Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Contemporary Christian music/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goals

[edit]

WikiProject CCM has some broad goals and ambitions that it desires to achieve. Please don't edit the list; rather, propose your new ideas here and discuss them here.

List of goals

[edit]

These are the list of goals so far. If you want to add more, see the below.

  1. To make a standard for articles relating to Contemporary Christian music This will be achieved using the musician structure guidline.
  2. Integrate {{infobox musical artist 2}} into pages on artists and bands This infobox is administered by WikiProject Musicians. To see the latest discussion and changes to the infobox, see their proposal page.

Discuss goals

[edit]

Please discuss the goals here. In order to keep this section short, please move inactive sections to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Archives/Goals/1. If you aren't sure, you might be safe just leaving it there. When you are adding a new heading here, use the third headline, as in ===A descriptive heading===.

Propose goals

[edit]

If you wish to add more goals or make noticable changes, please propose them below, using this format: 

===Proposal name===
I would like to propose adding x, y, and z to the list of goals, because of the
reasons a, b, and c. ~~~~

Square Peg Alliance

[edit]

I am a fan of several of the members of the Square Peg Alliance, a group of 13 Christian musicians who are cross-promoting one another's work. Many of them do not have pages at all, and those that do could use a lot of work. Feel free to hop on over to Square Peg Alliance and help me out with the work I've already begun over there. Thanks! Pepsi2786 07:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks

[edit]

You may simply add petty and trivial tasks, which may seem laborous, below. But, these are the things that helps you get barnstars and recognition (as well as increase your edit count :-).)

List of tasks

[edit]

Below is the list of WikProject CCM tasks.

  • Start adding references and citations to CCM articles.

Discussion

[edit]

Project Directory

[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of The W's

[edit]

The W's is going through the Wikipedia:Peer review process. Please leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/The W's/archive1. Dan, the CowMan 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{WPBiography}}

[edit]

Please use {{WPBiography}} on the talk pages of articles about people. This is important because this template comes with an important notice about the Wikipedia policy related to Biographies of living persons and can be quite helpful because it also provides a parameter for rating the quality of the article and for requesting that a template be added to the article. A list of the parameters, and a brief description of them can be found at Template:WPBiography#Usage. --Tim4christ17 talk 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help from this wikiproject

[edit]

Hello. I generally stay away from music articles on Wikipedia, but I've gotten myself involved with an article about a CCM band from Canada that I am absolutely convinced meets Wikipedia's notablility guidelines. However, the article about that band has been repeatedly deleted as non-notable. I had an admin move it to my userspace where the article's creator and I have been working on it. I'd like it to be in as good a shape as possible before I take it to deletion review, but I don't want to let the AFD lie in its grave for too long, especially since the closing admin currently has several other contested decisions at DRV.

I was wondering if someone from this wikiproject who is familiar with the Canadian Contemporary Christian Music scene would take a look at User:ONUnicorn/Critical Mass and give us a hand. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Look

[edit]

Yeah... so... I got bored. I have found the previous look here at WikiProject CCM to be jumbled, hard to navigate, and just plain unfriendly for getting anything done. So, I took some initiative and made us a Navigation Bar, then chopped apart the main article and shoved it into subpages linked from said Nav bar.

In doing so, I created for us a Peer Review Page, linked to User:Badbilltucker's Assessment page, worked in User:Casey14's To-do page, and I feel most importantly, added a Collaboration page. Hopefully we can get our members more involved and work together to improve a specific article every two weeks. And hopefully the new look will help us bring in more contributors. I also created an Outreach page for the purpose of getting some more editors over here.

Oh, and I also editted User:Black and White's infobox to match the nav bar. If other members would prefer different colors for either the nav bar or the infobox, just let me know what you all would like. I hope no one minds all the changes. I suppose maybe I should have asked before I did it... -- Pepsi2786 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love your changes to the navigation! I can't commit to helping improve an article every two weeks, as I am a member of 7 WikiProjects. I do occasionally work on an article that catches my eye. Everyone should add the Plumb (singer) article to their watchline, as some anon keeps incorrectly removing that she is a Christian Music artist. They even remove the references that I added to verify. Royalbroil T : C 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great new layout, btw. Sorry for tardiness in saying this. Dan, the CowMan 08:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.jesusfreakhideout.com

[edit]

I noticed that User:RoryS89 had created an article on the website, but it was speedy deleted. I had an admin restore the article to my userspace at User:Royalbroil/Sandbox. I will create a proper article. Anyone who wants to help develop the article is welcome. Please do not move the article to mainspace, as most of the edit history for my sandbox is about other things. Royalbroil T : C 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, and you can find it here: Jesus Freak Hideout. Royalbroil T : C 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The newly created article Squad Five-O was featured on the main page's DYK section today, 2007-02-13. Dan, the CowMan 08:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading the article. It was well-formed too. I look a lot at the DYK section. I hadn't noticed that this was a CCM article. I am unfamiliar with the band. Royalbroil T : C 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we work on this article?

[edit]

For the last month, I've been considering doing an article on the album All Because of You (1984 album) by then-Facts of Life star Lisa Whelchel; partly because it was her first (and, as it turned out; only) album, partly because it was nominated for a Grammy, and also becuase it is so rare.

Just let me know if you feel this would be a good inclusion and I will begin work on the article as soon as possible. If not, no further action will be taken.

WAVY 10 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, assuming that you have at least 2 solid independent references. There are 2 assertions for notability, since it was recorded by a notable person and the album charted. Any topic that you can demonstrate these 2 criteria should be safe from deletion. Royalbroil T : C 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purevolume.com

[edit]

What does everyone think about the reliability of this website as a source? Is independent of the source (or can artists pay to get on the site)? It appears to be quite a bit weaker than jesusfreakhideout.com as a source. Or am I wrong? Royalbroil T : C 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's considered a little higher than MySpace; its not a general social networking site. It is run by the band, and their are tiers of membership (Free & Paid). It's link may be deleted by overzealous wikipedians, but I don't have a problem with linking to it. Dan, the CowMan 15:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I was suspecting that to be the case. I think that we should consider it NOT to be a reliable source as outlined by the policy WP:SOURCE#Wikipedia_articles_must_be_based_on_reliable_sources, since it run by the band. It can still be linked to as an external link. It could also be used in the form "XYZ stated on the purevolume.com page that..." which sometimes comes up with myspace or official websites. What does everyone think about my assessment? Royalbroil T : C 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW Hits up for deletion

[edit]

The WOW Hits articles are all up to be deleted. See the disccusion at this location.--E tac 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout and Christian Music Central up for deletion

[edit]

The two articles from this WikiProject have been nominated for deletion. You can follow the links on their website to get to their deletion nominations. Royalbroil T : C 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a relatively lengthy comment on the JFH AfD. :-) Thanks for the alert! --3M163//Complete Geek 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just got beat by 2 minutes with the comment on JFH being used as a reference in over 100 articles. What does everyone think about CMCentral.com, including you 3M163? Royalbroil T : C 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back after a week-long wikibreak. I had the CMCentral article speedy deleted (as the only author of the article), as it was short and no one else would vouch for its notability. I keep hearing them being used as a reference for breaking CCM events on the radio. We should discuss restoring the article here on this talk page if anyone decides they want the article. We can then have an admin restore the article to someone's sandbox. The restore request needs to come from this WikiProject. Royalbroil T : C 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of CMCentral before, and so I assumed that it was one of the many non-notable Christian music sites out there. I'll do some more research on it; now that I look at it again, it seems better than at first glance... I'll let you know if/when I'll be able to support a keep. :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's already long deleted. Don't waste time on it. I'm just saying that we need to decide as a WikiProject to restore it if we think it is a valuable reference. I don't think that we are at this point right now. Royalbroil T : C 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Across The Sky up for deletion soon.

[edit]

A lot of content has been added and source material. This article could use some TLC soon. It is rated by this project currently as a stub but after the additions of the last two days that quality rating may need another visit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.101.179.35 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

The same nominator also nominated a number of other CCM artists at the same time. Feel free to state your opinion on the notablility of the following artists:

Still open

[edit]

Ones that were closed as delete: Riley Armstrong and 3 the God Way. Royalbroil T : C 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to list these centerally as soon as they happen; everything isnt on everyones watchlist; I'll be glad to look up what I can when I have the time and resources.
I have an Auto Wiki Bot, so I could use it to create the list of articles if we would come up with a list of categories to use to generate the list. Royalbroil T : C 11:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Argyle Park is relatively noteworthy, seeing as how there have been relatively few Christian industrial bands. Bones O'Malley (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzamorphis

[edit]

I've been doing a lot of work on the Mezzamorphis article (including almost all of this anonymously, this last year, and this over the past few days), but if anyone would please give some advice on particular areas to be expanded, it'd be most appreciated! :-) (I think that I might have put just a few too many citations into the article... :-P). --3M163//Complete Geek 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the most complete album that I have see in Wikipedia. I wouldn't change a thing. I like the high amount of references. Are you going for Good or Featured Article? Royalbroil T : C 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... thank you... I don't know what to say! :-) At the moment, I just want to get it to GA-Class (which it should qualify for with a little bit more expansion, or even right now), but I do eventually want to get it to FA-Class... WP:CCM desperately needs some featured articles, and this is probably the album with which I can help out the most. Shall I put it up as a self-nom on WP:GAC? --3M163//Complete Geek 19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only experience is that I am currently trying to help get Mario Andretti to GA status. We are early in the process. So I cannot help much with explaining the process. Maybe you should have someone who regularly contributes to GA discussions to review and comment on the article. That's what I'm doing with Andretti. Good luck! Royalbroil T : C 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at several other GA articles, I've decided to do a bit more expansion; I'm currently working on the article in my sandbox. I also need to clean up, expand, and reference the articles on the singles. Fortunately, this album has lots and lots of available references, thanks to the wonderful site provided by Dave Wood... but hopefully, it should be GA-Class soon. --3M163//Complete Geek 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why you should work on it in your sandbox. Work on the real thing! When you make a fork you risk someone making a great change to the original article which you then have to make to your sandbox. Also, I see that you don't use a template to cite your references. I'm sure that it would come up in a GA nomination. Check out {{Cite web}}. It would be preferred to have a few print references. Another criticism would be that you've used one website as the primary source for your references. You should link to both delerium.org.uk and say amazon.com (when applicable(. Then something is left if one of them is removed. Royalbroil T : C 19:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice! :-) I originally intended to put it in the sandbox as I had several minor edits that I wanted to incorporate into a more complete edit, but I guess I can make it an overall edit to the page by now. :-) I was counting on no-one else's editing the article whilst I was sandboxing... I'll see if I can work on making template references tomorrow, as I'm going to bed right now; thanks for informing me on that. I think the magazine/newspaper interviews should be fine as far as print sources; should I remove the links to online versions? Unfortunately, all the websites cited on delirious.org.uk are either defunct or don't store content from that far back, so the mirrors appear to be necessary for now. (Should I use the Internet Archive for original versions of pages?) Once again, thanks for the advice; I was getting slightly for parts to expand/edit. ;-) --3M163//Complete Geek 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only showed you one template for citing. There are many more. See Wikipedia:Citation templates. I suggest reading WP:CITE to best understand citing. You do have the basics down. I would use the template {{Cite news}} and do BOTH web and paper. Both looks even better than paper! I have seen a strong preference by editor to use the Internet Archive and link to the original (if possible) instead of a mirror. I wonder a citation template supports both a mirror and the Internet Archive. Royalbroil T : C 22:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be adding more to Delirious? after my vacation, and will take a specific look at their albums. Dan, the CowMan 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's very close to being a low GA-Class at the moment. I may put it up for Peer Review in a couple of days (after more expansion) before listing it on WP:GAC. Please let me know any other suggestions you have! I've tried finding things on the Internet Archive, but they don't archive searches, so I can't search for the articles within the respective pages. :-( I'll also see if I can buy back issues of the magazines involved to get the volume and issue numbers when I'm aiming for FA-Class... --3M163//Complete Geek 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) That bit I did to Delirious? this week wasn't actually what I was hoping for, just another reference that I randomly found. I was gonna do Powell this week, but that got delayed when I found out Jimmy Wales was speaking ~2 hours from here. So I did that instead. It's still priority, though. (2.) Heres a couple examples of GA-Class albums from Wikipedia:Good articles: Adore (album), Surfer Rosa, Show No Mercy, Impossible Princess. Use these as guides; peer review is also a great idea. Also, I think that you're going to need specific citations to make GA. (3.) Finally, consider Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured in your long-term planning process. Best of luck! Dan, the CowMan 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'm done with it now. Dan, the CowMan 05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! [:)] The print source is excellent; I'll see if I can cite the song stories from the upcoming Delirious? book, too. I'm pretty sure it's close to at least GA-Class now (given that it's not as famous as, say, Surfer Rosa), so I may put it up for Peer Review once I've expanded "response & reception"... --3M163//Complete Geek 12:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC) EDIT: It's up at WP:GAC![reply]
It's a good article! Thank you so much, everyone who gave suggestions and helped out. :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to 3M163 and Dan for making this into a good article! It is the first GA for this WikiProject as far as I know. I think this article would have been at most a stub had you guys not put forth such a great effort. Royalbroil 03:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles up for Deletion, Someone has a Vendetta against the wikiproject?

[edit]

It seems like a lot of articles have been up for deletion and that most are trivial reasons that they have been up for deletion. It seems like a member is purposely trying to sabatoge this wikiproject. Casey14 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thought crossed my mind too. I wouldn't have commented if you hadn't started this thread. One contributor did all the nominating. I assume good faith that the contributor probably was looking at a certain category for what deletionists call "cruft". Royalbroil T : C 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to assume good faith here, as garage bands are a notable occurrence on AfD; Christian band articles may often be mistaken for bandcruft, as they normally don't get a lot of "mainstream" coverage. Some people on AfD can be pretty paranoid about band articles... --3M163//Complete Geek 14:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put one or two articles about garage bands up for AfD. Can you think of a better way to market your band? I agree with MatheMezzaMorphis that there is a lack of mainstream coverage of CCM. It hurts CCM in many ways. It makes it harder to write articles about reliable references. I wish there wasn't some artificial distinction between CCM and mainstream music. I listen to both. We should all have access to great music! Royalbroil T : C 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to assume good faith here. Keep in mind that, for WP:MUSIC, the "central criteria" for inclusion are (a) multiple, (b) non-trivial, (c) published, (d) independent, (e) reliable sources. A list of qualified sources would include HM Magazine, CCM Magazine, Jesus Freak Hideout, The Phantom Toolbooth, Cross Rhythms, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, Time People, and your local newspaper. The first couple cover CCM and ACM exclusively; the first two are established physical publications that probably wouldn't be questioned as a source (Cross Rhythms was at one point also). You would probably have to fight for the web sites. The final ones in the list cover the world generally, and could occasionally be of use to this project.

Band such as As Cities Burn, Unashamed, X-Sinner, Dance House Children, or Oil are vulnerable until sources are added (Here I add one to ACB, here to Unashamed, here to X-Sinner. The list of bands goes on and on. It is becoming common, though, is that articles such as One Bad Pig (before AFD), DigHayZoose (before AFD), or Veni Domine (before referencing) are being nominated despite meeting one or several points of WP:MUSIC. A year ago this type of stub was nearly acceptable. It seems like sometime after we hit Jordanhill (railway station) (1 Millionth article) there began a concerted effort to improve the quality of articles. I think that we've all seen examples of that (my experience with Sherri Youngward, see history.

The problem with the sort of documentation that this project requires is that it is not easy to come by, and not well known. Few libraries have archives of our magazine sources, and some of our other sources may not pess the tests required by others who independantly judge our work. (National Geographic released their complete archives on CD a couple of years ago. It'd be cool if HM and CCM would do that too.) Couple with that the fact that with few exceptions artists will never be heard on mainstream radio or appear in mainstream publications, and you have an environment which may seem like hostility toward this project.

In referencing articles I have not found major factual inaccuracies. The conclusion is simple: We must, must, must cite our sources. Some simple examples: Cool Hand Luke, xDEATHSTARx, Sufjan Stevens, PAX 217, and Neon Cross. We must include reviews in albums, and use them to cite styles and facts in the band's article (The W's). This must happen immediately, as the article is posted and is the responsability of the poster (Sacrament (US band), history).

The Most Valuable Player in this effort seems to be Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (2002) (ISBN 1-56563-679-1). It contains 1000+ pages of great reference material. It is expertly written, edited, and published, and was derived from the same sources that we are building Wikipedia from. This means that an article in Powell ostensively proves the "central criteria" for inclusion. As many as us as possible should invest in this (~$20). I'm getting two; one for myself and one for my local public library. We are nearing 100 enteries from it (Google), and it has been central to several AFDs. General books can also make great resources. Extremely popular bands are in general references such as The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (Stryper, dc talk, Petra). There are specialised music references too, books such as Headbangers cover metal music (Google in WP); I happened upon Delirious? in the The Encyclopedia of World Pop Music.

On the the other end of the scale, (and to avoid WP:POV disputes) be sure to include any opposition to the band. Material such as Terry Watkin's Christian Rock: Blessing or Blasphemy?.

So in a nutshell, thats what I think is going on here and how to fix it. Im on vacation this week and will be using Wikipedia lightly, so sorry if my response is delayed. Dan, the CowMan 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY well stated. We all need to not only understand but USE reliable references to verify everything we do here in Wikipedia. WP:MUSIC demands it. We are particularly challenged since mainstream media doesn't cover many CCM topics. Royalbroil T : C 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sauce, please

[edit]

I've wikified List of Dove Award winners, which was recently created as the result of a CFD. The article would now like some reliable sources (hopefully those can already be found in the relevant articles, and copied over). — coelacan — 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phatfish

[edit]

I have added Phatfish to your project – thought it would be polite to mention this. The article has (today) had an overhaul, by a 'well-informed source' (if the user name is anything to go by!!), however it is in need of further work. In particular, there are no references – it has already survived AfD once.

Incidentally, the second instruction on your 'ToDo' page is a little confusing:

as there appears to be no actual list there...

EdJogg 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choice? (article inclusion)

[edit]

Say a band explicity states they are not a Christian band - typically, do you still place them in this wikiproject if they do get airtime on a christian radio station?danielfolsom © 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the topic of many, many discussions, and ultimately it's up to the reader to decide (Talk:Contemporary_Christian_music, under "Coldplay", "Christian musician guidelines", "Selection of artists listed" for some examples). Some bands, which see CCM as a stigma, will say that because they worry about being "pigeonholed" into the genre (U2). It really depends on the person though. Some will argue that all members of a band must be Christians (see "Christian musician guidelines"), but this eleminates bands such as Scaterd Few, which are classifiable in the genre due mainly to one member (In this case, Allan Aguire). Heres my thought: I genarally agree with Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, which defines CCM as "music that appeals to self-identified fans of contemporary Christian music on account of a perceived connection to what they regard as Christianity" (pp. 13). Under this definition, the answer is yes. Dan, the CowMan 23:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lyrics Network

[edit]

How notable does everyone find this website? Royalbroil 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post the same note here about this article, as well as all the links Jdingman (talk • contribs • count) has added over many months. I notice he apparently deleted the warnings he had been given earlier; see this earlier version of his talk page. --A. B. (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look defendable per WP:WEB or any other standard we have here. Nothing links there but this talk page. PROD, anyone? Dan, the CowMan 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I added links is because I thought they would add value. Christian-lyrics.net is the only legally licensed Christian music lyrics on the web right now. We have strong ties and contracts with EMI Music Publishing as well as other Christian record labels to allow us to legally display lyrics. We also have much more than just lyrics coming up. We have topical search, genre search, and much much more going on. It's more of a Christian music resource for people around the world than it is just a lyrics site. We are putting hours and hours of work into this site to make it useful, not just a site to illegally display lyrics. I am sorry if I have been misleading, ignorant, 'spamming', or anything of that nature. I don't use wikipedia very often and I don't really know how either. I only thought I would try to make my contribution by adding, what I thought to be, valuable links to Christian music artists. I know there are tons of people that look for the lyrics and having links directly to the artist pages on Christian-lyrics.net I thought would be valuable for both Wikipedia and the end-user. Please let me know what I can do to rectify the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.237.45.226 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Dont take this too personally; Im all for proper lisenceing and such. Lyrics certainly are a huge part of that. My issue is with the actual page about the website itself. The broad, community-built and accepted standard for web sites can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (web). While it's cool that the site has consent to legally post lyrics, that doesn't make the site broadly notable in the least. At this project we have recently been dealing with similar web site articles. Some have been defendable but others are lost causes when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's standards; Yours is probably the latter. Dan, the CowMan 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But on the same note, what about all these links too? Why would Christian-lyrics.net not be allowed, but all the others could be? I see a communication gap somewhere here :( (Jonathan 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And again though, why allow all these links as well? I don't want to take it personally, but I'm having trouble with saying one thing but overlooking another...please help clarify what I'm missing here.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdingman (talk • contribs)

I remove external links to ALL lyrics websites that I encounter, except if they are used to cite a specific lyric that is important to an article. I justify it with the policy Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I don't see how linking to lyrics helps build an encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing it out. We need to clear this up. Royalbroil 11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still tons of links out there to the specific examples I showed you :/ (Jonathan 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I needed the reminder. I went through the external links and deleted the links to articles. I left a small number of links on talk pages. Let me know if you seen any other simular problematic links. Royalbroil 00:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Company_of_Angels_II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdingman (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So here's the current list:


We should occasionally check and remove links to these websites except if there are being used as a reference for a specific lyric. The number links are clickable to easily bring up the list. Please expand the list if you find any others. Royalbroil 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds good. Let me know if I can help out in any other sector of Wikipedia. I like to focus on Christian music for my area of expertise. (Jonathan 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Links to #4 above (http://lyrics.crossmap.com) now sometimes link to artist biographies, so you need to inspect each one individually. Royalbroil 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on article importance

[edit]
  • High Importance - I have a source, Contemporary Musicians, which is a very broad reference. Published by the Gale Group since about 1990, it is up to volume 59, covering the whole spectrum of music. I propose, therefore, that any artist with an entry in this source must be significant to CCM as a whole in their own right, and that each one of these would fall under the ranking of "High importance" within this project.

Additionally, Grammy winners would be here. (What else?)

  • Mid Importance - Dove award winning artists, important albums (Dove/Grammy/#1/Other Criteria), album series (though the individual albums within that series are probobly low importance), publications (?), other awards (MTV?).
  • Low Importance - Other artists, albums.

A practical example of this would be dc Talk (H), Jesus Freak (album) (M), DC Talk (album, L).

Anyway, just my thoughts. What's missing? Dan, the CowMan 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you give examples of some of the least known artists in the book so we can assess the book's inclusion criteria. My first thought is the album and song Jesus Freak should be high, as they were culturally significant in mainstream society. The song and album would be some of the few exceptions to your criteria. In general, however, I agree with your comments. We can always discuss specific articles if there are disagreements, and your suggestion give us a subjective criteria for a starting point. Marie Miller would be a good example of a Low Importance article. Royalbroil 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - Your mileage / experience will vary, of course. I think Christafari is probably their least known profiled artist, just for his musical genre. But there are others - I don't know Fred Hammond, Michael Roe, Nancy Honeytree, or Out of the Grey - here (>512k JPEG) is the actual list (from vol 59), judge for yourself. Some artists may or may not be listed as Christian bands, depending on who you ask (Chevelle, Relient K, Danielson). There's also some overlap from Gospel music - which is of course a separate listing (and I don't have it).
  • Albums - Perhaps something more along the lines of this - Culturally Signifigant Albums (Whatever that means in context - High), Award Winning albums (M), Other albums (L).
  • Web sites - probably low. Dan, the CowMan 01:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the ones that you posted, and I agree that the book's inclusion criteria looks good. I agree with everything that you proposed. I generally don't put much effort or credence into importance anyhow. Mid, High, and Top articles will get edited and expanded by anons anyhow. Royalbroil 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article importance is'nt the end (or beginning) of the world, which is why it has been ignored for so long. I see it more as a benchmark - The same resources that we draw from are the ones we compete against. If these are core topics - the most commonly known, controversial, or otherwise signifigant - then it is vital that we push for quality. Assume that each published entery is equivalent to a high B or GA wikipedia article, any you can begin to measure how far you have to go. I'm not saying it all needs to happen now or quickly or anything, just advocating benchmarks. Dan, the CowMan 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This Beautiful Republic and Hypserstatic Union

[edit]

I am furious. This Beautiful Republic has been deleted from wikipedia. After I and other wikipedia members disagreed with the speedy deletion, the deletion was still carried through. The band had enough signficance, according to the criterion.

I also remember a few months back viewing the page for Hypserstatic Union. The page no longer exists. Someone is purposely trying to set back the project and delete major bands.

How can we retrieve these pages? If not, how can we complain. On This Beautiful Republic's page it was deleted without even consideration of what us members put. It's not like it even mattered. I'm afraid this will happen to more CCM artists if something is not done. Casey14 19:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy delete can't be protested by the author, otherwise it's considered vandalism. Let's have a look at what was in the articles. [6] the deletion log on This Beautiful Republic. You can request that any admin restore deleted content. Please link the admin to this discussion here, and request that the article be restored to this WikiProject's space here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary Christian music/This Beautiful Republic. I will help you develop an article for this notable artist that will not be deleted. I see plenty of reviews. The other article can be found at Hyper Static Union. Royalbroil 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the request here: User_talk:Merope#This_Beautiful_Republic. Royalbroil 20:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I checked out their myspace account, and "Right Now" is played on the radio here. It HAS to be on some chart RIGHT NOW, lol. This one should be VERY EASY to prove notability. Royalbroil 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work. Sorry about myself missing Hyper Static Union. Casey14 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted article for This Beautiful Republic is currently located in my second sandbox: User:Royalbroil/Sandbox2. I am surprised and quite disappointed that this was speedy deleted without a full discussion. It has several elements that make it at minimum borderline case, especially the national tours. I would have !voted keep for the article when instead it was speedy deleted. Royalbroil 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There must be something not just wrong but CRAZY WRONG about the This Beautiful Republic article. Now that it is created for the nth time, someone deleted the reviews on the article because the reviewers are trying to sell the album, plus links to their bios on yahoo and the record label. I questioned it at the help desk, and they agree with removing the links. These are valid reviews that give information and demonstrate notability about the artist. The next thing you know, they will have removed all the links, so then someone will delete the article. Royalbroil 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Mortal

[edit]

I couldn't help but notice that there is no article on the band Mortal, while there is one on Fold Zandura. I like that there is one on Fold Zandura, don't get me wrong; but isn't Mortal more well known and influential? In a nutshell, why is there no article on Mortal? 71.136.252.14 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either no one has started an article or it has been deleted. In any case, you are more than welcome to start the article yourself. Rylan Mitchell 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've got that 90% written (& sourced). The reason that there's no article is that it's hard to properly source and it's a common word - Google shows little unless you know what you're doing. Real life has been heavy lately - I've been picking up shifts after the company fired a central employee - but I will post it (and others) soon. Dan, the CowMan 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is posted now at Mortal (band). I've also posted some others recently. Enjoy Dan, the CowMan 06:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover fair use rationale

[edit]

I found a fair use rationale on a Good Article nominee that I used on the first album by BarlowGirl. You can find it here: Image:Barlowgirl.jpg. We should use it on all album covers that we upload or have uploaded. Royalbroil 04:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to be a nuisance, but are you sure that's enough rationale? I was following the Free Use arguments a few weeks ago, when the bot-induced chaos started, but had to give up as it was absorbing all my editing time. There were arguments against using 'boilerplate' rationales (as this will be if you simply use the same text for each image), and there was considerable discussion about whether using the album image 'for identification' was actually permissible under the FUGuidance at all. There were counter-arguments that all album covers would end up with pretty much the same FUR anyway, so why not boilerplate it.
The issue of FURs is serious, so I just wanted to be sure that the article you had copied from was in a similar situation, and that the FUR had somehow been 'approved'. Personally, I think this particular FUR is quite accurate and reasonable, but I have lost touch with what the official view is (which is what counts!)
EdJogg 11:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping in. I find your comments helpful and not a nuisance. I am not sure that's enough rationale, but it's better than probably 99% of what we currently have. I have not been involved in any kinds of discussions on the topic except for a discussion on overriding thumbnail pixels. The source of the rationale is the Image:Dream Days at the Hotel Existence.PNG, which is used in a good article nominee. I was expecting the image to be up to current standards. I agree that the topic is very serious, which is why I posted this comment. All non-free use images have been extremely controversial over the past year. It has been a source of non-stop confusion and paranoia. Just when we think a standard has been decided, someone more conservative proposes and acquires a new standard. At this rate no non-free images will be allowed. I keep noticing more users who have userboxes complaining about copyright paranoia. Royalbroil 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting the record straight (no pun intended!). Now... I've just looked at the album cover you mentioned and need to point out that:
  1. It is used in an article about the album itself, rather than the band (as is the case for BarlowGirl)
  2. There is a substantial section in the article (well, 3 paragraphs!) describing the cover art -- what I believe is called 'critical commentary'
Both of these are (used to be) significant factors in determining whether a FairUse image was permitted (see Fair-Use Criteria)
Having said all that, may I suggest that this is still a good starting point, and could be regarded as a minimum to be applied to (all) album covers as a matter of some urgency. This will at least ensure that 'a' fair-use rationale is present, even if it needs to be refined at a later date. Images with no FUR are liable to be deleted fairly quickly, but if there is a reasonable FUR on the image, at least you have a basis to argue from!
EdJogg 12:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I read the fair use criteria, I wonder how anyone who is not a copyright lawyer could understand it or make a fair use image stay. Who decided that "primary goal of Wikipedia's policy for non-free content is to protect our mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution"? Jimbo? Pro bono Lawyers? How come this is a policy? Wikipedia has to have the most conservative stance on image copyrights on the internet. I have hardly ever uploaded an image that I did not take myself (except with explicit permission on flickr) because dealing with any other image is likely trying to walk down a cliff in a rainstorm. Even images released by artists for promotion are not able to be used under fair use. We need to take action now if we hope to keep any album covers. I have listed a starting point with album covers. This likely will not be enough to keep them long term. Thanks for the insight and explanation, Ed. Royalbroil 13:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nate Sallie

[edit]

This article needs info added or else it will go up for deletion. I will try to add info if I get time. Just wanted to point this out. Casey14 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article, and added references. Royalbroil 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAY-FM Network

[edit]

On the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline, criteria #11 for Musicians and Ensembles states: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." I want contributors to this WikiProject to state their assessment about WAY-FM Network in relation to this criteria. Is WAY-FM a "major radio network" in the United States, such that being played on the network means it is in rotation nationally? Please state your opinion even if it is several years from now, for it adds to the case of using this network as a reason to keep an artist played on the network. Royalbroil 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support that WAY-FM Network is a "major radio network"

[edit]

Disagree that WAY-FM Network is a "major radio network"

[edit]

Between support and disagree, or comment only

[edit]

Yet another deletion

[edit]

Nevertheless (band) was speedy deleted, despite at least partially asserting THREE criteria on WP:BAND. The article was around for several months before someone marked it for speedy deletion. I had the deleting admin restore the article to my sandbox, where I am working on it. Royalbroil 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventyseven has been deleted a few times as well, and has 2 criteria for WP:Band. Though I am not in the CCM Wikiproject, I just thoguht it was strange that people were deleting an article that met WP:Band. IronCrow (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I received the administrator powers this weekend. I now have access to the text of deleted articles to see what got deleted. I can restore them, if appropriate, so that they can be improved until they are good enough to stay. Don't worry, I'll follow the proper channels with restoring the articles. This continuing major problem is a small part of why I was convinced to run for admin status. Royalbroil 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mute Math

[edit]

One or more editors was recently deleting material from the Mute Math and Teleprompt Records article regarding their initial distribution in the Christian market and the associated controversy. Editors of this project should review this situation. Dl2000 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently familiar with the band, but I'll add it to my watchlist. Royalbroil 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Talk:Mute Math for further background/discussion. Editors are encouraged to participate there. Dl2000 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Here and on Wikipedia

[edit]

I have a passion for Christian music. I'm glad to be here to help out you guys. It would be awesome if people welcomed me and all. I Hope to stick around for a long time here. -Brian Alexander (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject is a relatively quiet one, although there is plenty to do (see above). So, you are very welcome here, and if your passion for Christ(ian music) can be channeled into improving the articles covered by this project, so much the better.
I am not usually active around here. I like listening to certain Christian music (esp. Phatfish, etc) but I am not knowledgeable on the subject. However, I am available for opinions, AfD comments, template fixing, and similar tasks...
EdJogg (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your help is greatly needed, and I welcome you! There are few Wikipedians that actually understand CCM. It is very important that we prove the notability of CCM artists, because articles from well-known artists occasionally get speedy deleted (without discussion). Fortunately I am now an administrator, so we are able to retrieve the deleted history of these articles to create a greater article to prove their notability. So it is extremely important to use citations to prove chart success. I have greatly expanded Brian's new article on Jimmy Needham because it was an easy target to speedy delete. Another thing to be extremely careful of it uploading images. I recommend you to upload an image under 2 circumstances: 1) You took it yourself, and 2) You convinced a person that took the image themself to license it under an acceptable Creative Commons license. It actually is possible to email the artists or record labels themselves, but there is a special process with specific wording that needs to be present in the email before it is accepted. I can be more specific if you want to pursuit this option. A third legal option is to upload fair use images. Be careful, the fair use image process is difficult. Everything has to be right with a fair use rationale for each and every article that uses the image. It can't be replaceable with a free use image (options 1 & 2). A very slippery slope indeed! I look forward to working with you.Royalbroil 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would both of you go three sections up an comment on if WAY FM meets your criteria as a national network? Rotation on a national network is a criteria to prove that an artist is notable. Please start a thread if you know any other national networks that can be used to meet this criteria. Royalbroil 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed WikiProjects merger?

[edit]

I've noticed that there are several independent WikiProjects related to Christian music all with very small memberships (or at least only a few active participants). I would like to propose to the WikiProject the possible merger of these projects into one WikiProject (probably entitled Christian music WikiProject with task forces for each genre (Contemporary Christian music, Southern Gospel, urban contemporary gospel, etc.). The other option is to make Christian music as a whole a task force under the Christianity Wikiproject. Please share your thoughts on this issue on the discussion page on the Christian music portal. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a wonderful idea. It would centalize everything and make finding information easier for the readers as well. I have long thought that a merger would fix this problem. Count me in! Junebug52 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think to merge CCM, all the Gospel projects, Praise and Worship (which doesn't have a project) and others fitting the bill into a "Christian Music" WP would be swell. --rm 'w avu 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Looks like we have a consensus from the major project editors. I took information and formats from the four main pages to start the project. It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music. I haven't done categories and Task Force Pages yet because I figured there would be discussion needed. Please feel free to edit what's been done as you all see fit. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, this Wikiproject should be closed, and redirect to Wikiproject Christian Music -- Contemporary Christian Task Force. Hope to see you all working over there. -- PEPSI2786talk 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

[edit]

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) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Request for comment on Biographies of living people

[edit]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

[edit]
List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christian_music/Contemporary_Christian_music/Archive_1&oldid=1251465624"