Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Main page | Discussion | Deletion talks | Help & tools |
Manual of Style |
Statistics | Directory |
WikiProject Music was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 8 February 2009. |
This wikiproject oversees all active music projects: see Music Projects and WikiProject Council for a table and a list. Posts about specific topics (e.g. albums, composers, jazz, rock or whatever) should be made to the relevant project - not here! |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Adding a new page on WikiProject Music
[edit]Hello, can anybody help me add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jolyon_Petch to this group?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainamera22 (talk • contribs) 01:26, July 17, 2021 (UTC)
Question on Blackhawk (band)
[edit]In Blackhawk (band), Randy Threet was formerly a "real" member but is now credited solely as a member of the backing band. Since he's not a former member in the sense that he still performs with them, should he be listed as a current member in the infobox but with a footnote, as is the case now? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Is Indie Vision Music unreliable?
[edit]Per Graywalls (talk · contribs) suggestion at the discussion, I'm soliciting input from this WikiProject. Is Indie Vision Music an unreliable source? Discussion is here at RS/N.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- This was a pretty standard mid-level independent review site for a long time, though it never got formally evaluated at RSALBUMS. I've added it to pages in the past and am unaware of any good reasons not to treat it as generally reliable. Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Greywalls argument is that it is akin to the HuffPo or Forbes contributors where there isn't editorial oversight in a meaningful way.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- For purposes of centralizing the discussion, could you comment at the RS/N discussion rather than here, Chubbles?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't exactly say for certain, but what would help is if you could explain their editorial policy with citations directly supporting it. Graywalls (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Graywalls I will note that this isn't really possible with a lot of even reputable music sources. I should search and see if they've ever issued corrections, that's a good way to tell if a source is reliable. I did email IVM and I'm waiting to hear back. Whether they will respond, I don't know. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: [1], [2], [3], [4].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Greywalls argument is that it is akin to the HuffPo or Forbes contributors where there isn't editorial oversight in a meaningful way.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability and it's more like bands and blogs cheering and praising each other. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've brought this question up years ago (I believe regarding Doug Van Pelt of HM), the founder/publisher of a source can also be an author for it. I'll see if I can find that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can't find the discussion. I searched for "Doug Van Pelt" and "John DiBiase" (of Jesus Freak Hideout, which I also searched for) in several different talk pages and noticeboards. If I didn't name drop them, which seems to be the case, then I don't think I'll ever find the discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- "like bands and blogs cheering and praising each other." - that's not truly accurate, as the site does hand out negative reviews. It's not a simply promotional site.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I am formally proposing an update to WP:BAND, which can be viewed here. The proposal can be voted on here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught
[edit]I've started a discussion at WP:RS/N regarding these sources and if they are reliable. Input at that discussion would be appreciated, please.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Timbuk 3
[edit]Timbuk 3 needs a major revamp and cleanup.
- The band is defunct, so per fair use we could probably put an image in.
- I think all the band members except Pat MacDonald should be merged/redirected, as none seem to be independently notable and one has had a two sentence stub since 2006.
- No info on what the band members are up to now?
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024
[edit]You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Page edit assist
[edit]Hey! Created a page on Imagine Dragons song Take Me To The Beach. It’s my first page, and I would love for it to be approved. If someone could please help edit it to make it better/more likely to be approved, that would be much appreciated…
Draft:Take Me To The Beach (Imagine Dragons song)ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC
[edit]Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Speedy review of a draft?
[edit]Hey! Would someone mind checking out this draft?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Taylon_Hope (attached link as well)
Thank you! Palmetto252 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend reorganizing per the guidance at WP:LEAD. Much of your intro should probably be repurposed into a "History/Background" sort of section, and then rewrite the intro so that it only summarizes the article body content. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Symphony of Heaven AfD
[edit]Since participation is lacking, I thought I'd publish the AfD here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symphony_of_Heaven Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
music credits
[edit]when we write or make new document of singer's albums or songs, there's sometimes producers list. how do y'all find producers credits? i tried Discogs, Spotify, Apple Music etc but i still couldn't find the way how to check them. also i wanna know how y'all find songwriters) credits & genre credits. Arismauve (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Arismauve Tidal will usually list them. If it's albums, I usually consult the physical liner notes. You can often find those at Discogs.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you can't find documentation at any of those sites, try to see if you can find it in a press release or review article. And at that point you're out of luck if you can't find anything.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- hello! thanks for your reply. also can i refer other language wikipedia's information? and i usually check producers or release date by genius.com, but i remember someone said it's not a reliable source.
- i searched Discogs, and i just entered like Mariah's 4th album Merry Christmas, i can't find any producers list. i tried it on other artist's "best" albums, which are popular. but still i couldn't find anything.. Arismauve (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Arismauve On Discogs for that album, click the cover art it brings up the liner notes. I can see who the producers are.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can check other languages Wikipedias for leads/ideas of information, and you can take sources from them and add them to the English Wikipedia, but you can't use other Wikipedias (or any wiki/wikia) as a source directly per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a copyright issue if I copy it completely? Always appreciate for y'all helps! Arismauve (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Arismauve no, if you're transcribing them into text that's perfectly fine --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- wow, i didn't know about that. but i have to write like "brought from (wikipedia link)" in edit summary, right? Arismauve (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- nvm, i found 'em. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (i was right xd) Arismauve (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was reading this from mobile and missed the context of your question - yes, if copied from another Wikipedia, you need to attribute the content.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- wow, i didn't know about that. but i have to write like "brought from (wikipedia link)" in edit summary, right? Arismauve (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Arismauve no, if you're transcribing them into text that's perfectly fine --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a copyright issue if I copy it completely? Always appreciate for y'all helps! Arismauve (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you can't find documentation at any of those sites, try to see if you can find it in a press release or review article. And at that point you're out of luck if you can't find anything.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Indie Vision Music has an RfC
[edit]Indie Vision Music, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for the reliability of the publication as a source for music journalism. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed updates at Academy of Achievement
[edit]Proposed updates that include adding musicians that might interest members of this WikiProject: Talk:Academy of Achievement#New names for Academy of Achievement#Notable recipients of the Golden Plate Award Jarc12030 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Template splitting discussion
[edit]Started a discussion yesterday regarding Template:Morrissey singles and whether it should be separate. Unlikely to get much attention on a template talk page on its own so I figured I should just reach out for any responses I can get rather than letting it be between two people who probably won't come to a consensus on our own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands
[edit]There is a requested for comment in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
ASCAP request
[edit]Hi WikiProject Music, I made a request for the ASCAP article that may be of interest to editors. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer! Stephanie BINK (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Studio album standard
[edit]in here, what's the standard of Studio album and EP? Camilasdandelions (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- In an artist's discography, all studio albums and EPs should be listed. Chubbles (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, how do y'all check whether this album is studio or EP? How do y'all differentiate? Camilasdandelions (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see - there's no hard and fast rule. If the artists identify the release as an EP, that's usually definitive; otherwise, as a rule of thumb, releases that are less than a half hour in length AND have eight tracks or fewer generally qualify as EPs. There are exceptions. Edge examples can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Chubbles (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, pretty much this. In most cases artists are pretty clear with the label, and we use that, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see. Do y'all count a studio album related to their release dates? If the studio album named "A" were released ij 2009, and "B" were released in 2010, then "A" is 1st studio album and "B" is the second? Camilasdandelions (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, though we also defer to sources in instances where some albums are considered "unofficial" parts of an artist's discography, e.g. the footnote in the lead of all of Björk's albums clarifying whether one counts Björk (album) or Gling-Gló. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also this brief discussion regarding Journals by Justin Bieber. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for your explanation.
- so for sum, in Wikipedia we regard studio album as 8 + songs but there're some exceptions, like Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster.
- if an artist once say it's an EP even though the album exceeds 8 songs, then it's being an EP. am i correct? :,) Camilasdandelions (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- See also this brief discussion regarding Journals by Justin Bieber. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, though we also defer to sources in instances where some albums are considered "unofficial" parts of an artist's discography, e.g. the footnote in the lead of all of Björk's albums clarifying whether one counts Björk (album) or Gling-Gló. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see - there's no hard and fast rule. If the artists identify the release as an EP, that's usually definitive; otherwise, as a rule of thumb, releases that are less than a half hour in length AND have eight tracks or fewer generally qualify as EPs. There are exceptions. Edge examples can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Chubbles (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, how do y'all check whether this album is studio or EP? How do y'all differentiate? Camilasdandelions (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Relevant discussion
[edit]Hello all,
There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Lists of music venues in which you may be interested.
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"Piano Ballad" as a genre?
[edit]Hi, this is the first time I'm doing something like this, so let me know if I've messed up somewhere.
There is a minor disagreement on whether or not "Piano ballad" should classify as a music genre on the page for "Cancer", and therefore be included in the infobox. My argument is for the inclusion of it: various sources directly call the song a piano ballad and nothing else (the sources are listed on the talk page for the article), and the Wikipedia page for music genres defines a genre as being one which "identifies some pieces of music as belonging to a shared tradition or set of conventions", something which clearly must be true if various outlets choose "piano ballad" as the sole identifier for the song and are thus expecting readers to hold some common understanding of their conventions. However, the other side of the argument is that a piano ballad is a style, and thus cannot be a genre; this is a similar argument made in regards to the consensus of not counting a "power ballad" as a genre, given that a "ballad" on its own is not a genre. There was also a discussion on the talk page for Norman Fucking Rockwell! which decided against including "piano ballad" in an infobox for an album, however the consensus may be different on a song-by-song basis. Is there any chance of establishing a clear consensus on this? Leafy46 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, just like a regular ballad, it's a descriptor/characteristic of music, but not a genre. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The line between a "category" or "characteristic" and a "genre" is a gradient. But I lean toward this being a category or characteristic of the song. Like, say, duet.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To unhelpfully confuse the issue: there is a redirect piano ballad which points to Ballade (classical music) where "piano ballad" is termed and categorised as a genre. The work under discussion her, "Cancer", of course doesn't fall into that description, which in turn means that it shouldn't be so categorised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Reissues
[edit]Hello mates, I have serious problem. What are the general requirements for an album's deluxe version to have a standalone article?
I have stumbled across articles like articles like Lana (deluxe of SOS) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (deluxe of Good Girl Gone Bad), but Scarlet 2 Claude is merged into Scarlet although it's also a reissue. According to WP:Articles for deletion/Lana (album), editors say that as long the subject has enough coverage in RS then that's ground for a standalone article. However, we have remixes like "Die for You (Remix)" and "Save Your Tears" which both peaked at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100, certified in multiple regions; to sum it up, they somehow performed better than the originals and they are critically discussed in RS (enough to grant a standalone article, but they are merged into the originals).
So, again, if this is some kind of loophole to create standalones for special editions, can there be clear requirements, or should they be merged into their respected standard editions/originals? dxneo (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I always need a really good reason to split an article like this. It can't purely come down to notability — the coverage in sources also needs to be sufficient to generate a ton of proper Wikipedia content, such that shoving all of it into the main album article becomes unmanageable.
- When I've proposed merging or deleting articles, an attitude I see a lot is to say "we should keep this, it's clearly notable". But an awful lot of notable stuff can be covered in sufficient depth as part of a larger article.
- Another vague observation: I think there is a tendency to be too deferential to reissues and deluxe editions on Wikipedia, and the urge to catalogue them often spills out into fancruft. This isn't Discogs. We should be thinking big-picture and long term about what really matters, not worrying about outtakes and alternative covers, etc.
- OKNOTOK, the reissue of OK Computer, is a rare example of where I felt the split was justified. I originally put the coverage in the OK Computer article but it grew so large I split it. Popcornfud (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been curious about this myself lately due to the existence of The Black Parade/Living With Ghosts article. I've been questioning whether or not it needs to be a separate page or if it should just be merged into The Black Parade since it's literally just TBP with some extra outtake material. I'm leaning towards that it should be merged, but I also think that if I tried to merge the article it would be rejected and then likely kept in any discuss because it might technically be notable. λ NegativeMP1 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my experience, it's almost never justified, and should just be combined into one article. Largely per the points of WP:MERGEREASON. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say it's simply a matter of whether or not a reissue is able to pass WP:NALBUM on its own, disregarding its correlation with the original album. In the case of Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, for instance, the reissue, not the original, was certified as gold in Sweden, which qualifies it per Criteria 3; Lana, on the other hand, charted in Italy (even if only barely) and Norway, qualifying it per Criteria 2. Both also have received extensive news coverage of the reissue itself, saying more about it than simply a passing remark of "It is the reissue of the album ____" and a release date. I feel that the reason why Scarlet 2 Claude is not a standalone article seems to be more about editors never having put one together in the first place, and less about its notability independent of the original album. This may be something of a hot take, however, and I don't have nearly as much editing experience as some others in this thread, so feel free to take this comment with a grain of salt if you wish. Leafy46 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is incorrect, and not good advice. There are many reasons besides WP:NALBUM (or the WP:GNG) that are considered when deciding whether or not something gets its own stand alone article. For example, as I said above, see the points at WP:MERGEREASON. Being notable is a requirement for something having its own article, but its not compulsory for something to have an article just because its notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Amen! I think there's a mass confusion over notability meaning the same thing as being worthy of an article. Popcornfud (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I basically 100% agree with what Sergecross and Popcornfud have said above. Notability does not necessarily automatically equal being worthy of a separate article, and when it comes to a lot of these reissues (though barring examples such as OKNOTOK and Thriller 25, both of which have enough information about them in addition to notability to warrant standalone articles), their content can often be more than easily merged into the parent album article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't Lana and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded have enough information and notability? Medxvo (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a matter of notability. dxneo (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- JeffSpaceman said OKNOTOK and Thriller 25 are exceptions since they have enough information in addition to notability, which seems to be the case with Lana and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. Medxvo (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a matter of notability. dxneo (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't Lana and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded have enough information and notability? Medxvo (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see what you all mean, but I feel that it's all a matter of balancing what is said at WP:MERGEREASON with the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and thus that there is no practical reason why two articles with connected but fundamentally different scopes cannot both exist. It is never strictly "compulsory" for something to have an article as far as I'm concerned, however I also think it's somewhat demeaning to say that a topic like a reissue — even if reliable sources do exist and it can be demonstrably shown to be different from the original album — is not "worthy" of having an article simply because it could be summarized in a different one. After all, is that not what album articles do when it comes to their "composition" or "music" sections, where each individual song is given a short blurb, but they can always be expanded out into full pages if there are enough sources supporting its distinction from the original album? Why can't that same luxury be extended towards album reissues, like the ones presented at the top of this section? Leafy46 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- When a song has enough coverage that there's enough to write about on its own page, rather than summarizing that info on the album page, then a separate page is justified. The same logic holds for reissues. Popcornfud (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I concur. We cannot have "Save Your Tears" and its remix on separate pages. Same with these albums. dxneo (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the logic, which is why I'm confused on where the point of contention is in this section. I'll point out that WP:MERGEREASON says that merging should be avoided if "The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". To me, this reads like it's saying that as long as both articles are notable and enough can be written about them, which they are in the case of these original/re-issue albums, then there is no reason why they cannot be standalone but connected in prose. I also do not believe that the "Context" argument is valid here, given that a large chunk of the reissue articles are devoted to the reissues themselves, rather than their correlation with the originals. Unfortunately, however, it's hard to make any argument using MERGEREASON given that so much of it is subjective. Aside from "Duplicate" and "Overlap", the other three reasons listed seem to allow for much editor freedom on whether or not an article matches the criteria, and in that case there is already a fixture in place to reach consensus: AFD. Leafy46 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you keep trying to frame it as "simple", and it's not. It's contextual, to be figured on a case by case basis. But usually it's very easy to implement into one cohesive anrticle than two short, redundant ones. And no, it doesn't have to be at AFD. Simple talk page discussions are fine, either at the subjects talk page or a Wikiproject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be contextual, but I honestly do not think that this is as complex as it's being made out to be, either. If an editor goes through the effort to make a separate page for a reissue, then it should be fine as long as it is notable and there's enough information on it; otherwise, the page can be deleted/merged, and everything returns to the status quo before. I would also not classify either reissue page in question here as being a redundant clone of the original album page, but I clearly don't have the experience with writing articles to say whether or not two would be better than one. In any case, though, it's clear that this conversation is going in a circle (and seemingly on the verge of going off-topic), and that there's not really much of a point going back and forth on this given that it looks like the only difference is our different, subjective answers on whether Wikipedia should have more but shorter pages, or fewer but longer pages — which is to say, I'll just stay out of this discussion from here on out. Leafy46 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you keep trying to frame it as "simple", and it's not. It's contextual, to be figured on a case by case basis. But usually it's very easy to implement into one cohesive anrticle than two short, redundant ones. And no, it doesn't have to be at AFD. Simple talk page discussions are fine, either at the subjects talk page or a Wikiproject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- When a song has enough coverage that there's enough to write about on its own page, rather than summarizing that info on the album page, then a separate page is justified. The same logic holds for reissues. Popcornfud (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is incorrect, and not good advice. There are many reasons besides WP:NALBUM (or the WP:GNG) that are considered when deciding whether or not something gets its own stand alone article. For example, as I said above, see the points at WP:MERGEREASON. Being notable is a requirement for something having its own article, but its not compulsory for something to have an article just because its notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana (album) and was hoping for just this type of discussion. Many enlightening points so far, but I think everyone is using the traditional definition of "reissue" although that term seems to be getting indistinct in the business. Lana is being promoted as a "reissue" but not in the traditional sense. SZA's previous album was two years before, and she just released 15 new songs totaling 46 minutes. For everyone else that would be a new album of its own. Instead, SZA latched those new songs onto the previous album and called it a "re-issue". I really don't get that reasoning myself (makes the new songs look like rejects), but to me it seems like a new tactic that doesn't quite fit the above discussion about more traditional reissues. I sure hope this tactic doesn't become a trend. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)