# Talk:Shades of Deep Purple

All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have had disambig links placed at the appropriate article or disambiguation page.--Hraefen Talk 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:DP-Shades of - US.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a trivial note at the Scherezade article that the first two or so minutes or "Prelude:Happiness" is based on the first movement of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherezade.  That note really belongs here, and not there.  DavidRF (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to both. Arrangement by such a well-known band as Deep Purple is a notable adaptation of the composition.Garret Beaumain (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A user Jasonfitz seems to hate Rimsky-Korsakov for some reason and deletes him from the article, thus violating the composer's rights.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoever keeps removing Rimsky-Korsakov from article, I strongly warn you that these actions may be deemed as vandalism. The tune of Prelude/Happiness is from Scheherazade, which makes Rimsky-Korsakov one of the song's authors. Beaumain (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no vandalism or violation of copyright here. This is not a record or a CD, but an article about an album! "Prelude/Happiness" is copyrighted by HEC Music as a composition of Deep Purple and this statement is printed on every edition of the album.[1][2][3][4] No mention of Rimsky-Korsakov anywhere. An expert of music composition identifies the instrumental as an arrangement of a small portion of Scheherazade,[5] so maybe it's Deep Purple who infringed copyright, but there is no record of anybody suing them for plagiarism. The name of Rimsky-Korsakov can stay in the article, but I'm not so sure about citing him as an author of the track, because there is no official track listing with his name. Lewismaster (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, this article reads terribly and isn't cited. I personally wouldn't be up to it but I think someone needs to re-write it to get it up to scratch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.137.157 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC) 

The image File:Deeppurplehushps.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently User:Radiopathy started an edit war after my reverts of his edits of this article's track listing. I explained my reverts on his talk page like this:

I notice that you keep reverting a track listing on the article Shades of Deep Purple that was formatted following track listing examples in the Project Albums manual of style. Every example there is the product of ample debate. When there is a disc one/disc two distinction the sequence of numbers does not start again on every side of the LP, but is continuous. I think that what has been decided on the MOS is the correct way to format a track listing, but if you think otherwise please start a new discussion there, instead of opening an edit war on a GA article. Lewismaster (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no interest in entering in an edit war, but I formatted the track listing following the indications of the MOS in dozens of articles without any complain and I cannot see how now what I did is wrong. I hoped to have explained my reasons quite clearly, but for User:Radiopathy apparently it was not enough, so now I wait a reply and an explanation from him. Lewismaster (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The second side of nearly every vinyl album released to date begins with track one; the track count does not continue from side one. The example at the project page is just plain dead wrong and needs to be changed. In the meantime, stop edit warring, and stop harassing me over this issue. Radiopathy •talk•   23:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Edit: The example you provided was inappropriate; this is the project's guidance on vinyl albums:  Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two". Notice it says "separately" , not contiguously. Radiopathy •talk•   00:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you. I don't think that "listing separately" has necessarily something to do with numbering. Listing means to put them in the proper order, separated in two or more sides. I think that, just like on a CD, the content of an LP should have a contiguous numbering, just separated in two sides. This kind of numbering is also more practical for use in the Personnel section, where you can list the tracks a musician played in using numbers. Just as I said, if you think the example on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide which confirms my theory is "plain dead wrong", complain there, but do not start an edit war on this article. Lewismaster (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to give a third opinion. My views at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Track listing numbers have not changed, which is to use contiguous track numbers, giving three featured articles that do this, to show precedent. We can ping @Dan56: if you want another view.
Incidentally, regarding "stop edit warring", it takes more than one to edit war, and if "the example at the project page is just plain dead wrong and needs to be changed", then start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide and gain consensus. I won't be reverting myself as I feel I can give a stronger argument when the article is on the wrong version. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of the style guide, IMO, that the line about "separately" (rather than "contiguously", as Radiopathy put it) refers in any way to whether the track numbers should continue into the second track listing template. "Separately" just means that there should be a separate template for that second side/disc. As I said at Template_talk:Track_listing#Track_numbers_for_vinyl_albums, none of us should be concerned with music industry practices/tradition/idiosyncrasies, but with what makes the most sense to the common reader/general audience, who know that "Mandrake Root" is the 5th track on this album. Dan56 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that all makes sense. Somebody who's reading up on the album on this "new fangled" computer technology is also highly likely to be aware of new modern conveniences like CDs and iPods and to have got used to seeing track listings in that manner. Bear in mind that a typical reader for this sort of article might nowadays well be somebody who wasn't even born when vinyl was popular. In which case, the status quo (as represented by the three FAs I listed earlier) should be restored. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
My two cents For what it's worth, I wrote that album style guide and intended it to mean that the track listing numbers go from 1 to whatever, irrespective of side or disc. As pointed out above, there are lots of featured articles using this format. Vinyl records only so happened to need to be split up into halves but it's not like an album originally released on LP is somehow two separate works anymore than a long book split up into two codices is two separate books (not that oftentimes, the page numbers will continue from the first volume in instances such as this). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm clearly in the minority here, but I don't see the logic in going to the trouble of splitting the album into two halves, per the vinyl and cassette, and then using the numbering system from the CD. On a vinyl album, we all know you never flip the thing over, look at side two and see #5, 6, 7 etc, but that's what's implied by this contiguous numbering system. If it's only going to be paying lip service to the side one / side two concept, then don't bother, and just have a straight list as on a CD. It's easy to mention in the text or a note how the LP was originally split. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Everybody: you're wrong. Everyone here except Bretonbanquet has said that they think that the numbering should continue on side two. This isn't about what anyone thinks; it's about reliable sources - in this case, the label of a vinyl record. It is also about reality - and as usual, people here are trying to make Wikipedia into an alternative universe rather than an encyclopedia. So, in a nutshell, it doesn't really matter what any of you think. If you can produce a copy of this or any album where the numbering on side two is continued from side one, rather than beginning again from track one, by all means, it should be noted in the article, because that would be an accurate representation of how the record was presented to the public, as well as a reliable source. Problem solved. By arbitrarily deciding on a numbering system that is contrary to what actually exists in the real world, you are using original research, which some people here tend to frown upon. As far as the problem of younger people not understanding the numbering: even today's young people are capable of working out the logic behind something with two different "sides" being numbered differently. 
I also don't agree that the sides should be eliminated completely; an album article is supposed to reflect the reality of the initial release, which, for most of the best music ever recorded, is vinyl. It is our responsibility to convey that reality accurately, not to revise it. Radiopathy •talk•   23:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get anywhere reaching a consensus with comments like "Everybody: you're wrong" and "most of the best music ever record, is vinyl" (not if your favourite music is classical, it isn't!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that for albums (unlike Shades of Deep Purple) that were originally released on multiple discs -- either vinyl or CDs -- the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering like this?  I think the album article style guide should be updated to state this clearly.  — Mudwater (Talk) 13:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment: There is an issue that where a vinyl album released before the early 1980s has since been reissued on CD, it's more than likely that the reissue contains bonus tracks. You then have the situation where you have to consider how to number the bonus tracks: if you have side two of an album listed as "tracks 1 to 5", for example, the bonus track numbering suddenly jumps to 11 following 5. I'm not saying it's incorrect to label the vinyl side two as starting from track 1 again, just that the addition of bonus tracks throws another spanner in the works. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, can we at least agree to start the numbering at 1 for each disc of a multi-CD album that was not released on vinyl, again using Stand Back: The Anthology as an example? — Mudwater (Talk) 14:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to think we can come to consensus. Now, I'll invite Parrot of Doom, who was principally responsible for one of the FAs I mentioned upthread, The Dark Side of the Moon, and keeping it there, where the track listing is a contiguous "1-10". "Money" is track 6, not track 1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, this debate is not about content but about style. I don't think that anybody here considers one way of numbering or the other a fundamental part of an article. This is about the information that we want to convey with a track listing. So it is important to know what editors think on this matter and dismiss other peers' opinions as useless is contrary to what Wikipedia is about. As Radiopathy so kindly reminded me on my Talk page, these matters require consensus not edit warring.
Anyway, from this debate emerges that opinions on this technicality are divergent, obviously because we give to a track listing different meanings. I think that a track listing should, at first glance, tell the reader how many songs there are in an album in the sequence chosen by the artist. This is the info that I want to give to the reader with the track listing template and the fact that the original vinyl was numbered from 1 on each side is trivial at best. A contiguous sequence of numbers is what works best to give this information with clarity and I don't feel that I am betraying any source using this style of numbering.
I agree with Mudwater, for the same reasons that I mentioned above, that different discs of a multi-CD album should have separate numbering. Lewismaster (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion has moved to Template talk:Track listing#Track numbers for vinyl albums Lewismaster (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A dispute started with Esszet about the cover which should be featured first in the infobox of this article. Template:Infobox album article specifies only that the cover must be the original one, but our opinion on the matter diverges on the meaning of "original". Before starting an edit war, I would like to have some more opinions on the matter. Below you can find our exchange of opinions copied from 
Esszet talk. Lewismaster (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You reverted an edit for the album cover writing "The US version may well have come out first, but since they're a British band, the original British version should take precedence." This sounds odd and new to me. Can you validate your claim with some MoS discussion or rule? To my knowledge the cover of the first edition is what should be on top of the infobox, because it is the "original cover". Deep Purple were a British band signed to an American label which released the album way before EMI, so Tetragrammaton cover should be on top. Lewismaster (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, in rare cases, the original cover is left out entirely; on Led Zeppelin, for example, the ‘original’ cover, which had the band's name in turquoise instead of orange (see the ‘Artwork’ section), isn't there at all (probably for fair use reasons – it's not hard with the more familiar cover there to ‘practically convey with words alone’ what it looks like), but the point is that the original cover isn't necessarily the main (or in this case, even the official) cover, and so the original cover shouldn't necessarily receive precedence over the main cover.  For an example of a very similar principle, see Out of Our Heads; the UK version, which was released several months after the US version, which, unlike that of Shades, is significantly different from the UK version, takes precedence in the entire article.  I realize that that's not what the template documentation says; it should probably be changed to ‘main cover’, ‘official cover’, ‘most familiar cover’, or something like that. Esszet (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Shades of Deep Purple the US cover is not only the first published, but also the the best known one. The album sold very well in the US and was ignored in the UK. It is also in the inset of the Remasterd Edition cover by the British EMI and for all these reasons it should be considered the main cover. Lewismaster (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears as though some versions of the CD reissue use the US cover in the insert; go to amazon.co.uk and search ‘Shades of Deep Purple’, and you'll see that others, including the first one that comes up, use the British cover.  In any case, the official Deep Purple website uses the British cover, so that should be the main cover here. Esszet (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I would argue "original" here is vague. In practice, the most common cover may make a better illustration. Also, this would be an ideal use for {{Extra album cover}} as it would make sense to display both covers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of pages have two covers (see Nothing Was the Same), or sometimes a cheeky GIF file showing alternating covers is used. Either way, why not use both? They are both 'primary identifiers' and both 'official covers of work' so fair use.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
To Dennisthemonkeychild. Thank you for your comment. The article already use the {{Extra album cover}} template to display both covers. Our dilemma is which cover should go on top of the infobox? Which one should be considered the main cover, as they are both original? I think that it should be the first published US cover and Esszet thinks that it should be the UK cover because Deep Purple were British. Can you help us out of this impasse? Lewismaster (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
To Lewismaster. My apologies, I did not help you in your debate at all. Let's see if I do better this time. As an English Deep Purple fan I would obviously like to see the English cover there, as they are an English band. However, as the US version was released first (confirmed by multiple sources on my bookshelf) I believe the US cover should be shown at the top of the page, in pride of place. The fact that the album reached #24 on the US chart and did nothing in the UK until the very many reissues years later only supports the argument. Apologies Esszet. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if the British version sold very poorly initially, it probably was, at least to the band, the main version, and we should respect that here.  Sure enough, on the US iTunes, the reissue cover with the British cover in the insert is used, and as I pointed out above, the official Deep Purple website uses the British cover as well.  On a completely unrelated note, the album was also reissued with a third cover in the UK in the 70's or 80's (see here), and we should probably add that as well. Esszet (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If the UK cover is now in common use then that does change the argument for me somewhat, although as you have used the word 'probably' I still vote for the first-release cover first. A page like Love It to Death uses the original album cover even though that cover is no longer used and hasn't been since the first pressing, so NOT the 'common use' cover. If we use the argument that the commonly used cover should be the one on the top of the page then that may require a review and a guideline on WP:MOS-ALBUM. Perhaps this argument should be made on a policy talk page rather than this specific page. See also Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! where the no-longer available, but original, cover takes precedence. Are you both sure you don't want to use a GIF that alternates both? I can make one if you like. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
No more covers for this article, please! Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Guideline examples cover art from various items in an article should be kept to a minimum and used for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. The three covers of this article are cited in the text and their presence is justified, but this is not a display for every edition of the album. We cannot know what the band thinks about this matter or who manages their website so what is published there is inconsequential for this debate, which is about a common criterion for every cover display in an infobox. Lewismaster (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to be sure, both covers under discussion are feature din the article now, right? Anyone know which cover i used when the album is represented in official books and websites about the band? FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both of the covers under discussion are featured in the article at present.  As I pointed out above, the cover on the official Deep Purple website is the British one, but I don't have any official band publications about the album, so I don't know which cover appears in official books about it.  The true guiding principle for what cover to display in the main inbox appears to be artist's intent (or at least acquiescence); that would be why the original covers that are no longer in use are used on Love It to Death and Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! (for a similar example, see Open Up and Say... Ahh!, where the censored cover isn't used at all).  Just as we don't know who manages the band's website, we don't know whose decision it was to make the original US and UK covers different or which one the band really intended, and the continued use of both covers only adds confusion to the matter.  The upcoming vinyl re-issue of the album uses the original British cover, but others (such as this one) use the original American cover.  In cases like that, the safest thing to do is use the cover issued in the band's home territory, where they presumably had the most control over what it looked like, and that's unless we have compelling evidence that for whatever reason, one of the covers issued elsewhere was the one the band really intended.  Lastly, I wouldn't say that what appears on the band's website is completely inconsequential; official is official, and so unless we have compelling evidence that it's wrong for some reason (such as the exclusive use of the American cover on re-issues), we're more or less bound by it. Esszet (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
AllMusic uses the UK cover taken from a CD of 2011. [Amazon] lists editions with both covers, which apparently had the same rate of appearance during the years. But what I really need to know is if the principle that the first published cover goes on top of the infobox has general validity or not. The infobox template article remarks that "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified". Shouldn't this principle be applied also to the album cover? Lewismaster (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I was invited here to comment and this is my opinion from skimming through the discussion and the article... I dont think how other articles and their use of the infobox is relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Since what qualifies as original has been brought up here, I want to point out that the adjective "original" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "happening or existing first or at the beginning" ([19]), soooo... I would support having the US cover at the top because that was the version--same tracks and track order, sure, but packaging is also part of what an album is--that first existed. I don't know if nationality of the artist should be a factor, because there have been artists who find far more popularity (and notability) in a country not of their origin, but we could still have a caption at the top read "North American cover" or something. Dan56 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually supports the use of album covers in other articles to try and figure out a precedent for what we should do here:
For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. Generally, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project.
As for the necessity of making the ‘original’ cover the primary cover, a Wikipedia administrator once told me that ‘Most of Wikipedia's "rules" are descriptive, not prescriptive. If the documentation doesn't reflect consensus, it's the documentation that's incorrect (even if it was correct at one time).’  Thus, although that doesn't make much sense to me (there would be less confusion if the ‘rules’ were prescriptive), we don't have to rigidly adhere to the template documentation in deciding what cover to put in the main infobox.  Of course, it isn't entirely clear if there is a consensus in this case; the best approximation we can come up with appears to be artist's intent, but even that doesn't appear to be used universally (see The Number of the Beast; an explanation of what the artist intended is in the ‘Album artwork’ section).  Even if there were a consensus behind that, however, artist's intent isn't entirely clear in this case, and so we'd have to use something else.  My vote is still for the UK cover; they are a British band, and so the original British cover should be the main one.  I'm also personally in favor of making artist's intent the main criterion for deciding what cover to put in the main infobox, and in situations where that isn't entirely clear, the safest thing to do is to use the cover from the band's home territory; they presumably had the most control there over what it looked like. Esszet (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
To Dennisthemonkeychild, Walter Görlitz, Dan56, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. It appears quite clearly that such matter was never discussed before and there is no consensus for the use of the non-free covers in an album infobox. As Esszet clearly demonstrated with many examples, the  temporal criterion which has the cover of the first edition exposed on top of the infobox to identify the album is often disregarded.  The geographic criterion that Esszet proposes is also rarely applied (see for example  Lightning Strikes, where the "main" cover is simply the most popular one). Do you think that this matter should be discussed further in a new section of Template talk:Infobox album? I think that reaching consensus to set a general rule would be better than proceed at random like editors appear to be doing now. Lewismaster (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Lewismaster, and yes, I agree. Move to a broader discussion. We will get more input and hopefully find a consensus that can be used from now on. Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Esszet (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
One place to have a broader discussion about this would be Template talk:Infobox album, but I think a better place, where more editors would be likely to contribute, would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Very well, the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Use of multiple album covers. I summarized the main points of this discussion, but feel free to leave there your opinions on the matter. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shades of Deep Purple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010000437/http://www.guitar.com/articles/ritchie-blackmore-recalls-life-deep-purple to http://www.guitar.com/articles/ritchie-blackmore-recalls-life-deep-purple
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

hi,
Regarding the blog critics review I've put in before it was taken down, why do you need a rating for it when the other album reviews from the later deep purple albums have blogcritics up there with (average) and (favourable). It dosent make sense to take it down if it's already there for the other albums 59.102.94.198 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are rules of style and common sense on Wikipedia and each template has a manual of use and its own limits. For example, there are rating templates for showing a summary of numbers and symbols used by verified and referenced publications and critics to grade a product. They cannot repalce a review. However, many articles have only rating templates and no prose in the reviews section of the article. Apparently, it is tolerated (but not recommended) in those cases to accept a grading like "positive" or "mixed" in the template, waiting for a text summary to be written in the review section. This article has a complete review section and does not need the improper use of the rating template. In fact, the article was rated Good both for its content and its style. Lewismaster (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Couldn't i iust put it in as (favourable) instead. I will admit i had trouble trying to connect the source in which ive tried doing what you giys did with sourcing the allmusic and popmatters reviews up, how would that work to put it up? 59.102.94.198 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You should put nothing different than a rating in that template. When a review does not have a rating, you should write a summary of the review as a text in the Reaction section or create the that section if it does not exist in an article. The template is for numbers and symbols and nothing else. No "mixed", "positive" or "favourable". Lewismaster (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to sound like I'm defending it but then if that's the case then why is the blog critics site review still put on that template on some of the deep purples albums (Come Taste The Band,Stormbringer, Burn, The Battle Rages On, Perpendicular, etc)? Dosent really add up as some of those were there as far as 2017? Is it really gonna matter either way or is there some kind of "reasoning" there. 59.102.94.198 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
As I told you above, those articles do not have Reception sections or they are incomplete. It happens because people on Wiki are often lazy and/or do not have the patience and time to write Reception sections. It is so much easier to put a single word in a template than to write a few meaningful sentences in proper English. If you want to be a thorough editor go to the articles that you cited, write down a summary of the Blogcritics reviews in the Reception section and erease the single words from the templates. This is the way to comply to Wikipedia MOS and to the template instructions, where what follows is written :
(The template) is used to display only brief and objectively-verifiable ratings, such as "[Star]", "B+", or "7/10". It cannot capture the general sense of a review that does not include any kind of scale, so do not include language like "Very favorable" or "(mixed)" in the template, as this would be original research. The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other numeric score. If an article is lacking a reception section in prose, but the information is presented in table format, the |noprose=yes parameter can be used to tag the article as needing a reception section in prose.
Or you could simply ignore what I wrote in these paragraphs and continue the improper use of the Music Ratings template. Just don't insert words in the templates when a Reception section is complete and well-written, because sooner or later they will be deleted. Lewismaster (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
again I wasn't defending it I was just pointing it out, if anything you should be saying it to the ones who added those reviews ive mentioned before. That said, I have read another review site from Daily Vault which has been used before and is generally accepted. Can I use that at least its got a grading and has been allowed before? 59.102.94.198 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
No, I would not consider the Daily Vault website as a reliable source for professional ratings, as it is a self-published webzine written by fans. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is a list of good sources for album reviews here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Lewismaster (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)