Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Linkin Park, again

Per the discussion here, I feel this topic needs to be brought up again and decisively dealt with. While consensus in a previous discussion here was that they aren't alternative rock, every time I tried to broach the topic on a Linkin Park article talk page the discussion never realy panned out. Some Linkin Park articles still list alt-rock as a genre. So please, add your two cents to the discussion (I will also be posting links to this talk page on relevant article talk page in order to centralize the discussion here). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Linkin Park os Nu Metal (which I understand is the same as Rap Rock?). They aren't influenced by punk or any of the other influences that are common among alternative bands, so I would say no, they aren't alt-rock. Then again, they seem to be inspired by bands like RATM who are alt-rock, so I'm not sure. indopug (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Rap rock =/= nu metal; for instance, SOAD and Breaking Benjamin are nu metal bands that have nothing to do with rap rock. I'm not really sure why we're having this discussion; numerous sources have included LP in the alt-rock genre, whether or not that's what they actually are is not up for us to decide. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I really haven't seen any reliable sources that categorize Linkin Park as alternative rock. They are consistently categorized as a nu metal band, and that should be sufficient. Additionally, some of the arguments I've read on talk pages are pretty flimsy. This argument is based solely on personal POV (with an attempt to reference the Linkin Park wiki article to boot). One argument I read on the Linkin Park talk page a while ago was that since they charted on the "Alternative/Modern Rock" charts they are thus alternative rock, which ignores the fact that a lot of non-alternative bands have charted on that same chart (including Metallica, of all bands). The sources used to cite the genre in the main article's infobox are just poor. And a lot of arguments for including alternative rock center around a pereived change of style on Minutes to Midnight, which while probably accurate that they changed their style, doesn't mean they are suddenly alt-rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
SOAD have included rap elements, but in genre terms are somewhat "broad spectrum". Our article on Breaking Benjamin doesn't describe them in nu metal terms at all, but as post-grunge/alt rock/metal. So neither of those seem like useful counterexamples. Though this is all something of an aside as regards the original question... Alai (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Linkin Park is a alternative rock band. Have you heard songs like In Between and Valentine's Day that's what you call alternative rock. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good enough rationale under Wikipedia verifiability guidelines. Also, alternative rock is very broad, and is partly defined by its connections to underground music scenes. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If U2 is alternative rock, then Linkin Park definitely is. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is that while they don't play alternative rock music, they're still described as such in the media. Therefore, while I don't think we should cover LP in this WikiProject, I think we should allow "alternative rock" in the genres section. Remember—Wikipedia is a collection of information that is verifiable, not necessarily true. Teemu08 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Album articles in need of expansion

After realizing that the article for Murmur was not only less than 10kb but was shorter than the article for "Radio Free Europe", I undertook some emergency expansion (even though it's nowhere near my favorite R.E.M. album). Some of our High-Importance articles could use any sort of expansion. Here's a list of all the High-Importance album articles under 10kb:

Integrating album reviews is one of the easiest tasks. All of these albums have been discusssed at length in the music press, so sources shouldn't be too hard to find. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Work on Disintegration will begin soon, Wesley. Don't worry. :) NSR77 TC 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe

Question: what does everyone think of there being two infoboxes for "Radio Free Europe"? This is the legacy of there originally being two different pages for the two different single releases of the song until I merged them almost a year ago. I've considered condensing them down into one infobox, but then again they refer to two separate versions of the same song, released on separate record labels with distinct B-sides (by the way, I have the resources to turn this page into a Featured Article, but I've been hesitant to start work on it). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Song articles with two infoboxes would nearly always work better as separate articles so, in this case, merge everything into one infobox. List both covers, release dates, b-sides in that infobox. How do you plan to do the recording section? Discuss both versions under one section, or work completely chronologically having the Recording of the IRS version after the Release of the Hib-Tone? indopug (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Hib-Tone version didn't chart, so it'd be a matter of covering the original recording and critical reception, then going to the I.R.S. recording. Given that most of the documented contemporary acclaim has been for the original version, and that there are different versions of the song, this will create an unusual structure for this article. I envision something like:
  • Origins and recording (recording of original Hib Tone version, that is)
  • Composition (it's the same song structurally; the main difference is that the Hib Tone version is faster and sloppier, and both versions have different intros)
  • Reception
  • I.R.S. re-recording (this version is the version on Murmur and the one most people hear; it's also the one that charted and had a video)
  • Music video
That should work, I hope. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The current layout is way too confusing. Condense it into one infobox and then discuss the discrepancies where appropriate. NSR77 TC 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Jr<period> redux

I have confirmation from Dinosar Jr. management that there *should* be a period after the name of the band. She (Amy Abrams) stated this in the band discussion page but after the "voting" took place. I would like this reconsidered and changed given the fact that the band itself wants it that way. Arleach (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd because I thought the band made it clear that there was no period (thinking of Our Band Could Be Your Life here). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
here's the email. She made the same comment on Talk:Dinosaur Jr

"Begin forwarded message:

From: Amy Abrams <amy@bleemusic.com> Date: May 16, 2008 15:06:53 CDT To: "Tom Meyer" <tmeyer1969@gmail.com> Subject: Re: photo for wikipedia

yes, that seems correct. Thanks for keeping up the wikipedia - I try to stay out of it unless something is just flat out wrong. I missed out on the vote about the period, which is a bummer, because it has been determined by the band that the period belongs there and we've been trying to be consistent with its use. oh well... Thanks again for your help.

Amy Abrams Bleemusic, Inc.


Arleach (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

while I see no reason to doubt this, per Wikipedia guidelines, we can only change it if we have proof via a reliable secondary source for verifiability: ie. an interview. If the band members say "Yeah, there's supposed to be a period at the end of 'Jr'" in an interview, that's all we need, but nevertheless we need a published source to cite. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
At the talk page discussion (just after the vote), a user points that there is no dot on the official website. Looking at it now though... indopug (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, the giant text on the front page of the website has a period, and the title bar of your browser, as does the copyright statement. Not sure what else you need as this is all 'published'. I'll be happy to get a quote from one of them but they are in Europe. Arleach (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I say change it. Ms. Abrams too seems to suggest that they've put the dot there kinda recently (after Our Band was out anyway). indopug (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's better to have a quote from the band comfirming there's a period, because so far sources explicitly say there isn't one, so we can't rely just on the formatting of the name at the band's website. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
well that's rather ridiculous. "sources" are the band's management. and the website. and the album covers. Arleach (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's really not verifiable until it is documented by a published source. Otherwise it's original research, and someone can undo the changes by claiming another published source. We can't cite an e-mail to a Wiki editor, because there's no secondary documentation to verify it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
but the "secondary documentation" (or primary, really) is the website and the album covers. doesn't 'original research' imply that someone could just be making something up or offering opinion ? how else is it supposed to be documented ? Is some interviewer supposed to ask "So, J, period or no period ?" Arleach (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much. It erases any doubt. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
but again, how does having it on the web page and on the CD covers not erase any doubt ? Arleach (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Do all the CDs have the period? I don't think they do. The main point that needs to be addressed is that in Our Band Could Be Your Life, Michael Azerrad notes there's supposed to be no period after the "Jr". We need something clear that refutes that that we can source. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a secret: a lot of my more intensive editing as part of the WikiProject is the result of me looking at the FA and GA lists every day and asking myself, "What areas need to improved?" I typically judge this according the number of FAs/GAs divided by criteria such as bands, albums, songs, alt-rock subgenres, decades, and so on. So I thought I'd just point out some trends I've noticed. For the sake of (my own) sanity, I'll just focus on FAs.

Yes, I'm bored and filled with idle curiosity. Why do you ask? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude... indopug (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha. NSR77 TC 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems the conclusion to be drawn here is that Powderfinger are the best band in the alt-rock universe? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
...or that I have too much time on my hands. Your pick. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone knows the best band in the alt-rock universe is Dogstar, the vanity band formed by Keanu "Whoa!" Reeves! WesleyDodds (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Begs the question of why they aren't noted on the above list. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Supergrass taskforce

Hi

I've created a Supergrass taskforce page now. Please join if you can help out with Supergrass articles.

Thanks

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam articles

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, but User:-5- has put in a lot of hard work into Pearl Jam-related articles. -5- has done so much work that it wouldn't take much to turn several of them into Good Articles. This has happened: both Ten and Vitalogy were project collaborations, and both are now GAs. I implore anyone knowledgeable about or interested in the group to help out, and maybe we could bring a whole swath of these articles to GA or even FA status rather soon. In particular, I ask that those who have experience with discography pages take a look at Pearl Jam discography. Could this be a Featured List? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The discography is nearly there. Just a matter of reordering the charts alphabetically (which is more painful than it sounds). I don't think those Xmas singles can be listed though, since they aren't official wide-release things. Another thing I'm not sure about is the Notes column in the Music videos. I'll try to fine-tune the whole thing tomorrow. How about something like a PJ collaboration of the month or something of that sort? We could push for a big juicy high-importance featured topic. indopug (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a little overwhelming. Too many charts are there. The only thing that comes to mind is...overwhelming. NSR77 TC 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just be glad that all the live albums are listed in a daughter article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll remove a few charts from each of the tables. A "comprehensive" discography lists all the releases, not necessarily all the charts. indopug (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Stereolab picture

Commons decided to delete the one and only free picture of Stereolab the band that seems to be available, and thus, this FA is left without one. They next roll by my area in the fall, so until then I can't take one myself. I've emailed a couple people on the Internet who've posted their own pics online, to no avail. If anyone has some stashed somewhere or can ask a friend with concert pics to donate one, that would be great. - Merzbow (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That sucks; I really liked that picture. You might want to try e-mailing Too Pure or the band itself. Belle & Sebastian and The Wedding Present are two bands that have allowed Wikipedia to use professional pics. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Last time I emailed a band for permission (My Dying Bride), the band did give permission, but the extremely anal bureaucrat I communicated with at Commons said that even an email from them explicitly saying so was not enough. So I suppose I'll email the band and ask if they can just upload a picture themselves at Commons; the wizard is simple enough. - Merzbow (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem would be that probably the band themselves don't necessarily own the picture, the photographer or record label generally does. So the band may not have the rights to release it on creative commons at all. indopug (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So yeah, if possible, ask the label. You would probably get better results. Someone working for Perry Farrell told me (long story) that if we wanted to get a Commons-licensed picture, it would be best to contact Warner Bros. since they are in charge of promotional material for his previous bands. Then again, if you ask the band directly for a picture, all they might have to do to provide you with one is set up a camera on a timer, say "Cheese!", and upload it.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Flickr's usable pics are less than satisfactory, but better than nothing. indopug (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh thanks I didn't realize Flickr was a valid source. I'll choose an image from there until a better one can be found. - Merzbow (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to make sure the picture you take from Flickr has the right licence to be used. They need to be tagged with a creative commons licence, see here. --JD554 (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The link I provided contains only pictures that have licenses compatible to be uploaded to Wiki-Commons. (Flickr provides a search filter that gives Commons-compatible pics) indopug (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good news everyone; I just undeleted the image; commons:Image:Stereolab live.jpg. I'm not sure what language its description is in... if someone does, could you tell me please (and translate, if possible). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Spanish. Unfortunately I can't translate Spanish. Also (as far as the image information is concerned) he took the picture himself, which makes me wonder what other information it needs so it isn't deleted again. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That should be enough...it was tagged by an IP and then deleted during a mass run through the no source categories...many a mistake is missed there. It's now on my watchlist and won't be deleted again (and I'm happy to look into any other commons issues you have). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh thanks. I also wonder why it was deleted. Unless somebody had proof the original uploader was a liar, it should never have happened. I need to log into Commons more often and check my watchlist there. - Merzbow (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm more suspicious. Its a low-res pic, there's no camera info and the uploader doesn't have a great record going by his talk-page. indopug (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Supergrass discography

I've made a lot of changes to the Supergrass discography page and have nominated it for featured list. Please leave comments.

One thing I shouldn't have done was request a peer review before I submitted the discography for FL.

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Paramore

Paramore is an alternative rock band right found many sources but people keep rejecting it. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From recent diffs to the article, they all seem to be self-published sources, or just not reliable. CloudNine (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilco on the Main Page

Wilco will be Today's Featured Article on June 8th. Keep your eyes peeled! WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

News

How come the News section on the Portal stopped being updated? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I got lazy and distracted. I'll try and update it soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Soft Boys - Underwater Moonlight

I added Underwater Moonlight to 1980 breakthrough albums because it's been cited by REM, the Replacements, Camper Van Beethoven, and the Smiths as a major influence. It was removed from the list though so if you don't want me to put it back let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgodd (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably silly question

Any chance I can get the newsletter without actually being a member? :) I'd probably feel compelled to contribute if I actually added myself to the project, and I really a) don't think I'd be of much help and b) don't have enough time to try. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can add yourself to the member list and not watchlist this page. :) I could try and add you to the delivery list, but no promises on my remembering/forgetting! And of course, everyone is helpful to the project... so join! ;) giggy (:O) 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, why not. Just don't expect much activity :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana Unplugged

I've never done work on a live album article before, so I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to approach Nirvana's MTV Unplugged in New York. To start with, I'm thinking of having sections about the original performance, then the album release and chart placings, and then the home video releases. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You should include stuff about the awful rehearsal, and that famous Cobain quote; where he wanted a lot of flowers on the set, "like a funeral". indopug (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I officially become a member of the project?

Do I just put the userbox on my page or what? Someone please tell me

Tezkag72 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! You just have to add your name to the bottom of this list and add {{User Wikiproject Alternative Music}} to your user page. indopug (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New discographies

For you people into creating, expanding, and Featured List-ing discography articles, here's a number of Top/High Importance subjects that should have their discographies split off into new articles: The Smiths, Pulp, Suede, and Liz Phair WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take on The Smiths --JD554 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Done --JD554 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

R.E.M. on the Main Page

R.E.M. will be on the Main Page on July 10th. God help me . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's that bad you can simply revert to the original version. ;) NSR77 TC 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm clueless about media. Can someone upload this picture for the R.E.M. article? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Image added. But the caption could probably do with a tweek. --JD554 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted; good luck. (And yeah, reverting to the pre Main Page version is surprisingly efficient.) —Giggy 09:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
→points Wesley to magical Flickr upload tool Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Crap, the day came upon me rather quickly. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Soooooooo . . . does anyone know how to add the C-class to the project? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
We have Category:C-Class alternative music articles. You just add "class=C" to WikiProject banners. —Giggy 06:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we need to use it? I think the ratings are fine as they are, for the ALM at least. indopug (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we may need to. If you look at the new criteria list for B-class articles. Criteria number 1 is: It has reliable sources and important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.. Having looked at an article such as Suede (band), which was previously rated B, it's easy to see is fails the citation criteria but is definitely better than a Start class article. --JD554 (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To implement the new C-class doesn't look too difficult: The project template {{Wikiproject Alternative music}} needs updating by adding the necessary lines to the code for the new category, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Assessment needs updating to have the new C-class as well as amendments to the B-class criteria to reflect the recent change. I'm not sure, but changes may need to be made to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Alternative music articles by quality statistics. I think that's all that needs doing, but I may have missed something. --JD554 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started the process of weeding out the B and C class articles. There is, indeed, a significant difference between the two and I don't think this project should ignore the new standards. NSR77 TC 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've tried adding what I thought was needed to the template, but the C-Class articles Suede (band) and Echo & the Bunnymen are showing in Category:Unassessed alternative music articles. Anybody any ideas? --JD554 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we can decide to not use the rating; WP:MILHIST, for one, have decided against it. If we have articles that don't meet the B criteria, why not just label them "Start"? indopug (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you call Dave Grohl a start-class article? Suede? They're not star-class articles, but just above that. Not quite B-class, either. NSR77 TC 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As the user who added half the references in the Suede article ;), I agree with you. However, since ratings are mainly meant as a handy reference for project members, is it worth the effort required to mass-tag the articles? indopug (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm still unsure. I think we should have it, but adopt it as a sort of "after a while" thing. If that makes any sense. I guess after a while we'll build the category after simply browsing around. NSR77 TC 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I manually changed the thing to show C-class articles ([1], [2]). Hopefully it'll work smoothly. indopug (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Band members: Alphabetical or Chronological?

I'm having an interesting discussion about this at Template talk:The Cure. I'd appreciate others people's input and I'd be happy to go with whatever consensus gets agreed. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronological if you list the years next to their names, I'd say. Gary King (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've requested a peer review of The Smiths discography and Morrissey discography with a view to taking them to WP:FLC. Any comments would be appreciated. Review pages are Wikipedia:Peer review/The Smiths discography/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Morrissey discography/archive1 respectively. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone up for a project-wide collaboration where we work on a particular album article and its related singles, ultimately nominating it as a Featured Topic? I think this would be fun. Ideally we should choose an album with two or more notable songs with their own articles. Thoughts or suggestions? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions: Siamese Dream ("Today" is already FA), Parklife (Blur: Are awesome) and Ten (User:-5- has done almost everything already).
For a Featured Topic of a different kind, we could try "Pearl Jam Albums". The discography is already FL, so we need to get all eight albums to GA and then two of them further up to FA to satisfy minimum FT criteria. Again, -5-'s hard work means all the articles are nearly there. indopug (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Was thinking of a Pearl Jam featured topic at some point as well. That's something to think about for the future. As for the albums, I'd be all up for making Siamese Dream a FT except for one major issue. Problem is, I no longer have access to the best source available: the guitar tab book for the album that features an introduction by Guitar World where Billy Corgan breaks down each song, as well as what gear he used. I lost my copy a while ago, but I was able to use the Amazon.com book preview to cite "Today" back when Brandt Luke Zorn and I were working on it. Unfortunately, I later discovered when we were doing the COTW for the album itself that it's no longer available to view on the site, and the book itself is out of print. With that book, "Cherub Rock" would definitely be an FA, and the same could possibly be true for the other singles. Parklife might be doable, if we get at least the album and "Girls and Boys" for FA and everything else to GA. We could always do a Pixies or RHCP article, but those bands already have loads of featured material, and I think we should try to broaden the range of high-quality material. Two albums I thought of are R.E.M.'s Reckoning (album and two singles) and the first Smiths album (album and three singles). Blender wrote one of those "Greatest Songs Ever" articles on "So. Central Rain" (installments in that series have resulted in the "Today" and "Just Like Heaven" FAs), and "This Charming Man" is already an FA (yes, I know it was only originally included on the American release, so shush). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wesley, if you are thinking of a Smiths abbum "Strangeways" is probably best, given the psycodrama surrounging its production. ( Ceoil sláinte 08:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviews for The Smiths seem to be easier to find, and there's less singles to deal with (looking at The Smiths discography, they sure went crazy in 1987 with their release output). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Something like Mellon Collie would work, but some of the albums you guys are talking about are obscure in their own right and the single's articles may be a bit slight. Disintegration, which Wesley and I are currently working on, is also a possibility. Each single was very popular and writing an article on them shouldn't be too difficult. NSR77 TC 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and might this be the issue you're missing? NSR77 TC 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it was original material written by Guitar World for the tab book. All the albums mentioned so far can be FAs; the resources are available. The trick is gettign at least one of the songs to FA status as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A Powderfinger albums and Dream Days at the Hotel Existence FT both exist if you want examples to work off. I'll pitch in where I can on whatever you guys want to work on. —Giggy 09:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion is one of the first two Oasis albums. Both records could easily be turned into FAs, and each features at least one song ("Live Forever" on Definitely Maybe, and "Wonderwall" on (What's the Story) Morning Glory?) with enough material available to turn the respective article into an FA as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary section break

So ... let's pick one already. As personal preference, I wouldn't mind any of the albums mentioned above. Reckoning looks particularly inviting (only 2 singles + 1 Blender Greatest Songs page + plenty at Allmusic too). Melon Collie would be great too, but there are too many singles (six, if "Muzzle" counts). indopug (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Tonight, Tonight" is already a GA, though, so I don't think it would need that much work. I have a couple magazines that have some Pumpkins info from that era, most notably a Mojo issue with Billy, James and D'arcy on the cover (shortly following Chamberlin's departure). I don't know how much it'll help but I'm sure it will be useful. Reckoning doesn't really seem interesting, to be honest. Most R.E.M. topics aren't because their history is overall very boring. No drama involved with that band. NSR77 TC 21:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There's always Automatic for the People, where every five minutes people were asking the band if Michael Stipe was dying of AIDS and/or cancer. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There's one item we could possibly add to a Reckoning featured topic. The band made a short film called Left of Reckoning that sets the entire first side of the album as a soundtrack to a short film of the band walking around sights in Georgia. You can find the individual components on the YouTube. Sometimes the section with "Pretty Persuasion" is cut out and aired as a music video. The only thing is I'm not sure if there's any critical commentary on the film. I guess that could always be turned itno a subsection of the album article. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of all the proposed albums, just to make browsing easier. I've also include the number of articles a possible Featured Topic would cover in parenthesis. This does not take into account articles that might have to be merged or created. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is every song off Ten really worthy of its own article? 12 is quite a handful. —Giggy 11:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, every song has a page. We're definitely going to have to do some redirecting. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"We're definitely going to have to do some redirecting." Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. I'll get to work on it.-5- (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Just redirect the ones that you are absolutely sure will never expand beyond a few paragraphs for now. Around half the pages would still deserve their own articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Automatic for the People or Ten. Both R.E.M. and Pearl Jam are fairly large alternative rock bands which I don't think the project has focused on much. Plus I think taking Nevermind to GA is overdue; since "SLTS" is FA and "In Bloom" is GA, it might not be a huge amount of work there. CloudNine (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1219 articles are assigned to this project, of which 380, or 31.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly stuff

Anyone got any quotes for the next newsletter? What I'm looking for is utterly ridiculuous quotes by alt-rockers that will hopefully brighten your day when you get the newsletter at the start of the month. Any great quotes, list them here or on my talk page. I try to avoid using quotes from artists in the same groups as those already featured in past newsletters. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I always liked "We are the best band in the world....modestly the best band in the world." — Darren Middleton. —Giggy 11:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
While its a tad long, there's always the famous Jeff Tweedy quote "A piece of art is not a loaf of bread. When someone steals a loaf of bread from the store, that's it. The loaf of bread is gone. When someone downloads a piece of music, it's just data until the listener puts that music back together with their own ears, their mind, their subjective experience. How they perceive your work changes your work." Teemu08 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"People standing on escalators! And that is a testimony to human laziness! The guy who invented the escalator is probably kicking himself in the ass! You think that the guy made escalators just so people stand on it? You're supposed to walk on it so you get there faster! That's my pet peeve right there. I'm gonna do something about it and I'm urging you to do something about it! Write your congressman, get a group together and I think we could do something about this." said by a very high Krist Novoselic. NSR77 TC 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
While reading that, I had my fingers crossed that the punchline would be something along the lines of "take an escalator to your congressman's office"... —Giggy 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On the bright side, at least escalators can never break down. They can only become stairs. Teemu08 (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Caroline's Spine

It's by far one of the saddest wikipedia pages I have ever seen, I have done all my limited expertise will offer, please try to add on to it. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Caroline's Spine
OriginPhoenix, Arizona, United States (check their own MySpace Page Retard Who Thinks Its Tulsa)
GenresRock
Years active1993–2008
LabelsAnza Records, Hollywood Records
Past membersJimmy Newquist
Mark Haugh
Scott Jones
Jason Gilardi
Haha, this is one of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Teemu08 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Chart help

Nevermind and Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness are two articles close to GA status that largely just need the chart position sections sorted out. Any help is appreciated. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in again for help. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music redundant

Whats redundant adding rock music templates at the talk pages when its a alternative rock one their and why is it two sepparat projects for rock music, the rock music one scope all the one the alternative one has while the alternative one don't? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. If I think I understand what you're trying to say, and God help me if I don't, then you need to think about which one is more relevant. The genre of rock is expansive and most of the music that has ever been recorded in the past 60 years is, in fact, 'rock'. Alternative, however, is a very distinct genre of music that encompasses several sub-genres. It can, therefore, more accurately allocate any type of sub-genre accordingly. And, furthermore, the Alternative music Wikiproject is quite a bit more successful and contains more capable editors than the near inactive Rock Wikiproject. NSR77 TC 23:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this relates to Talk:Silverchair discography. —Giggy 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty redundant. Furthermore, the rock subgenre WikiProjects (well, this one and the Metal one, at least) are far more active in maintaining and improving articles than WP:Rock. We, like the Metal WP, have a more specific remit, and this specific scope has proved quite effective. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is my point why is the rock project redundant and not the alternative one. And yes i know its many different alternative rock genres, Truth is i don't really get why this project isen't merge with the rock project, they scope the same pages. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Because rock music is a much larger genre than alternative music. If you think alternative music and rock music are the same, you need to listen to a bit more music. Think about merging the rock music with the music wikiproject, and you'll see the wisdom in doing that.
In essence, the rock music wikiproject is redundant when it comes to alternative music articles. This is because those pages are covered by a project that works on a subset of rock music. Imagine if we tagged all music-related articles with WPMusic? It just wouldn't make sense. CloudNine (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The rock music project is good for bands like Thirsty Merc that aren't particularly alternative (or particularly good), and don't really fall into any subgenre. That's why getting rid of it wouldn't be a good idea. —Giggy 09:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly some bands wouldn't fit under a specific rock subgenre WP (for example, say, The Who or Pink Floyd). However, for those that do, there's no reason to add the Rock WP tag as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's basically my point. —Giggy 10:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is to make this a taskforce, much easier and we will have much more control over thing and stop that redundant problem. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused; what will be much easier (keep in mind that this project is already fully set up) and what will we have more control over? —Giggy 10:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, ths project was set up before the rock one, which actually used to be devoted solely to hard rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That i know and when i say more controll is this scope problem for the rock music project and its no reason why it should be two different project. If you merge the rock music project you won't scope the other rock music articles the rock music one does, if you merge the alternative one and make it into the project you'll fix the redundant problem. And what's so bad being a taskforce? you can still have a newsletter or have a collaboration of the week so please explain? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see that happening. There's enough of us in this project maintaining and improving articles on a regular basis that it would be unnecessary to turn this into a task force, not to mention there's probably quite a few people who only want to work on alternative/indie rock articles. I imagine if you brought this up at the Metal WP you'd get pretty much the same response. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no good reason for why the METAL WP should be turned into the project, reason they don't call wikiproject rock redundant, the alternative project does. If this project gets turned into a taskforce people still only work on indie or grunge genres and if this turns into a taskforce we can stop the redundant problem. See my point is either you fix the redundant problem or turning the project into a taskforce. The taskforce would probably get more members to. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Taskforces are intended for use when there's not enough people to warrant a full-on WikiProject. That's not the case here. We also have our own taskforces (devoted to Nirvana, the Pixies, and Supergrass, with another one proposed for Radiohead). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There's too huge a scope for a taskforce, and we seem to work extremely well as a wikiproject (it's hard to name another music wikiproject with nearly 100 FAs). CloudNine (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You now what i give up with making you guys a taskforce, cause you don't want it.

Something else here now. See bands like Audioslave, Queens of the Stone Age and Stone Temple Pilots should be in scope of the rock music project not the alternative project. Why these bands are most known for being hard rock bands not alternative rock once. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're the sole judge of that? You need to discuss changes before you make them, otherwise you end up making a lot more work for us to revert. That's why I've blocked you again, so you can think about it. CloudNine (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be joking. Replacing one of the best WikiProjects, in terms of getting articles to Featured Status, with a Taskforce? I honestly can't find one speck of logic in your reasoning. NSR77 TC 23:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's absolutely no chance of this project being turned into a WP:Rock taskforce. There's no need to and no desire to the by the members, not to mention this has been around much longer and is far more active. What's really silly is that this all started because of talk page tagging. Really, it shouldn't be causing that much trouble. If an article fits under a more specific WikiProject, add those tags. Add the WP:Southern California tag instead of the WP:California or WP:United States ones. If it doesn't fit under a more specific WP, add a tag to a broader one. It's that simple, and reduces talk page clutter. What matters in the end is the work being done on the articles themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to emphasise something important;
"What matters in the end is the work being done on the articles themselves." — WesleyDodds, 2008
—Giggy 04:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force which is a taskforce. It has more members of then the alternative wiki project and its a taskforce and this is whats best for wikipedia. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Given you're the only one who's insisting on this, and no one else agrees, it's best to put the topic to rest. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I started a Wikiproject (WP:RHCP). With 40 or so members, it's well over a Task Force, but yet it is about a band. Not even an expansive genre of music, but merely a band. This discussion should be over. NSR77 TC 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
United States military has 90 members. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Great. In short, our collective answer is "No thanks". Why discuss this further? CloudNine (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age scope

As CloudNine said "Yes, but the alternative wikiproject is the more specific of the two", thats wrong when it comes to Queens of the Stone Age related articles, One of the genres has something to do with the alternative wiki project, while the three other genres is in scope of the rock project. If its goin to be specific the rock music project should be added and the alternative wikiproject removed. I can find reliable sources if you want to to the genres. I'm not adding it before this discussion is over okay.


Oh and their genres are hard rock, desert rock, alternative rock and Neo-psychedelia. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

QOTSA is one of those bands that is sometimes called alt rock but doesn't have too much to do with the genre other than achieving airplay on college rock radio stations. I personally would have no problem pawning it off to the rock WP. They can have Linkin Park, too, for that matter. Teemu08 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Teemu. Take Linkin Park, as well. Please? NSR77 TC 00:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins song in Watchmen trailer

People have been constantly been inserting the fact that an alternate version of the Smashing Pumpkins song "The End Is the Beginning Is the End" appears in the trailer to Watchmen. I maintain this is not notable, because there is nothing inherently notable about a song appearing in a movie trailer (think of all the times you've heard snippets of popular songs in movie previews). Would like some more opinions on this. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like it is a bit important. There's a lot of stuff going on with the Pumpkins right about now: two new tours, a Gish boxset planned for 2009, a primarily Gish-based tour to happen also in 2009, a new single titled "G.L.O.W" which is supposedly not going to be apart of the new album, whoever that is coming along. Overall there is buzz in the Smashing Pumpkin's camp. I think you need to include some of the recent news, especially about "G.L.O.W". NSR77 TC 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant concerning the song article itself. I forgot to add a few words to my initial post. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with it as long as its cited from a reliable source. Teemu08 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sub Pop article

I was flicking through a Times supplement the other day and found a two page spread on Sub Pop. It looked like a good source of quotes and history, so is anyone interested in working on the article with this source? I'll e-mail the text to anyone interested. CloudNine (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this it? --JD554 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That's the one. I didn't think to look it up online! Anyhow, well worth a read. CloudNine (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There's also an article on the 20th anniversary of Sub Pop in this month's Mojo (which I have). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've read online articles on Blender and Billboard too. There's plenty out there if anybody's interested ... maybe a future COTW? indopug (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope again

Alice in Chains and Soundgarden why are they under the scope of the alternative project. I know that they are both grunge bands. But both of them are heavy metal bands at least AIC. I have read in many articles but they always mention Alice in Chains as a heavy metal band and Soundgardens half carrier was releasing metal albums like Ultramega OK and Louder than Love which didn't have anything to do with grunge with the exception of the band came from Seattle. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why both the metal and alt-rock project tags are there. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to continuously call this project's scope to question? NSR77 TC 00:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes but we can remove both of them and only use the rock one cause all the others a redundant if you use the rock music template. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't 1516. You don't need to plant a flag on an article to "claim" it for the crown. It doesn't really matter whose project it falls under; if you want to write about it, write about it. Teemu08 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Then do something about the redundant problem then. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, dude. I'm going to say this frankly: you need to stop. You need to stop bringing up this pointless topic of redundancy and scope. We, the Alternative Music Project members, have decided unanimously to disregard your ideas with as much respect as humanly possible. Please do not continue to revisit this discussion. From here on out it is over and done with. NSR77 TC 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Flea on the Main page

Flea is going to be featured on the main page on August 19. It's quite a surprise considering I didn't even pursue this! NSR77 TC 17:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That happens from time to time. The way I see it Raul goes through the featured article lists and picks what he thinks are really good articles to fill out each month, so feel honored. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up to the discussion at Wikipedia:TFA/R#August 29... —Giggy 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Saddle Creek

Newbie here, committed to working on the alternative/indie/folk bands on label Saddle Creek. This will cover Bright Eyes, Cursive, The Good Life, Orenda Fink, Azure Ray and others. I have chosen to join the project despite how very little this record label's artists fit amongst the other bands also under this very broad genre. If there is somewhere perhaps a bit more suited for me, please let mek now on my Talk page. Thanks! Corythepaperboy (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the right place. I have a few Bright Eyes articles from magazine if you need references. I might have one devoted specifically to Saddle Creek, but I'll have to check. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disintegration help

In the interest of trying to prevent another month passing by with no new Featured Articles by the project, NSR77 and I have been working on Disintegration with hopes of having it promoted before the end of the month. It's well-referenced (really only need to cite the sales figures), but there's some prose work and general cleanup that still need to be done. I'm going to be out of town for the next few days without Internet access, and NSR77 has been travelling, so any help and fresh eyes for the article would be appreciated. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is now up at FAC. Feel free to comment. NSR77 TC 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Teemu08 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana articles

I'm finally able to check out books from my university library again, so tomorrow I'm going to pick up the Classic Albums book on Nevermind as well as a few more items so I can work on some Nirvana song articles. Any help is appreciated. Also, if someone wants me to look for a source, let me know. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I checked out the Nevermind book as well as The Nirvana Companion (collection of articles) and music critic Jon Savage's Time Travel (anthology of articles he wrote from 1976 to 1996). That last one have plenty of non-alt-rock stuff, so if there's something you're looking for, let me know. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's my gameplan this weekend: I'm starting off at "Come as You Are", then heading over to "Lithium". Once the singles are filled with all the references I have, I'm moving on to the promo singles from Nevermind, then the album tracks. If anyone wants to follow me around and assist, that would be much appreciated (always in need of soundclips!). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Think you might have the makings of a featured topic (Nevermind). LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The idea of getting Nevermind to FA status rapidly is pretty illogical, though. The shear amount of information to consult and digest is vast. NSR77 TC 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on Nevermind for over a year, after all, and it still needs some work before it can be a Good Article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think "In Bloom" might be FA-worthy soon. There's not as much info on the song as there is on "Smells Like Teen Spirit", so it's almost completely comprehensive. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In Bloom: The Everret True book has an MM interview where Cobain explains why he wore the dresses ("to screw with the homophobes" and "dresses are really comfortable") and some more stuff . . . I'll add it soon. Also, Cobain specifically mentions that they were parodying Dave Clark Five. indopug (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Kurt. NSR77 TC 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding a good reference for the meaning to "Lithium". Even Come As You Are only infers a meaning (that it's inspired by Kurt's time with a born-again Christian family). Anyone got anything concrete? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining articles

While we're pretty good at maintaining articles once they achieve Featured or Good article status, I'd like to suggest that project members occasionally check out other high-quality articles they haven't been involved with. People occasionally leave Wikipedia (either short or long term) or just neglect pages they've worked on, and vandalism is always a pressing concern, so it'd be good if we kept multiple eyes out on our best articles. I know I like to check out the Featured pages regularly to see how they are doing. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Weezer songs

I notice that there's articles for a large number of non-single Weezer songs. I'm going to start redirecting some. If anyone wants to help out, I would appreciate it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Alternative music

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to help me with this? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This is going to be a bit of work. I am cleaning up The Killers right now to get a pretty good version to use, and as I'm finishing up I notice the entire musical style section needs to be rewritten. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Check out the list of selected articles in need of cleanup. We're still working on OK Computer, and the bottom two aren't going to make our final cut, but we should pitch in to clean up the others there. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What to cut out

Giggy and I discussed cutting out all the discographies. In a physical Wikipedia release with a limited amount of articles, their role can be considered redundant to most artist articles, which generally list all the studio albums and give a basic overview of the artists' release history. If we were to do this, we should achieve a consensus about this with other music WikiProjects. I would also suggest removing all band members; those that have had notable solo careers (Bjork and Morrissey are two notable examples) could stay. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. Giggy (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the discographies, but I don't really see the point in removing specific people. Some, like Kurt Cobain for example, are far more important and worldly than other articles like Binaural. NSR77 TC 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
After noticing that no articles for the Discography WP were selected, on a hunch I checked the Metal WikiProject's selected articles and and found no lists. Since we don't use a list field, the discographies showed up in our selected queue. Apparently no list articles will be included in Wikipedia 0.7, so we can safely remove the discographies from our queue. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, aside from the discographies, here's a list of articles I feel should be removed from our selected list. Add more as you wish, and we can discuss any concerns about any listed below. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunny Day Real Estate, Carl Barât, Thrice, The Presidents of the United States of America (band), AFI (band), Public Image Ltd., Massive Attack, The Living End, Era Vulgaris (album), Mark Lanegan, Breaking Benjamin, Independent music, Temple of the Dog, Adam Clayton, Feeder, Deftones, The Fray, Editors
I thoroughly agree with all of these being removed as soon as possible. NSR77 TC 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Are we seeking to remove articles based on their quality, relevance, or their notability? Or a mixture of the three? Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like all three. None of the above articles are even GAs and none (on a quick guess/scan) are more than middle importance. NSR77 TC 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are a few GAs. Adam Clayton should go because no other member of U2 has a article included, so it'd be a bit silly to have the least-known band member included but not the guy who may or may not have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize on the secret ballot. Era Vulgaris (album) is a QOTSA album of little greater importance. Temple of the Dog was a one-album sideproject of two definite keepers on the selection list (Pearl Jam and Soundgarden) but really a bit of a footnote in the wider scheme of things. Feeder, Thrice, and The Fray are very recent bands still working to establish long-range importance, and I don't think it'd be wise to include them in a permanent version of Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Although I've sort of let the article go to hell (and its probably not under our scope), The Fray might be worth keeping. There aren't very many bands that can sell that many albums. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the WP article, it sold 2 million copies. That is an outstanding figure for a debut record, but only time will tell if they can maintain the popularity. Their next release could be an absolute bomb-shell and barely shift 500,000 units (this goes for the other two bands, as well). Because of the fact that we don't actually know what will become of The Fray, we probably shouldn't include them just yet. NSR77 TC 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I can buy that—they could just be another Gin Blossoms. Anyway, a few others that I'm not sold on inclusion are Black Holes & Revelations and Editors. PiL could use some work, but I think it merits inclusion (unless they fall under a different project). Teemu08 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone have an idea why not articles from Placebo (band) onward from the selection list are included in the Selectionbot page where we are supposed to paste the diff links? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

They are included, right here. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the bot added the missing articles in the last few days. I encourage everyone to review the list again and let us know if they think other articles not mentioned above should be taken out. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the ones listed above, Teemu08 suggested cutting Black Holes & Revelations. A few I wish to mention for discussion are 30 Seconds to Mars (not too important in the longterm), Achtung Baby (U2 barely fits unde our scope as it is, and this is the only album listed), Babyshambles (everyone cares about the Libertines instead, right?), Bloc Party (Good Article, but they're still establishing themselves), Diorama (album) (Feature Article, but not a seminal album), Ghosts I–IV (there's more important Nine Inch Nails releases), Gorillaz (mainly here because of Damon Albarn, and the article is filled with too much in-universe fictional story junk), Kaiser Chiefs (too newish and not important enough), Keane (band) (ditto), One Hot Minute (one of our best album FAs, but even NSR77 would tell you this is basically a footnote in the Chili Peppers' career), Sufjan Stevens (indie darling, but there are other indie darlings more deserving who didn't make the cut), The Decemberists (another indie darling that while a big deal to some, just isn't important enough in the broad sense). So any objects or supports? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All looks good. NSR77 TC 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree on all, plus the removal of Editors. Teemu08 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, before we settle on the final cuts, the last thing I want to bring up is possibly cutting articles from the list of poor quality that have no chances of improvement before October 20th. Indie rock is at the top of the queue for me; it's a mess. Gothic rock and most of the other genre articles also fall into this category. We don't want to let articles full of original research and poor writing making the 0.7 selection, so what articles from the list do you think shouldn't be on there due to quality concerns? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just posted the ones we decided on for removal. Any other last-minute suggestions, please list them here before Friday. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks: I can see that much thought has gone into this feedback, and we appreciate that! I have listed all of the articles under "remove just from WP:Alt music"; some of these may be more important for other projects, and so may remain in (e.g. Achtung Baby under the U2 project), but many will disappear completely from the selection. We also appreciate the cleanup work that's been done. I also have a suggestion regarding disappearing talk page templates, I'll mention that below. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The only articles worth keeping as covered by other projects are probably Achtung Baby and Adam Clayton. Most everything else is not necessary for physical release with a limited number of subjects available for inclusion given their relative notability, so it's not a big loss if those are not covered by other projects. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance, most helpful. Walkerma (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting kind of annoying

Can people keep a lookout to make sure the project template isn't removed from talk pages? Be Black Hole Sun is in a habit of replacing the project template with the Rock WikiProject one. I'm not too concerned with every article under the scope of the project being tagged with our template (I for one do little tagging myself, and only for really important things), but I do keep an eye out on the class rankings displayed on the project's main page in order to gauge article quality progress, and it's really frustrating when the numbers decrease and I'm left wondering what's missing. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him a message on his talk page informing him that he's deliberately being disruptive, and can be reported to WP:ANI. Personally, he should be blocked anyway - he's a sock asking for a second chance, and seems to be up to his POV pushing ways. LuciferMorgan (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I poked his talk page, but basically agree with LuciferMorgan. Giggy (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not the first time he has done it. He's also been repeatedly blocked because of his actions, but is always un-blocked. I think we should perhaps open a WP:RFC to determine a further corase of action. NSR77 TC 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I recommend the use of this log? All article removals/renames or major changes are highlighted in bold, so you can track things easily. Walkerma (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this worth having articles on?

I want some second opinions: should there be articles for Fecal Matter (band) and Illiteracy Will Prevail? Both have signifigance as the earliest recorded music Kurt Cobain made (recorded as in: made on a tape machine in his bedroom). Even though Cobain and Nirvana are so notable it hurts, I have doubts that we need or should even have articles for stuff a teenage Cobain recorded before forming Nirvana and that was never made public or commercially released during his lifetime. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. WP:NOTINHERITED says: Notability is not inherited "up". Fecal Matter (band) is a small article and only gets a passing mention in Kurt Cobain. Perhaps it should be merged into the Kurt Cobain article? I'm undecided on Illiteracy Will Prevail as copies of the tape are highly sought after, it is possible that there are references to make this notable on it's own? --JD554 (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep Fecal Matter but lose the album article. NSR77 TC 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wesley, I don't think either are particularly worth having articles on. Giggy (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Start an AFD for both of them. I doubt either one will be deleted simply because Wikipedians tend to keep articles that have been around for a long time without significant debate. NSR77 TC 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The album is nommed here. NSR77 TC 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Animal Collective discography—help!

Animal Collective discography was created last night by Pastoryam13 (talk · contribs), and at first I thought "hmm, this is pretty good for someone's first edit!"

Except it's actually a Mogwai discography.

I hate leaving an inaccurate article in mainspace, but I really don't have time to work on this right now; perhaps one of the featured discography machines that hang around here can sort this out? One barnstar will be awarded in return :) Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it, but I have school in about an hour. I'll have to resume work on it a while later after that. In the time I have I'll clean it up as well as I can. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, it's still more or less a skeleton right now, but I've put some work into it. I can start up again in about... ten hours? If anyone else wants to give it a shot during that time they're welcome to it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres in infobox fields

Hey, there's currently an important discussion going on about the removal of genre fields in band and album infoboxes. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? and provide any opinions you may have. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Last-minute cleanup for Wikipedia 0.7

We've got only a few days left until the Wikipedia 0.7 drive wraps up, and we need to pick selected versions for some major articles. I'll take care of Alternative rock, The Cure, and Nevermind. Here are some high-priority pages that still need a version selected and/or cleanup:

Nirvana (band), Oasis (band) (Reeeeeally needs cleanup), U2, Nine Inch Nails, OK Computer, Coldplay, Alice in Chains, Green Day, Pixies, Kurt Cobain, Rage Against the Machine, The Smiths, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sonic Youth, Foo Fighters, Beck, The White Stripes, Courtney Love, Liam Gallagher, Stone Temple Pilots, Kid A, Audioslave

If you need help cleaning an article up, let us know. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Of those, Nirvana (band), U2, Nine Inch Nails, Alice in Chains, Pixies, Kid A, and Audioslave are featured. While they certainly warrant attention too, there are others that need a more urgent looking at. Thus I've gone and added in the oldids for these ones (to here); the oldid can be changed if anyone does work on them, but I think we should focus on the non-featured ones while we still have time.
At my very quick glance (basically just checking if they have a star), Courtney Love seemed to need the most help. I don't plan to work on that one, if anyone else does... Giggy (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Note also that of the FAs I listed, Nirvana, Pixies, Kid A, and Audioslave became FAs over a year ago; they're more likely to need cleanup than the other FAs. Giggy (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added oldids for Coldplay and Red Hot Chili Peppers (one a GA, the other in not bad shape). Giggy (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Popping over from WP:ALBUMS, am I correct in assuming that we are meant to be looking out for vandalism and whatnot, not necessarily whipping these articles in blitzkreig time into GA or FAs? I'm attempting to help out with the album listings, but want to be sure before I locate too many other old IDs. For example, this one has maintenance tags on it: [3]. Are these to be addressed, or are we just looking to make sure that we don't publish an article that includes such brilliant bon-mots as "My sister has cooties" in it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we want to make sure no sneaky vandalism or BLP violations make it in. However, we also want to make sure the selected versions are the best-written available. Still, worry about cleaning out the obvious garbage first, then do prose tweaking if you have the time. FAs and GAs in theory should be maintained and in theory the version present right now should be the one you select a link for, but that's not always the case, unfortunately (the editor who promoted In Rainbows retired so I had to put that on my watchlist and select the diff link, and I had to do a lot of cleanup on The Killers (band), where I still think work still needs to be done). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Important note: pages might also appear under selection lists for other projects, so place the links there as well. In some cases, they appear in selection lists for projects even if that project's tag was removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do some clean up on The White Stripes right now, but I'm getting tired and I need to get Alternative rock ready. I'm assuming our deadline is midnight GMT, so I'd say highest priority is making sure all FAs we're keeping on the list have a decent diff link provided. Also, don't be afraid to add a poor-quality article to the "do not include" list here. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Paranoid Android" at FAC

You know the drill. You can add your comments about the article here. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion-matron

So . . . anyone have any ideas on what should be my next project? I've just finished up a Featured Article Review for a non-music article, but I don't really want to work on anything I've done a lot of work on previously. For example, I've taken most of the Nirvana articles I've worked on as far as I can for the moment, so I want to rule those out. Also, anyone else looking for ideas for future projects, reply here and maybe we'll get some suggestions going for you as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • One of these days we all need to put our heads together and get alternative rock up to featured status. How we go about doing that I don't know (collaboration of the month perhaps?).
I was planning on reworking the layout in a user page of mine at some point. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a nifty idea: think of ideas to think of doing. :) NSR77 TC 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_music/Archive_5&oldid=1136055056"