This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albums GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronic music GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative music GA‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women in Music GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk:Quique/GA1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quique. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20000120192755/http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/ned/nedmain.html to http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/ned/nedmain.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest not trying to push and force genre upon this album in the infobox. The job of the infobox is to to accurately describe information that is already in the article (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It also states that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." As the genres are slippery and have been described all over the place, it would be wrong to clarify individual genres and shove them into the infobox this way. As the prose does a better job of getting the sound across to the user, I would be against applying it in this form. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've included those more straightforward and explicit sourced labels in the prose, where they take a more forceful stance than the rest of the paragraph and imo warrant inclusion in the infobox. They're clearly used as wholesale descriptions by sources, not associations, and in particular they're by retrospective sources rather than the initial ones, which lends them more historical perspective and, potentially, accuracy. Most importantly, they don't mislead or contradict anything in the prose—they're all genres the album has already been repeatedly associated with by critics. In fact, their inclusion in the infobox would make it easier to quickly derive information "at a glance," rather than forcing the reader to dive into dense prose to make some sense of it. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree that they give an idea at a glance, as they should, but despite being pigeon-holed into a genre it's not clear and simple. Generally, I am all in favor when genre is applied to the albums in the infobox (it has its issues, but that's for another discussion), the bigger deal here is the prose specifically says that the gene is relatively all over the place and simply labelling it by point forms does not accurately describe the prose in the article which openly states several times that the genre hard to describe and hard to pin down specifically. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we seem to have three issues for release dates. We have the International Standard Recording Code Database which states an October 18, 1993 release date. Billboard is specifically taking about a UK release date and states a December release date. Even The back of Seefeel's Quique says it was released on July 28, 1993 (which sounds a bit too early to be accurate). So which do we put? Also, the ISRC database states two dates: one in October and one in July for Quique, which is correct? I've tried looking up other releases on this site (i.e: Low Profile's We're in This Together, which sources state was released in 1990 not 1989 as the copyright on the back says, but I can't find specific confirmation.). The ISRC site states it was released decades after that and has no original release info. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, some issues of the record indicate that "digital editing" was carried out in August 1993. While Billboard is a useful guide for the release of records within the USA, it unsurprisingly remains entirely focused on the US record industry. A passing reference in a prose article about imports is hardly a definitive and reliable finding. In contrast, this from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry statement regarding their database:

Where does the data in this database come from?

The ISRCs included in this database were provided by Rights Owners (e.g., record labels), distributors, and other entities that control the use of sound recordings. SoundExchange receives repertoire metadata from all major music companies and a growing list of over 3,000 Rights Owners worldwide. The database is updated daily.

Your anecdotal finding of an obscure hip-hop record which lacks details of its initial release, suggests the possibility that the record's publisher was not a member of the IFPI at the time of release, but its rights were entered in the database when that label became a wholly owned subsidiary of EMI Group. There are of course other possibilities. None of which suggest that a minor reference in a trade article on imports is more likely to be accurate than the internal records of the record label concerned. Cambial Yellowing❧ 23:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you on these statements, but there is a lot of "if" and "possiblys" in your statement, so its not clear which is which. Also, if it was added then, why would they add that information if the release info is so obviously far off from its earliest release date? Again, I generally think you are probably correct, but I'm not sure if what we are saying follows the standards of wikipedia. My main suggestion for now would be to change the release to 1993 and note the multiple sources that give varying release dates, even the two different release dates given by the database your provided. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, I used the conjunction "if" precisely zero times. The use of the noun form "possibilities" is only used in reference to your anecdote about an obscure album. I disagree with your suggestion: two of the sources you mention are of little to no value - one is evidently wrong, the other is focused on a completely different country; there is no need to mention them. IFPI is the largest music industry body in the world, and its information is provided by the record labels themselves. While it largely only includes release dates from the 1980s onward (including reissues), its accuracy is not in serious question. Its authority is self-evident.Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I did not think you would take it literally, but stating a published statement from a contemporary source as being off is not something I'm going to agree with, and I have already shown you several examples where your database has been off (including that it shows several release dates for Quique, which you went and just said "this is the correct one"). I want to settle this sooner than later, but I'm afraid I cannot agree with just going with the database and ignoring other sources. That would be unfair to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether taken literally or figuratively, your contention that my response contained "a lot of if and possiblys" is still a total fabrication. The database cited is not mine, but that of the IFPI. Perhaps you are unaware that records frequently have multiple release dates, particularly for new formats, reissues, and remasters. The IFPI also represents and includes publishing as well as record company release data. The July 1993 date for Quique is clearly the publishing rel date (because as per the album liner digital editing was done in August). Hence the October date is the physical release date.

You pretend to have given "several examples where [the] database has been off" where in fact you have given none. You gave one example of an album where the original release date is absent, not "off". The entry for that record does give a release date for the digital reissue by its new label EMI, which is unsurprisingly correct. We do not ignore other sources, but weigh their provenance against that of the most reliable sources. One source which you claim indicates July 1993, is contradicted by the album liner itself, as well as by the information supplied by the record company to their trade body. Another is a passing reference by a US journalist in a minor article for a trade magazine, also contradicted by the information supplied by the record company to their trade body. Billboard journalists have made errors before when indicating the data of a release within the US. Why should we trust it as a source for release dates of records in a different country, especially when the article is mainly about domestic reissues of imports? The idea is ludicrous. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given at least two and they were the firs things I looked up. How many do you require? Again, I feel you have made your conclusion and are not accepting other sources if they conflict with the one source you have given (which as stated, has been proven not to be 100% correct either.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was released in October 1993, for what it's worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.237.140 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to believe that but we're getting such rapid back-and-forth and different sources, we need more specific confirmation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "rapid back-and-forth" and why do you think it is relevant to assessing the reliability of sources? What do you mean by "more specific" confirmation? I doubt that a more accurate or apposite source can be found, than information supplied by the record company which manufactured and released the record. Cambial Yellowing❧ 20:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back and forth means we are talking back and forth and neither of us seem to be able to come to a compromise. More specific confirmation would be more sources that state a specific date. I would stop leaning towards your information that its "provided the label!" I've searched for several records since the above conversations and can barely find anything on even major releases. I would trust this database, that contradicts itself, has no oversight, as far as I could throw it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you would do is not of interest. The test for sources is the RS guideline; you should familiarise yourself with it. Sources are assessed based on the provenance of the information, not by testing a source for information on other subjects. The fact that the information was provided by the record label is relevant to its acceptability as a source. Your claims, apart from the fact you have given no evidence for them, are not. Cambial Yellowing❧ 02:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against that source specifically without reason, my issues is we are picking and choosing the source from that citation which gives several release dates. How can we confirm which date stated by the source mentioned in the article linked to is the correct one? It gives several dates. Why are we just settling on picking one? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]