Jump to content

Talk:AllMusic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

relation to 1992 book

I had added a section on the relation of the AM website to the AM Guide book published in 1992, which had been deleted with a comment that it was irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant at all b/c 1) it fills in the history of the data & AM's transition from a paper-based to internet-based service, and 2) it documents the fact that the classical music info. was cut during this transition. If a reader is looking at the page in order to evaluate a music guide, they should know that there's actually much more info. on classical music available in the book version (which is still widely held by libraries etc.). Derickfay192.52.218.40 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

website is often slow or totally inaccessible

Their website is great, but its very important to note that their website has a consistent track record of loading pages very slowly, and often not at all. I've added a note to about this in the article. This is not an issue specific to my computer or connection as I've encountered their site's terribly poor performance from many different computers in many different types of setups, different browsers, different locations and different types of net connections, so it's not an isolated issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.194.53 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I can't think of any other high profile site with such poor networking performance. I have no ideea what kept them from doing anything about this for over 2 years now, if I'm not mistaken. Yang (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad?

Compared with the entry on Gracenote, this sounds like advertising. Like it's written by a blurbwriter. I guess it's hard to edit something as elusive as style though. 81.156.49.248 02:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


What about how they rate some albums without a review. Who gives these ratings? Also, there are some written reviews that differ somewhat in tone from the numerical rating. (i.e., a glowing review but a mediocre rating.)--65.32.93.18 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

The templates {{allmusicguide}} or {{amg}} can be used to easily make links to All Music Guide entries on bands and other content. See Template talk:allmusicguide for instructions on use. —Mulad (talk) 21:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

All Music, however, does have a few errors. For example, in the case of Elton John's album "Greatest Hits Volume 2", the guide states that it was released in 1986 instead of 1977, and the track listing only shows the tracks from the 1992 reissue of the album (which replaced two songs with two different songs). Also, a common error in the listings is albums that were released before 1983 being listed with CD releases at the time of the albums original release. User:THollan

Didn't you mean to say "a few thousand errors"? Monicasdude 13:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yers. It's dead handy, but you have to take it with a pinch of salt. The entry on Ultravox [1] doesn't mention their only real claim to fame, the single "Vienna", the feature-length entry for the Penguin Cafe Orchestra [2] fails to give any information whatsoever about the group other than its name and the name of its second album, which is in turn identified in its article as the group's debut [3], the article on Throbbing Gristle's 20 Jazz Funk Greats praises it for a song ("Hamburger Lady") which was on the previous album, and the articles for British and other non-US acts tend to start with "Although NAMEOFBAND was never particularly popular in America, the group had several hits in their native country". And if I see the awful word 'sophomore' once more I will hurt myself with a pen. The rest of the world hates America enough without you having to destroy our music.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, chill, mate. The AMG has some errors. Some several thousand, perhaps. But for that matter, Wikipedia has some errors...and, yes, some several thousand, perhaps. That doesn't mean it isn't a valuable source of information. You just have to view things critically (no pun intended), and realize that, like Wikipedia, information beyond bare facts on relatively obscure artists is never going to be perfect. Although one thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes US and UK versions of albums differ, so perhaps the track was on the US version of the album. Furthermore, sometimes albums never get release in the US, so an American debut might be a UK sophomore effort. Unlike Wikipedia, however, it is a site made exclusively by Americans, so US-centric points of view are to be expected! And, of course, vocabulary too. I think you need to relax a little. I mean, I don't have the inclination to hurt myself with a pen every time I see a British website prattle on about "Manchester United Football". It still takes a minute to register: "oh, they mean THAT kind of football...not 'football' as in football". I'm sure you're "taking the piss", as you British say, when you talk about how the rest of the world hates America and you hate us even more because of a website...at least to a degree, I would hope. But if you really hate it so much, hey, I'm sure you could register http://www.UKCentricMusicGuideThatNeverOnceUsesTheWordSophomore.co.uk StarryEyes 05:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm 19 years too late, but are you serious? Comparing errors on an open-source encyclopedic website to thos of a closed-source one-man operation? Emn316 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't all AMG content free on the website?

I was always under the impression that it was... perhaps a little more information on what precisely isn't included would be of interest to readers? Thomas Ash 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Bogdanov

This article states the Vladimir Bogdanov is one of the founders. The linked article is for a russian businesspeople; is this really the same person? Jayvdb 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayvdb: checkY it is this Vladimir Bogdanov (editor). Jonpatterns (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent Genre Sourcing

This comment is to start a discussion about AMGs prominence as a reference for musical genres. I have used AMG for much research although it seems to be hardly the last word. Since AMG figures so highly into what music critics are using as reference material i think it is important to note their influence in the AMG article. Since they are free to publish what they want and it might not be sufficiently referenced or cross checked, they have the tendency (in my opinion) to publish slightly sub-standard genre descriptions and are usually 2-3 years behind on their band biographies. These problems may be only apparent on their allmusic.com website, while the actually database may contain more in-depth information. Since I dont have access to the database I couldn't say. However since the allmusic.com site is one of the main sources for referencing music info, I thought it should be noted. Xsxex 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on their substandard genre listings. I've found that they list any band that became popular in the mid or late 90's as post-grunge, including such ridicolous claims as blink-182. On multiple talk pages we have came to the conclusions not to use AMG as a source as it is unreliable. In fact I just spent the past minutes cleaning up some articles to get rid of the AMG sources. I highly reccomend people stop using it as a source.Hoponpop69 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're notoriously unreliable. Dont EVER use AMG!--SilverOrion (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMG worships at the temple of Nirvana and gives low ratings to anything it considers artsy-fartsy or ambitious. IT should be avoided like the plague and I think omitted from infoboxes on album articles. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this site has little if any veracity as a reliable source and should not be used as one, as it has demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge about genre definitions over a long period of time. Wiki is crippling itself by using it as one of its main sources. 216.107.197.3 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.197.115 (talk) [reply]

Throughout Wikipedia we should stop accepting Allmusic as a source for genre info.
Allmusic's taxonomy of genres is one of many on the web, and to their credit, it is certainly one of the most comprehensive, at least for popular music. But it often makes dubious connections between disparate genres, dumps artists in too-broad genres, or flat-out invents new genre names (like "post disco") just to fill in gaps and to have a place to file every artist & song under, without regard for how anyone else in the world categorizes the music. It's entirely their system for categorizing artists & songs. They also paid people (at one time, credited on each page, now anonymous) to write a little description of each of the genres in a way that acknowledges the links they set up. Sometimes the info is correct or at least plausible, but other times, it's reaching quite a bit.
Inevitably, articles were created on Wikipedia to mirror Allmusic's taxonomy, and used Allmusic as their primary source of info. Some of these have since been beefed up with additional, much more academic and reliable sources which confirm some of Allmusic's claims. Others are still floundering, relying on and repeating Allmusic's claims as fact. I've seen attempts to delete the articles about Allmusic-invented genres, or prune Allmusic's influence from other articles, meet with resistance from those who seem convinced of Allmusic's authority and who feel Allmusic meets the letter of the law, as it were, for third-party publications that can be cited.
I'd like to see if we could get consensus for at least defaulting to saying "no" to using Allmusic as a source for genre info on Wikipedia. What do you all think? —mjb (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave AMG alone!!!! *sob* ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They list Rammstein as progressive metal, I don't think they are a prog band. they don't sound like a prog metal band. I think they got info wrong, are they reliable? Chigurgh (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic reviews and biographies are reliable, but their tags are not so reliable. Hopefully that helps.--3family6 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this, but is this official wikipedia policy?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that policy specifies. The above has been my general understanding of the consensus. Usually Allmusic seems pretty accurate with its tags, but occasionally there is something totally odd, or a confusion with other artists. I'm not sure how tags fit into Wikipedia policy.--¿3family6 contribs 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, there have been so many bad cases of genres on Allmusic. For instance Falling in Reverse is called Screamo, anyone could tell thats wrong. Also Escape the Fate has been Nu-Metal and Heavy metal, That is so incorrect its infuriating. Also The Agony Scene has been called Heavy Metal...they're deathcore and metalcore. Another example A Smile from the Trenches has been called Pop Punk, Emo-pop, and Pop, thats so wrong, plus the website calls them Smile from the Trenches, and A Smile from the Trenches are, Screamo, emocore, posthardcore, alternative rock and metalcore. The list of bands goes on Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly have been doubts cast on Allmusic's reliability as a source [for genres] in the past, but I've never seen a full discussion or majority consensus achieved on the matter. Here wouldn't really be the place to discuss such things (this page is for the article itself, not the subject), perhaps somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or WP:RSN? Яehevkor ✉ 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we copy this section on to there? If so where? The talk page?Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems re: adding AMG writer name to list

I've been trying to add an AMG writer's name to the list of other writers on AMG's Wikipedia entry, and shortly after I add it, it keeps getting erased. The editor sent me a message saying "we need a source to make sure you are not adding it for vanity reasons" - what does this mean and how do I submit a source?

Feel free to read about citing sources and reliable sources. I do not mean to attack, but to keep the article accurate, sources are needed, especially when an editor chooses to add themselves to an article. --WillMak050389 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Allmusic logo.gif

Image:Allmusic logo.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMG / All Music Guide / Allmusic

In 2005, All Music Guide was renamed Allmusic. I think the article should be redirected to Allmusic. Furthermore, AMG is the company who owns Allmusic; the acronym should only be used when referring to the company. Does anyone disagree? NisseSthlm (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link at the top of this entry for the other "All Music" wiki page, but no link on THAT entry for this one. Can someone put in those changes? Acl8m (talk)acl8m —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done now! Cheers! NisseSthlm (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic seems to now have gone into a charts freeze

Since the summer of 2008, the weekly updating of much of the present chart peak information has not been up to date and has affected much of the editors on Wikipedia who record such information on artists' pages. Every week, it fails to update its present chart peak history. Is this the only reliable source for these Wikipedia editors that we've got? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.4.135 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Music Guide → Allmusic — This website now goes by the name "Allmusic" (since 2005, according to the comment above). The article should therefore be moved to reflect the current name. This discussion also includes:

which have also been renamed. —PC78 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization

Considering that this website universally (afaict) doesn't capitalize their name, shouldn't this article follow suit? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TM; specifically "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized", this article should not follow suit. Rehevkor ✉ 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic.com

Someone recently moved this page to AllMusic.com, without explanation or consensus. It's since been undone. "AllMusic" seems to be the website's name, no .com there, that's just in the URL. I suggest the mover to start a move discussion here before moving in the future.

Allmusic or AllMusic?

Should the name of this article be changed to "AllMusic"? It appears that allmusic.com uses the capital M. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic surely. Per MOS:TM we should follow standard English rules, with camelcase being a possible exception (consensus needed), but doesn't Allmusic themselves use "allmusic" without the capital M these days? Яehevkor ✉ 20:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.allmusic.com/ uses "allmusic" as their logo and "AllMusic" in text and the web page title. I don't see "Allmusic" at all. GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be changed to AllMusic then. At the time of the article's naming I don't think the camel case exception existed. Although I'd like to get another opinion, if possible. Яehevkor ✉ 21:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"AllMusic". It's the title used by the website (and stylised as "allmusic"). LF (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual trademark filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office is "ALLMUSIC" [4]  By not using it consistently, IMHO, they are opening themselves up for possible problems.  :- ) Don 04:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, it was filed as a "Standard Character Mark", which means it can be typeset in any manner as long as the letters are "allmusic", any case or font. If I read it correctly. Specific characters, colors or fonts would be a specific trade mark vs. a service mark. So, everyone is right. P.S. I'm deleting the tag.  :- ) Don 04:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews by Rovi?

I've noticed that some of the newer reviews, mainly for older albums that I guess AMG missed when they came out, are attributed simply to "Rovi" (for example: 1, 2, 3, you get the idea). Aside from not having star ratings, they seem to have about the same writing style as the rest of the site's reviews. Do such pieces meet WP:RS like the rest of AllMusic, or is the lack of attribution to an actual human being a problem?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it defiantly needs human attribution - going by Rovi Corporation the entries could be from some kinda database, and "Rovi" isn't sufficient attribution to be reliable. But WP:RSN is probably the place to get proper input on this. Яehevkor ✉ 08:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question, I've also wondered about that. Through the magic of Google, I think I've found the common thread: it looks as though these articles all come word for word from the former Muze service, whose assets Rovi acquired in 2009. For your three examples, see here, here (in Details tab), and here. Given that Muze's primary business here was selling album descriptions to online retailers, I would view these reviews as pure sales talk when it comes to any words of praise or good/bad judgement calls, and for notability discussions, essentially worthless. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Artistdirect is considered reliable, even though it sells music. Why is Muze considered different?--¿3family6 contribs 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, the Rovi reviews don't seem to have much indispensable material for sourcing, so that's not a problem. As far as Artistdirect vs. Muze, knowing only a cursory amount about either service, the former seems to have a significant journalistic focus, such as exclusive song releases and artist interviews, and also attributes their articles to actual people. So it seems they have a journalistic function in addition to a sales function, which I'm guessing Muze doesn't have.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written down that Artistdirect is reliable? It doesn't look like it to me, and recent threads about it (June 2012, March 2012) on WP:RSN seem to say "no". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because it is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites as a reliable source.--¿3family6 contribs 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this should be discussed elsewhere, but here is what I found on Google.
1. Definitely a major company, but that doesn't make it reliable.
2. It seems to have very good news content and centralized information: [5], [6], [7], [8].
3. Not much info on reviews, other than that the company offers them.--¿3family6 contribs 13:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it is, you are right. I've opened a discussion to see if any opposition to its removal. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citation

The first citation leads to a 404 page. --46.64.31.105 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed GoingBatty (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did allmusic Go?

I no longer see any links to allmusic associated with articles on artists or albums in wikipedia. I miss them. I liked them. I found this a useful Wikipedia feature. If this is the result of a conscious decision on someone's part, why isn't it mentioned? At the very least the relationship and its change should be the topic of a brief section within the allmusic article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.192.48 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what artists you have been looking at. I've seen plenty with Allmusic for sources.--¿3family6 contribs 14:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean external links sections with those links? If an Allmusic source is incorporated as a source in the article, then it is excluded from that section at the bottom of an article (WP:ELPOINTS). Dan56 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped using freelancers

Apparently Allmusic just stopped using freelancers, which means a lot of the people we name in the article won't be contributing in the future (Ned Raggett for one, which is why I know). I don't have a citation for this, but if someone can find something, this change of how they work probably belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh it's not something that's likely to appear in any reliable sources anyway, even if controversial. Яehevkor ✉ 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the five-star ratings?

I just noticed that when I look at one review in the link shown here, the usual five-star rating disappeared, replaced by some weird plug/hook/half headphone things! The same goes for all of its album reviews: All the five-star ratings disappeared! Is that a glitch or something? When will the five-star rating be fixed? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing stars on my browser. Perhaps it was a temporary thing. Dan56 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't see any stars on Internet Explorer 8! I still see the plug/hook/headhpone things instead of stars! Something is wrong with the rating! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got IE 9. Used WebCite to archive that page you referred to. Does this look the same? Dan56 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get an error message that says, "DB Connection failed", when I looked at the link, though. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's beyond me. Sorry. Hope it gets cleared up. Dan56 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see that the five-star ratings have been fixed a few hours ago and are back to normal. Thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Allmusic → AllMusic – AllMusic is the official title of the website! Lachlan Foley 07:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous discussion above mentioned that the stylizations are inconsistent (allcaps trademark, all-lowercase masthead, the welcome and title web page having "AllMusic"). Does that have any bearing here, or should we give more weight to the welcome and title of the web page? Dan56 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nytimes article (2012/04/08) shows "Allmusic", as does this from 2012/12/18, this Forbes article (2013/03/27) shows "AllMusic", this CNN article uses "allmusic", and this LAtimes article uses "Allmusic.com". With this Google search for MSN.com articles with the name through June 2012 to April 2013, it is also somewhat inconsistent. Allmusic's site redesign happened around June 2012 or earlier. Dan56 (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't much care about use by primary source, independent sources are all over the map. Let's revisit only if and when there is greater agreement from independent sources that this version is _the_ accepted version. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Hobbes Goodyear. Also because unless there is a sold reason to change it from a standard capitalization, we should leave it as is. Clearly there isn't an effort to standardize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 April 2013
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (3)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 04:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Allmusic → AllMusic – I've decided to do another move request since I didn't supply as many sources last time.

I have contacted AllMusic and an official representative has responded that the preferred capitalisation of their website is AllMusic.

In addition, the website is capitalised as AllMusic:

  • in the header text for and search engine results of the official website (or whatever the technical term for the text on the tab at the top of your browser is), which displays "AllMusic : Music Search, Recommendations, Videos and Reviews"
  • on their support page and all other pages listed at the bottom of their website
  • the title of their Twitter
  • in a blog post by AllRovi, the company who owns the website.

Surely this is ample evidence to support a change to AllMusic as the title of this article. --Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC) --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Lachlan Foley 06:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this I don't understand. why does it matter or hold any bearing whatsoever how other websites choose to capitalise AllMusic? (and I wonder how many write it as Allmusic because they've seen the Wikipedia article.) Lachlan Foley 11:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" ... If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change. (WP:COMMONNAME) Dan56 (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? 26 of the results use "Allmusic", 13 "AllMusic". Dan56 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I glanced at the results, should have counted. Zarcadia (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per Dan56. I would consider this a purely stylistic matter, and therefore the MOS takes primacy. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I'm concerned that the nominator hobbled himself by appealing to an official name. Those referring to MOS:TM have overlooked an important clause there: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable." I don't think anyone can dispute it makes this name more readable. General usage is mixed, but we have to consider Lachlan's point that our own usage may be influencing others. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference in readability between "LM" and "lm"? Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. I'm not a big fan of the trendy CamelCase, but very few readers are actually confused by it. A capitalized M makes it clear that the site is "All Music," and that's indeed how it would be pronounced. The site name is grammatically not one word, even if it's stylized that way. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is that signified if there's still no space between what you're saying are meant to be pronounced as two words? Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't much care about use by primary source, independent sources are all over the map. Let's revisit only if and when there is greater agreement from independent sources that this version is _the_ accepted version. I also find the camelcase version less readable, perhaps because it is jarring to the eye. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I can see no argument to oppose and AllMusic themselves use AllMusic so don't see what the problem is. Using google news is original research. Just cos some sources mistakenly call it Allmusic is no reason for us to. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME addresses your last sentence. And how exactly does searching GoogleNews fit into anything that WP:NOR says? Dan56 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a wikipedia-lawyer type. For me it defies common sense to name AllMusic Allmusic and it isnt as if ALL sources use Allmusic, it just looks like a typo to me and thus weakens our reliability (reliability being likely the weakest thing about wikipedia anyway in the minds of the general public.) Google search/news is simply not a reliable source, I trust you aren't going to claim it is?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Googlenews is an index of the most reliable news sources online. What does reliability have to do with this discussion? It's merely being used to gauge the usage of "Allmusic" by those reliable sources. It's not being used as a source to cite some sentence in a Wikipedia article. This clearly shows those reliable sources using "Allmusic" most frequently (WP:COMMONNAME) and not the stylization. Whether it's a typo suggests they are unintentionally using "Allmusic"; like Wikipedia (MOS:TM#General rules), those sources can choose to comply with standard English capitalization and formatting rather than the nonstandard stylization of the trademark in question. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well IMHO you ARE engaging in original research and have certainly failed to get me to change my view, my support for this change has become ever stronger. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it's based on opinion, not anything that WP:NOR says? Dan56 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, it certainly isnt mine and trying to put words into other editors mouths wont help your case let alone prove you are correct, and WP:NOR in no way supports either your case or your misguided belief that your use of google news (not an objective guide but a corporate one based on their legitimate desire to make money) isnt original research. I dont think you have even made a good argument as to why the move should be opposed and wiki-lawyering isnt going to help your case. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one that brought up WP:NOR, accusing me of original research, which doesn't even apply to anything in this discussion. And I was asking you a question: You're accusation of me engaging in OR is just based on your opinion or based on something actually defined by WP:NOR? And don't accuse me of wikilawyering when you haven't cited any guideline or policy to justify the move, beyond the belief that those sources made a typo and that we should conform to a non-standard stylization. Are the other editors who opposed the move wiki-lawyering as well? B/c they seem to agree. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you will just throw policy at me you can hardly complain when I say you are wikilawyering. Just be satisfied that I, an editor on this page, have given my two cents worth and stop claiming that your opinion is superior or more valid based entirely on YOUR interpretation of various policies. You seem to be trolling every single person who disagrees with you from what I can see and there is no policy to support that. I want what is best for wikipedia, and Allmusic, IMO, isnt that, I think it makes us look stupid and your arguments have completely failed to impress me or, from the look of it, others who support the move (as nobody has changed their mind). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried to impress you, nor have I claimed my opinion is superior (where did I do that?). I don't see how merely citing policy in a discussion is one of the four points at WP:Wikilawyering. Please elaborate; which point? Am I using "formal legal terms", "violating [the] spirit" or "underlying principles" of a policy? Misinterpreting something? What? ANd you still haven't answered my question: what is your accusation based on? How am I engaging in original research? Dan56 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as last time. CamelCase is acceptable capitalization that conforms with our Manual of Style, and there are plenty of sources that use it, including primary sources. Powers T 15:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:TM, "CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable." More independent sources have still used "Allmusic" than they have "AllMusic" (if this is an acceptable gauge) Dan56 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too many false positives due to people calling it "allmusic.com" after its web address. Powers T 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8 "AllMusic.com"s, 10 "Allmusic.com"s. With or without the domain name, general usage is questionable. Dan56 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However you slice it, usage of either appears to be of a similar magnitude, so I see no problem with letting primary-source usage decide. Powers T 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually around 2/3 of those in the GoogleNews search for most recent sources use "Allmusic" (or w/the domain name ".com"). But this is just one search. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. bd2412 T 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can a bot be used to convert all "Allmusic" links to "AllMusic" links? --Another Believer (Talk) 08:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean to change occurrences of Allmusic to AllMusic. There's no need; see WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBROKEN states "However, it is perfectly acceptable to change Franklin Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt if for some non-redirect-related reason it is preferred that Franklin D. Roosevelt should actually appear in the text." If the goal is to change the capitalization for the reader, then isn't it OK per WP:NOTBROKEN? GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure what the original questioner, Another Believer, really wants. If it is a global change of all existing occurrences of Allmusic to AllMusic, then I think WP:NOTBROKEN suggests not to do that. In general, Wikipedia doesn't pay much attention to self-styled spellings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my original question (poorly worded) was whether or not all occurrences of Allmusic could be changed to AllMusic. Seems like something a bot could do very easily. I find the inconsistency annoying, but perhaps most people do not even notice. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: Could you please help me understand which part of WP:NOTBROKEN applies to Another Believer's request? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of it, IMO. The company has changed its name at least once and has itself been grossly inconsistent in the term's usage. There is no good reason to employ a bot (or use a human editor's time) for such changes. Still, anybody is free to go to WP:BOTREQ or WP:AWB/TA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "MUSIC" part of the new logo on this page is not very readable. Could someone please upload a better file? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the bad logo works too - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates for AllMusic reviews?

Does AllMusic have dates for their reviews? I cannot find them. For example the [Oxygène] article contrasts older reviews with "Recent reviews such as AllMusic's Jim Brenholts...", so the date is relevant. This particular review is at [9]. And is this review still "recent"? Does anyone know how to find dates of AllMusic reviews? FrankSier (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankSier: Maybe replace "Recent" with something indicating that the review happened long after the album's 1977 release date? I believe other Wikipedia articles would say "Retrospective reviews such as...." GoingBatty (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done a rewording. (See also conversation I started in Talk:Oxygène#Date_for_AllMusic_review.3F ) FrankSier (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promo for one 'Jeremy Grimshaw'

Just removed a recent addition to the article, which displayed the 'curriculum vitae' of one "Jeremy Grimshaw," who would otherwise not merit a mention in this here en-cy-clo-pedia, on account of insufficient notability, as verified by a google search. If you read the deleted section, it's plainly a list of the person's achievements, with little to do with the subject matter of the article--a violation of no promotion. Nuff said. Tapered (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Adams

I have edited the paragraph on him as according to A Tweet from Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Bryan Adams did not file a lawsuit. He requested his info be removed.

I have used All Music's Bryan Adams FAQ page as a source. Please edit if the source is not appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaraLG84 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic are in Breech of The Data Protection Act 2018.

Allmusic are in breech of the Data Protection Act 2018 by preventing access to their website unless people turn off their adblocker. Under the Data Protection Act 2018 ALL EU CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE COOKIES, THE RIGHT TO HAVE THESE COOKIES AND THEIR DATA ERASED FROM A DATABASE. THE OFFENDING COMPANIES ARE FINED CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS FOR BREECHS OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018 IF THEY GET REPORTED TO THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION. 77.75.244.22 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:AllMusic&oldid=1206639147"