls often seem troubled by difficulty finding consensus. Even changing them a piece at a time can be pretty difficult. If you want to propose such a change, perhaps you should launch a subpage and mention it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That's how it was done, anyway, on the one major proposed overhaul in which I've taken part (doomed as it was) at User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmmm. I'll have to look into that; I hope I don't bite off more than I can chew. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've often heard people describe adminship like herding cats. In my opinion, that's a better descriptor for proposing changes. :) In my observation, conversational drift in itself is often fatal to such proposals. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps better language would be "signifigant coverage in reliable third-party sources"? —  MusicMaker5376 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Independent sources" is better. Somebody could argue that a retailer or label listing a date of release isn't "third party". The main point of the edit was to distinguish "unreleased" meaning bootlegs and other material that has never seen legal distribution, from "scheduled" releases.—Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that we should to distinguish between those 2 kinds of releases. Any album should have to meet both notability and verifiability requirements. And how about "independent reliable sources"? Some things need to be spelled out. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• You don't see any distinction between a fifteen year-old bootleg and an album with a confirmed legal release in two weeks? A label or an artist stating in a published interview that an album is scheduled to be released on a specific date is verified information; that it's information about a future event is kind of irrelevant. Even WP:CRYSTAL makes that distinction. At that point, it's no different from any other album in the artist's discography, so calling it out separately in the guideline really makes no sense. The point of that section in the guideline is to prevent any articles about non-existent recordings that nobody can confirm, because they might actually be hoaxes. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are differences, yes. But I think as far as WP:MUSIC goes, it would be best to consider them under the same rules of notability and verifiability. If there are enough confirmed details and 3rd party coverage to pass WP:V + WP:NOTE, I don't think it matters if it's a boot, a mixtape, or a work-in-progress. Also, I would strongly disagree that an artist giving a release date in an interview meets WP:V. After 20 years in the music business, I find that what the artist thinks is true regarding release information is frequently incorrect. Also, just because a date is set doesn't mean the album will actually be released. Case in point: One Chance's Private—originally scheduled for release Nov 17 2006 but pushed back numerous times and still not released; it's even listed at All Music Guide as having come out then, but it didn't. Under your line of thinking, at what point would the article become crystal ballism? They still claim the album's coming out even though it's no longer listed at their label's website. I would further disagree that the section is only to weed out hoaxes; it is also to weed out the many albums that get started but never get finished for one reason or other (dropped by label, change in musical "direction", etc) and attract little or no media interest. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since consensus appears to have been reached, with no dissenters, could the "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have independent coverage in reliable sources." be changed to "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis only to show change in wording) be added to WP:MUSIC#Albums? Thanks —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual single-page discography proposal

Rather than continue with the previous discussion section, let's make a clean break and format this like an actual proposal. The idea of a single discography page with all stub album and song articles seems to be generating the most positive buzz. I would be in favor of this if we had manual of style for this, including clear guidelines of when to split albums off into separate articles (with references to WP:SS, WP:SPINOUT, etc. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies doesn't cut it, since that's a guide for single-line entries and assumes the albums will have separate article pages. If we're talking about combining info, how we do that is going to have to be built from scratch using existing guidelines to, well, guide us.

Here's the problem: this notability guideline isn't the place where any of that information belongs. The only way this affects us is by changing a couple sentences in the Album and Song section. Something like (it's a first draft, so don't crucify me):

The discography for a notable artist is considered notable. If an artist has only a few releases, these may be included in a section in the artist's article. For artists with longer articles or larger discographies, a separate discography page should be used. Individual articles for albums, songs, and other releases may be created when the release has significant independent coverage and have enough content to grow beyond a stub. (A summary and link to the release article should be included in the discography page.) Independent articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Existing articles on individual releases that do not meet the notability requirements should be tagged and merged appropriately. For information about how to structure and format discographies, and when to merge or split albums and singles, see WP:DISCOGRAPHY (new guideline).

Notably absent from the revision: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have independent coverage in reliable sources. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag." Using the above structure, the type of content for the new discography pages isn't going to be any of WP:MUSIC's business (per WP:NNC).

The overall content would be the same; the only change is organization. I would assume redirects for album titles to their exact section in the discography page would be required or strongly advised.

Here are (some of) the current drawbacks with this proposal:

• It's a major shift in a design that most editors have taken for granted for a few years and a couple hundred-thousand articles, and doesn't have any consensus.
• It's going to take changes here and at several other guideline and project pages, including WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG, as well as a new manual of style.
• No matter how well this change is thought out and designed, it's going to piss some people off.
• Editing a discography page with several tracklists and infoboxes can be complicated and confusing.
• Most importantly: It's unclear whether the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy allows album covers to be included in articles that aren't specifically about the album itself. I have asked for clarification on this, but in my opinion, if it's not acceptable, that's a deal-breaker and we have to stick with the current structure.

If this has strong support (and the cover issue is resolved favorably), I'll start drafting a manual of style for what the discography looks like. So...opinions? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good work, Torc. I think your suggestions are sound and your means of dealing with album articles that (retrospectively) fail to fit the new guidelines are sensible and sensitive. A couple of comments on your perceived drawbacks: (1) The album articles it will affect won't be a couple of hundred thousand, as you suggest: if Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Work to be done is an accurate guide, it will be a fraction of about 80,000 articles. Your point about consensus is a valid one, but there seems to be only a handful of editors willing at this time to discuss the issue. Other album article contributors may have a view, but how do you gain it if they're not watching this project page? Still, the same issue will have been encountered at other project pages, leaving decisions to be made by a committed few. (2) I don't see that infoboxes will fit on the proposed discography page. Infoboxes are best left for albums that are likely to qualify for WP:N and have enough content to warrant their own article. Nor do I envisage album covers being on such a discography page. But excellent work. Grimhim (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I honestly would oppose any change that lost album covers. It's part of the basic information about an album and has to be included. The only other option is to make having an album cover as sufficient criteria for having an individual article, which isn't likely to settle anything. I suggested keeping infoboxes as that's where the album covers are presented, and if users are able to just cut-and-paste to merge, rather than having to strip information from the boxes and restore it to the article text, we're a lot less likely to get editors willing to do the work. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: With regards to the sentence, Individual articles for albums, songs, and other releases may be created when the release has significant independent coverage and have enough content to grow beyond a stub, Should the album or the article have the significant independent coverage?

Aside from that, if this results in an appealing discog page, the format will be adopted regardless of written guidelines, pro or con. I'd say that's the most important task - making people want to structure articles this way. -Freekee (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At that point, the article would have to have the independent coverage. Not even that so much, just that there has to be a logical reason for giving it a separate article instead of including it in a discography article. (Currently there is a logical reason: there really isn't such thing as a discography article except for very popular artists with extremely large discographies.) If there's some good, community-accepted reason for the article to exist independently, such as a lot of information and a lot of citations that would clutter up a discography section, the album article should be kept or moved to an independent article. But this is primarily a style and organizational criteria, not a notability requirement, and it wouldn't be totally inflexible. For example, United States Live, even without the intro material, should probably have a separate article based on the tracklist and covers. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(inserting comment) You didn't quite answer the question. The reason I ask is that we need to be clear on when a section can be spun off into an article. Do we say, "okay, this has much info, let's split it"? Or do we allow someone to split it, with them arguing that there are many sources to write an article, even though it hasn't been done yet. Or do we even bother mentioning it in the guidelines? -Freekee (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, long reply, then I'm off to sleep and probably won't be on much over the weekend. There are multiple conditions that could spur a spinoff article, but they're structural conditions and are content-based. Having multiple citations that would cause too many references to 'stack up' at the bottom of the discography page (another problem with the proposal, unless there's an easy way to force references to occur immediately below the section) might make the discography confusing and warrant splitting an album article off. Another condition might be simply that the information for the release so large (either from commentary and independent coverage or in some cases where the primary source just generates a lot of content by itself, like the United States Live example I gave) that it necessitates a separate article; I think a lot of the albums in the example discography given by Hello, Control would fall into this category since they include full writing, performance, and production credits. The threshold described is, admittedly, fairly subjective, but there's not going to be an easy way to find the middle ground between stubby album articles vs. overly cluttered discography articles and give objective, easy-to-follow text-based instructions for how editors can do this; there's going to have to be some community consensus on the edge cases.

In any case, neither of these conditions for splitting are notability-based, but rather, content-based. So to answer your question: no, the potential of the album doesn't matter, only how much content is there now - I think it's OK for us to be strict about that and merge ruthlessly (and split ruthlessly when content on an album grows enough to warrant it). Since there's already a redirect page in place for the album, splitting the information off or merging it back in should be pretty trivial, and such a decision would be a matter for the community through the talk page and RfCs to resolve on a case by case basis when it isn't abundantly clear from the guideline and editors disagree (like just about every other disagreement on Wikipedia is currently handled).

I'm not opposed to including on clear guidelines advising what the threshold for split vs. joined would be - word count, vertical length, the addition of specific content like full credits or multiple citations - I think including that in the guideline is absolutely necessary, but... I don't have a clear idea yet what that threshold should be, I don't think it's going to be easy to codify it when we determine what it is, and I think the community as a whole should have some flexibility to make the decision on a case by case basis when the community sees a compelling reason to do so. The "right" thing to do is not always the "consistent" way of doing it; two albums might have identical amounts of information, but if one is part of a discography with three entries and the other is part of a discography with 15 entries, the former might be kept even if it includes just enough to allow it its own article, and the latter might need to be split off just to keep the discography article itself legible.

And yes, I do see potential for the guideline to be ignored. Editors might try to pad an album with fairly insignificant information if we set guidelines based on the amount of content. I don't have a good solution for that, since there doesn't seem to be any really great guides for content. However, empowering the community to police itself and reinforcing the idea that searching for the album name still goes directly to the album information will help convince editors not to treat independent album articles as trophies for their favorite bands. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think there may be an unexplored notability threshold in there somewhere, but the proposed style revisions and the heavy reliance on primary sources in this field changes the type and weight of the secondary sources needed to establish the standalone notability of an album or song. For instance, I don't believe that coverage in periodicals or charts is enough, but that then begs the question "what is," and that's what needs to be ironed out with notability, IMHO. 71.218.247.89 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could have saved myself some time above if I had just read the rest of the page. :) Obviously (to those who've read my note above), I like the idea. It starts with creating the discography document. I suggested above that this might be a good sub-page for WP:Album, since discography articles are album articles. In specific response, Torc says, "I would assume redirects for album titles to their exact section in the discography page would be required or strongly advised." I'd certainly think so. Otherwise, people will be creating album articles and unintentionally content forking. As to the potential lack of consensus, well, village pump will probably help there. :) I would think drawing a proposal and presenting it there is probably a good order to take. As far as use of images in discography articles, policy does not say that they cannot be used. As I noted above, they must accompany critical analysis. They are inappropriate in directory style listing. I think it's good you sought further input, as interpretation of what constitutes critical analysis is important. (I've often wondered in album articles that are track list merely whether image use there is consistent with policy.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is optimistic to believe that the album covers will be kept after merging album articles into discographies. While I agree with your interpretation of the fair-use policy, there are others that do not. And they not only disagree, they claim themselves experts and simply remove/delete such images. So, I am afraid this whole proposal may have the additional effect that most album covers will be gone. Oceanh (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

I agree to making a page with a sample discograhpy in the new proposed style and taking it somewhere like the village pump to gain greater consensus. As for the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, i don't see anything that would really suggest that it would be any different. The intention and the usage is still the same. It may take time to develop and implement but i feel it would improve the encyclopedia in the long run. Wikipedia has had many changes in the past just as significant as this, it is supposed to be fluid so i don't think we should be shy about suggesting another. --neonwhite user page talk 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

In case anyone wanted a sandbox sorta thing to play around with styles, I built one here. A band with a long history that I'm fond of, Crack the Sky, has a good-sized discog and while every album currently has its own article on WP, I don't doubt that only a few of them really deserve it. I pasted all of them (sans category tags) onto one page with a single rule dividing each album, and added Studio, Live, and Compilation headers. Infoboxes are still there (though obviously the covers will have to go per WP:FAIR) and it's all very ugly at the moment but it's something to play around with. Anyone is free to edit to their heart's content. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked your sandbox project, Hello Control, and it's very impressive and workable. And more comprehensive than I'd expected. I've made a comment there on one aspect I think it lacks. Grimhim (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, all that's there at the moment is the entire contents each separate album's article pasted onto one page. That's pretty much it; no extra formatting to speak of (I did remove the album covers per WP:FAIR but the infobox template automatically puts in a placeholder image).

I just set that page up for people to have the raw data for a real-life example. I'm fooling around a little bit with extra formatting but nothing worth sharing yet. Seriously—anyone who wants to try something out, feel free to mess around with that page and save the result. It can always be reverted back for the next person to start fresh, or someone can pick up where you've left off. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, well thought piece of work, Torc. I think this proposal pretty much covers my concerns on the topic. I'm very pleased with how much agreement there actually seems to be, once solid ideas are put down. Mucho potential here. 71.218.247.89 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good proposal. I support the merger of the many "X is an album by Y. This is the tracklist" articles into larger discographies. Fram (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I like about this is that will likely increase the amount of basic information about albums here, since in a discog article, it will be more obvious that there are albums missing. People will be more likely to fill it in there, than they would be to start a new article for it. Another thing I like is that it should improve the average quality of stand-alone album articles.

I offer the suggestion that we use our stub classification for the cut-off to move an album from the discog to its own article. But maybe expand the definition a little bit, for clarity.

Also, I think we ought to see about modifying the infobox so we can leave the image part blank, if needed. -Freekee (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the stub definition will work in this context, although I'd agree that what most people think of as stubs would probably qualify. :) This stub would work very well in a discography article. This stub would not. I know that's an exceptional case, but there are plenty of more developed articles that fail "start" class simply by virtue of having no listing of personnel. Unless we revise, not just clarify, our stub/start differentiation? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a stub! I don't care if it fail the criteria due to no track list, considering the depth of information there, I'd say it should be bumped up. Besides, it includes a "Possible track listing" and mentions some (if not all) of the musicians. But that's beside the point. I just saw that what I should have said was "Start-class guidelines." I think the start guidelines could be used for the guide to what discog sections should strive to look like. Infobox, track listing and personnel. A short text section should be included. When more information than that appears, it should be spun off, leaving only the basic stuff.

Where notability is concerned, Whenever enough sources are cited, a standalone article can (or should) be created. -Freekee (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

←*But it's got to be a stub unless "start" criteria change. :) It doesn't meet the minimal information requirements and can't, until it's released or that information is publicized. That's probably a subject for debate elsewhere, though. (Those are the rare assessments that make my head explode. I suppose we could WP:IAR there, but I tend to do that in my own way by not putting the "stub" template on the article page. Just seems silly.) I like your rephrasing, though "enough sources" seems a little open. Maybe talking specifics would help. :) Naturally (Three Dog Night album), Jailbreak (album), J-Tull Dot Com & Yes Please! (←substantial info, lack of sources). Where would these fall, discography or stand-alone? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely IAR. And notice that I didn't change the class. :-)

Naturally and J-Tull Dot Com are the perfect size for the discog. They meet the minimum criteria for a Start. They have no info (except charts) that's from an outside source. Jailbreak begins to include some outside info, but is still short, and falls well short of B class. Yes, Please is beyond what I'd like to see in a discog article. -Freekee (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, this talk page is for Notability, and most of this discussion is about how to set up the discography pages, which is formatting. We need to take this elsewhere. I was going to set it up as a subpage of the Albums project, but I think it needs its own talk page, at least until it's ready. Anyone? -Freekee (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This discussion seems not to fit on a notability page, it's more like proposing new guidelines for WP:ALBUM. The discussion should be moved to the appropriate pages. Oceanh (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Well, this was intended to be here just until it looked like we had some agreement. Now that it looks like there's good support for this, why not move the formatting discussion to its own project? WP:ALBUM might be OK, but WP:DISCOGRAPHY is free and would probably be more appropriate, in case we decide to include EPs and singles. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 00:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still a bit sceptical, regaring several of the potential drawbacks you listed above. In principle we should be very careful about major reorganizations. It may destroy other editors' previous work. It may lead to lower quality, if not designed and done properly. It may cause stress to editors, and may cause unneccessary conflicts over various topics. I think it is important not to "strictly enforce" any new structure. New guidelines should have broad overlap, letting editors choose the best suitable presentation, and clearly discourage paragraph riders from claiming "this is done so from now on, period". Oceanh (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Removing other editor's edits and causing 'stress' is not a valid reason to not make changes. Remember If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it.. In fact there is no suggestion that content be removed but simple merged and reformated. --neonwhite user page talk 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit everything mercilessly, within an article, as long as all contributions are attributed properly (according to GFDL). The attribution is sufficiently shown in an article's revision history. But I don't think it is allowed (under GFDL) to take texts from one article and move them into another article, because the attribution is lost. Doing so, without proper attribution, is most likely a copyright violation. Oceanh (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

One thing that would cover that is if the individual album pages were redirected to the discography page—per WP:MERGE, that is perfectly acceptable in that the edit history is still intact at the original location. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. The copyright issue is addressed, so I reckon those who do the clerical tasks take the burden to adhere properly to the merge/redirect policy, and see to that the edit histories are properly linked to and never deleted, as long as contributed text is part of wikipedia. (The policy is not always clearly understood, see the recent discussion on AN: "A case of merge and delete and the GFDL") Oceanh (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

Sounds good. I recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies, with WPP:DISCOG as a redirect. Torc, you wanna start it out? -Freekee (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow

Merzbow_discography needs review; there are song/album articles created with no other information on them other than the track listing (sometimes which is only two), and need to be reviewed for individual notability. Also, not certain of the artist's notability other than perhaps his early contributions to an emerging genre. Please contact me on my talk page for coordiation. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You could merge the songs into the album articles, but the albums (if released) are notable. No deadline; they can be expanded (assuming the artist is notable, which I think he is). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 22:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The artist article asserts notability (very convincingly I might add, especially knowing a large number of people who are into Merzbow), and has already been tagged for lack of sources.
2. This discography meets the standards contained in the Manual of Style.
3. Is there a compelling reason to discuss it on this page, rather than on the talk page for the article in question?71.218.236.81 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Band names

I'm about to create a page on Chuck Wagon & The Wheels, a band which is now known as Chuck "Wagon" Maultsby & His Old Band. Under the former name, the band recorded one major label album and charted a single -- but they're still recording under the latter name. So, which one should I use for the name of their page? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go with the name with which they charted the single, due to notability, and that name is likely the best-known one. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd create a redirect for the other name and put both in the lead. --neonwhite user page talk 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)