Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT musicians may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Arena rock - Genre or not?

See discussion here. Johnny338 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Lorde/archive1

This FLC could do with a few more comments, if anyone's interested. Cheers, Adabow (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI and Resume problem at Talk:Jon Lindsay (musician)

I added a "like resume" tag to the article, and removed the category "Activists" as non-consequential and not supported by significant sources in the article. It was reverted by User:Emcochoclab (see artist's band label for possible WP:COI) with the summary "(Lindsay IS a highly verifiable activist - removing that was vandalism. He is also not just a "musician"; he initially gained prominence in his solo career specifically as a recording artist)". Emcochoclab appears to be a WP:SPA and Jon Lindsay (musician) appears to be entirely the work of User:Oneuppr up till 2011 when Emcochoclab started editing. I guess the musician probably is borderline notable, but as it stands its heavily puffed. Can someone take a look please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

'xxxx (year) in British music' articles

This is probably only of interest to British Wikipedia editors, but I would like to get some sort of consensus for the format of the year end charts in these articles - some are in list form, some are tables; some are top 20, others are top 40 or top 50; some have sales figures included, although as far as I am aware there were no official yearly sales figures released before 1994, and I don't know where to get sources to verify these figures (the UK music trade magazine Music Week which publishes the year end charts doesn't give sales figures for all the records, usually just the top 10). I prefer simple lists and probably top 40 myself, but I'm happy to go along with the consensus. The biggest problem of all is that almost none of the charts are properly referenced – I've done a bit of research and now have proper citations to put to most of these charts, but it would be good to get them standardised... any opinions or advice appreciated, from Brits or anyone else. Richard3120 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Song article titling.

There is a discussion going on at WP:SONGS regarding article titles. If anybody wants to tootle along and make a comment or two here, it would be much appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Project participants may also be interested in several current relevant requested moves for song/album articles:
I may have missed a couple. As you can see, the appropriateness of disambiguating songs and albums has been much discussed lately. A lot of the same folks have been contributing over and over (myself included), so it would be good to get fresh perspectives. Dohn joe (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Concert tours etc.

Hey all, I have a (deletionist) question for you. I'm looking at Warped Tour 2014 and all I see is a directory, a schedule. Personally, even if the actual dates for this band or the other could be verified independently, I see no reason whatsoever for why Wikipedia should contain this information which, as far as I can tell, is available on (if not copied from) the organization's website. Thus, it falls foul, like totally foul, of WP:NOTDIR, and in the case of the 2014 tour I think it's plainly promotion. The same applies to the articles on the earlier tours, such as Warped Tour 2013--which is nothing but a schedule of things that have already happened. I'm tempted to slash 95% of that article. Also, I thought I'd post here rather than on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Concert Tours since there is very little traffic there. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I believe the ledes (and only the ledes) from Warped Tour 2013 (rewritten for past tense) and Warped Tour 2014 could be merged to Warped Tour, leaving redirects in place of these articles. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's been mostly written by a couple of over-enthusiastic fans who misunderstand what Wikipedia is about: I don't think there was any deliberate intention to promote but as Gyrofrog says above, you could cut out the artist line-up and just merge a paragraph into the main article about Warped Tour. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks more like an over-enthusiastic editor took it upon himself to merge several articles that have been up for years without even putting it up for a vote to me. DX927 (talk)
I agree with this statement, I just reverted all the blanking of pages since they have been up for years and most of the information is either lost or hard to dig up nowadays. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Or herself. I've also started redirecting those compilation albums: they're nothing but tracklists. Anyway, whenever there was relevant content I merged that to the main article. DX927, we're not going to take a vote on every edit. You are welcome to challenge it, but it seems I have a bit of consensus behind me already--thank you Gyrofrog and Richard3120. I did receive a lovely message from one of the fans. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That's hilarious, it says on the Warped Tour website that set times aren't fixed until the day of the festival and will be posted at the festival... such a big fan he didn't even bother to look. So if that's the case, there's no guarantee that any of the dates and times listed were correct anyway, so there was no point in them being on Wikipedia. You're such a "roter", Drmies. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess I was too much of an "over-enthusiatic fan" to help contributing those articles. But it's whatever now. The articles are pointless to even be brought back again if that ever happens. It's ruined. Glencoco8995 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Merging the compilation albums to the main article is pretty petty as well and an abuse of power, wow. 2 people is a consensus now? If my math is correct there's also 2 people here who disagree, which would mean there is in fact no consensus at all. Articles are supposed to be expanded on to be made better, not just taken away. I didn't bother signing in, don't make it seem like I'm just adding this from my IP to make it seem like there's more people against you. 208.118.20.158 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel like that, but if there aren't any actual set times posted until the day of the festival, how can Wikipedia include any alleged set times without any verifiable sources? And that's not what Wikipedia is for anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Set times were never posted on any article. If you actually viewed the articles before agreeing that they should be removed you would have seen that. 208.118.20.158 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I did look at the article – there weren't set times, but it was for the most part a very long list of all the bands appearing and the dates they were appearing at... again, this is not what Wikipedia is for, a complete list of bands appearing and on what days. People can go to the Warped Tour web page for that, there's no point simply replicating what appears on there. Richard3120 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No, they can't actually. It's great to see people have no idea of what they're talking about. First you said set times were listed, when they weren't. Then you said what was in the article was on the website, when the only thing on the website is the bands and what dates they're playing. Stage placements for each day since they get changed a lot, are not listed anywhere on the website. The fact remains that one editor felt the need to merge several articles without following the proper channels and then once there was even the slightest bit of opposition removed even more articles clearly out of spite. This includes merging an article of an unrelated compilation album simply because they had released an alternate version that was released on the Warped Tour without touching any of the other albums in that series. This is hardly the way to be acting. I would revert the merges but clearly there's no point since they're just going to be put back anyway. DX927 (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Erm, I didn't say set times were listed on the article actually, I asked how set times could be posted without any confirmation, I was referring to the dates that the sets would be played on... but that was my fault, I left it open to misinterpretation and I apologise. But the majority of the article WAS a list of bands and the dates they were appearing at, which shouldn't have been there. In fact there IS a List of Warped Tour lineups by year article, but the problem with articles like these is that they are unreferenced, so there is no link or citation to anywhere where these line-ups can be confirmed, especially for past years... I'm sure you can see how without verifiable references the article is open to abuse and disagreements. As for the rest, you may have a point about the compilation album – if you look at my original post, I only wrote about cutting out the artist line-up as I felt this was the superfluous information, I said nothing about removing the rest of the article, just merging it into the main article.
My remark about "overenthusiastic editors" was not meant to be a slight on you or anyone else, I'm sorry if it came across as condescending. I did assume good faith and believed (and still believe) that you are not trying to promote the tour in any official capacity, just that you are fans that wanted to see a good article on Wikipedia about it. I'd agree that this hasn't been handled very well, and I hope that you and Drmies can resolve this between you without it having to go to mediation – see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Richard3120 (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, it appears since the redirects were challenged, those articles should go to AfD so community consensus could be achieved. Then if a problem between the editors continues then DR would be the place. STATic message me! 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is at AfD. I don't see a dispute that needs settling: DX927 is all up in arms about the proper channels or whatever, but hey, first of all WP:BRD urges us to be bold; second, I notified the relevant project; third, editors agreed. We're not going to have an RfC or a vote over every single redirect, and I have followed all the relevant protocols, including AfD. Finally, I suppose it's worthwhile citing the relevant notability guidelines from WP:NCONCERT:

Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

And one last thing, it seems to me that Encmetalhead, who thought they could read me the riot act about how Wikipedia works, has fallen foul of Wikipedia:Canvassing by notifying a select group of editors. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
At least I let users know what is happening unlike a certain user who just blanked a page without notifying anyone, talking on the respective talk pages, AND having a consensus decision here. If they agree with you so be it, but at least they are notified and can have the chance to have their voice heard, regardless which side they are on, unlike when noone's voice except yours was heard when you blanked the page without warning. As evidenced by this page right here you should've followed the proper procedurals to begin with. Now you just have to let the chips fall as they may. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"Unlike a certain user"--use adult language please. "This page right here" is where I posted a notification in the first place. Look up: it's right there. I started this thread. A neutral place, not the talk pages of a bunch of hand-picked editors. What do you want, a handwritten letter per flying pony mail? "Dear Metalhead, this is to let you know that I am considering removing something totally irrelevant, stupid, insensitive, and unverified that you reinstated in an article?" Drmies (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I just find this really upsetting that I was not even notified that this was happening. There was not even a notice for deletion or merging for the articles at all. I would challenge it if there was a notice first. Glencoco8995 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You can challenge if you like or, better yet, you can present an argument based on policy that says it's a good idea to have an encyclopedic article that's nothing more (nothing more) than a schedule of bands. As for the compilation albums, please read WP:NALBUMS--and then read WP:AGF and take that "abuse of power" complaint back, thank you very much. (One could, of course, try to play it smart and make a separate article on those compilation albums, providing some relevant and properly sourced text.) Drmies (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. If you are buying a ticket for "stage B", and the promoter is unwilling to tell you what acts will be performing there, tough. WP also does not take brunch reservations, or fix flat tires. If I'm being a jerk, fine--don't complain, make an argument. I have--on occasion--been turned around. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, Encmetalhead saw fit to revert the lot. I pointed them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2012, where you all are welcome to weigh in. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Pop music

I have opened a proposal for a WikiProject dedicated to pop music. Feel free to leave comments or question. Erick (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Music At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy

For some odd reason, Rewind (Rascal Flatts album), the physical copy, credits some songs as being produced by "Jay DeMarcus and Rascal Flatts". However, Jay DeMarcus is one-third of Rascal Flatts, so the credit is pointlessly redundant. Should the article reflect the redundancy? Are there any other instances where a song or work is credited to both "Group Member and Band That Group Member Is Part Of"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just leave it how it is, seeing how he is part of Rascal Flatts. I have seen this before with an album, though can't recall which. NYSMy talk page 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
if that is your opinion then you need to remove the three being credited outside of the group as you said that is "Redundancy" which is bull. 184.16.71.34 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Bumping since the page is getting edit warred. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said to TenPoundHammer, I could careless if Jay DeMarcus is Father Christmas, it is stated he is credited outside the band as producer and they have to explain why he is. It is confusing to people by not posting it because anyone can look at the album and see his credited as a producer outside the band and when they look on here they are going to see how idiotic Wikipedia is because someone put their personal opinion into it and instead of placing the information as it appears on the album decides to edit war with thousands of IP address, stoops to the level of name calling and telling people to "piss off" and Wikipedia wonders why colleges have no respect for or allow people to source Wikipedia. This kind of behaviour and personal opinion is why. Post it as it appears not what you think should be done. 50.121.36.219 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Also if that is redundant then it is redundant to credit them outside the band in the written credits, or as writers at all if they wrote one of the songs, I mean if we want to go down this ridiculous road as to what is "redundant" then if let us go all the way then if an artist is also credited as a writer and a producer on a song they should not be posted in the track listing at all. See how stupid it this redundancy claim is? It is no different then any other artist Jay possibly did some additional producing more then the band did in a whole or maybe he asked to be credited outside the band, did you ever think of that? Either way it is not anyone's place to remove it or make the page look stupid by posting wrongly but as I said if "redundancy" is the route that wants to be played then it needs to be played 100% not just in part. 50.121.36.219 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a clue in this particular song, but generally when I do see this kind of credit it means that one has written the lyrics while the band (as a whole) has written the music. Lucky old Jay, he's probably already got 67.66% of the songwriter revenue. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability check

Hey all, I'm hoping to get a notability check on Jordyn Taylor, as I am contemplating an AfD. Based on what I can tell from WP:BAND, there isn't a whole lot of justification for an article yet. According to Discogs, she has had one track on the Confessions of a Shopaholic soundtrack, which conceivably could make her notable. And I found this item, which indicates she has recorded two albums, but I'm not familiar with Star Base records to know if it meets the criteria for a major label or a hungry indie. Per WP:BEFORE I looked to see if there was any significant coverage at Google News or Google Books, but I didn't find anything. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Madonna (entertainer) to Madonna

Interested editors may wish to discuss here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:World music by language

Category:World music by language has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Little Mix Discography - sales

Users LittleMixCroatia and Joedunn98 have been adding sales worldwide and by country for all records on Little Mix discography. I tagged them with {{Citation needed}} as I feel these figures shouldn't be quoted without some verified source to back them up, and Joedunn98 has simply removed the tags. I'm sure he's just a fan, but what do other editors think, should the figures stay without any citations? As far as I can tell, they have been sourced from the Digital Spy website or the fan site Little Mix Daily, which simply reproduces the figures from Digital Spy. The Digital Spy figures would appear to be simply estimates, with no official confirmation, and I don't know whether they have come from the website's writers or fans on the forums. Anybody want to look into it and confirm whether this is the case or not? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Ok, LittleMixCroatia has updated the citations with, as I suspected, references to figures taken from the forums of the Digital Spy website. As this will be user-generated content, and there is no indication where the DS forum user has obtained the figures himself/herself, I would guess that this qualifies as an unusable citation, would I be right? Richard3120 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely unreliable. I would revert these edits on sight. I have reverted to a previous version of the article. Sales figures for singles are generally not included, as they vary in their availability and aren't updated very often. Adabow (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Aaaand Little Mix Croatia has simply re-added all the sales figures again... sigh. And the photo which violated copyright which is why it was removed in the first place. Judging by this message left on another editor's talk page, he/she appears to disagree with WP:OWN. I will leave them a polite message and give him/her a chance to come up with some verifiable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh... judging by this comment they seem to simply not care about verifying whether the figures are real or not. I've left another message on Little Mix Croatia's talk page. Richard3120 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Charts: Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines

See discussion here. Semitransgenic talk. 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Help please from a classical music expert about an article at Afc

Hello, could someone who knows their classical music – and/or their music libraries – please take a look at this submission Draft:Répertoire_international_de_la_presse_musicale and give a view. I've now established basic notability from this: International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres, but the article needs better sources and ideally some guidance from someone who knows their stuff. Any advice about how best to structure the article gratefully received – particularly managing the very long bibliography. Many thanks. Libby norman (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mention of child sexual abuse cases at the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Removal of child sexual abuse cases. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC of general interest to this group.

See Talk:Eagles (band). Thank you in advance for your participation. --Jayron32 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Christgau - always good for the ratings box?

Now, I understand he is of quite a bit of importance in terms of music press rating. I'm not denying that at all. BUT, at the same time, I recognize several of his reviews are extremely uninformative, in that they are merely a quip or a joke with a rating attached. These are of little value to a prospective reader who may wish to know about the album's sound, and about its "strengths" and "weaknesses"(of course, I understand Wikipedia itself is not a consumer guide). I know opinions are subjective, but I feel that just as albums don't immediately get relevance by being by a famous artist, neither should reviews. Of course, a possible can of worms being opened here is what would make a review "good enough" - some humour is obviously acceptable. I'm just concerned that a well-written review by someone from a (lower but still notable) source may be left out in favor of a random phrase with a rating attached.

Side note: one other particular review that comes to mind in terms of "dubious value" is Pitchfork's take on Zaireeka, with the reviewer admitting he didn't give the record a proper listen. P4K is obviously relevant and I'd venture to say that review has gained enough relevance for mentioning in the article's text, but is it really professionally written? 152.231.9.146 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Using {{Certification}} in {{Certification Table Entry}}

Being the bold editor that I am, I went ahead and tweaked {{Certification Table Entry}} such that its award parameter would use {{Certification}} in order to display discs along with the text instead of just plain text for illustration. Within minutes this tweak was reverted by HĐ, justifying the revert by saying the images "are sooooo annoying" in his/her edit summary (haven't found out the user's gender yet). Personally I don't think that's a good enough reason to revert the changes I made, but instead of getting into a potential and needless edit war with this person I've come here to seek consensus on whether {{Certification}} should be used to illustrate the awards or whether we should just stick to plain text. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Davykamanzi, I think this change is responsible for the 200+ extra entries that just popped up in Category:Articles with missing files. The file File:Platinum+Gold.png does not exist but is now trying to be used in a long list of articles (list here). There may be other images not available for the new change as well, but I think this looks like the worse contender. So if your going to stay with the new format, can someone create this asap.
  • As its a few hours later and I'm now home, I created the file mentioned above. KylieTastic (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Davykamanzi, I discovered I had an unlucky first random sample, this image is not the main issue. The missing images are because the data is duff! Many have the award as something like "2 x Platinum", rather than have a number field. Others I've found with N/A or - in the award field. So 200+ articles need to be fixed up, or the templates changed (either revert change, or change {{Certification}} to not try to use the name as the default image) KylieTastic (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the reaction here, I've updated the template to not display images at all.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kww:, may I please ask if you can include a refname parameter in the template? That will be a huge help and I'm sure everyone here will approve of it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing Broken But My Heart and Talk:Better Than Today

Requested move discussions still ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

AF: Dahlia's Tear

Article Dahlia's Tear was proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahlia's Tear). You are welcome to participate in discussion to establish if article can exist further on wikipedia. --XXN (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Metaphony (musical harmony)

Please will someone versed in harmony offer this draft a review? Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Year in music - what constitutes a "Top Hit"?

There is a section in some of the year articles for "Top Hits" and some of these sections have been tagged for lack of clarity. What would people feel about setting an objective criterion - something like "Must have been in the top 10/top 3" in at least one country's official chart"? Deb (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Since they would need sources, yes something to that effect. Perhaps some text explaining the notability of the songs too (i.e: this song was a top ten hit for whatever amount of time). This sounds like it could be a really endless list however. I'm sure someone else could build better criteria than me.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say a "hit" would at least have to chart on a national chart, and a "top hit" would make it even more elite. Maybe top three on a genre chart (eg. Billboard Rock singles), and top 10 on a generic chart (eg. Billboard Top 40). A top hit is the most elite of hit songs.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the policy regarding using complete song lyrics on articles? Does the copyright entail that you must wait a certain number of years after the composer has died or a number of years after the song was published? If a user could please link me or give a quick answer, I'd really appreciate that. Upjav (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by...

Are articles like List of songs recorded by AC/DC encouraged? This one is fairly poor, and before I bother to clean it up, I was wondering if this kind of article is acceptable or should instead be deleted. Any thoughts would be welcome. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been approximately 200 "Lists of Songs recorded by XXX" created in the past 2 years. The question is whether they add to the discography page (if there is one) and does it add to WP? Firstly it should be noted that "Songs recorded by ..." is not related to a discography, which is about "records released" Recorded songs could and should include, for example, unreleased songs (if verifiable) and other information not usually associated with a discography, i.e. where recorded, written by, first performed, first released, which album and probably more. In the case of AC/DC I suggest (without checking), that this is all more than possible. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a lot more than I suspected! As it stands the AC/DC page is very limited, but information such as recording location/date, unreleased songs etc – it's all out there and verifiable. I will tackle it in due course. Thanks for your reply :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Mayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:I Like It Like That

Discussion of page move ongoing; join in. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential concerns with a list article

Hi. I have just blocked a user for adding content without sources; because of this, I do not feel like I should engage on content with him. However, noting that higher on the page he had been warned about adding sources that don't actually support the content he's placing, I took a glance at a few of the sources used in List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé and while the sources I looked at do support the content, I'm really unsure about the content. For instance, it is sourced that Beyonce is "Bing's Most-Searched Celebrity", but is this really an award or nomination? It wasn't really a competition, was it? Similarly, Guinness Book of World's Records evidently names her and her husband as a power couple; is that an award? The article is littered with such information. While this may be standard for such articles, I'm unsure due to my lack of involvement in the area, and, again, since I blocked the editor I do not feel I can become involved. I wanted to make a note in case there is an issue with bloat and somebody wanted to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the ones you have named above, I would remove all the Emmy Awards relating to the Superbowl half-time entertainment: the nominations are for CBS and various technical staff at the network, not the performer. Similarly I think all the awards related to her fragrance can go, as the awards are made to the fragrance company (Coty Beauty) rather than Beyoncé herself. I'd also question the Rolling Stone section in the music section: these are placings for her songs in a critics' list for best songs of the 2000s, not "awards" as such. Richard3120 (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardcore country

Is somebody acquainted with country music? In fact I've read about "hardcore country" a couple of times in texts and I'm not sure what is meant exactly (my mother tongue is Dutch). Is it honkytonk, or the old fashioned country music (19020s, 1930s), general country music (nothing more, just that), or something else? I hope someone knows. Ymnes (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymnes, "hardcore country" is a genre that flourished in the 1960s, with some of the key singers in the genre including George Jones (who evolved) and Merle Haggard (who pretty much didn't). It was heavily influenced by honkytonk and gave birth to outlaw country in the 1970s, which is a form of hardcore country incorporating more rock and blues.Michael Erlewine (1997). All Music Guide to Country: The Experts' Guide to the Best Recordings in Country Music. Miller Freeman. pp. XXI–. ISBN 978-0-87930-475-1. It enjoyed a revival in the "New Traditionalist" country music school of the 1980s-1990s, with artists like George Strait, Randy Travis and Dwight Yokum.Vladimir Bogdanov; Chris Woodstra; Stephen Thomas Erlewine (2001). All Music Guide: The Definitive Guide to Popular Music. Backbeat Books/All Media Guide. p. 600. ISBN 978-0-87930-627-4. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, thank you very much for this comlete answer! I have the Encyclopedia of Country Music at home, but it wasn't in there. Thanks for the reference material as well!. Ymnes (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I think it would be a good idea, when you put your description into a new article here on Wikipedia (I experimented a bit on the disambiguation page, overhere). I will be writing an article on it in Dutch as well, as soon as I have 'All Music Guide to Country' at home (I just ordered it). Regards, Ymnes (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability concern

Another one

Notability concern again

Andy Leek

Hi guys, I don't have much time for wikipedia these days but I've noticed the Andy Leek article has major issues regarding neutrality. It's been edited by the accountS User:Acrobatmedia (Andy Leek's record company?) and User:Andyleek. It's a bit of a mess. I've done the best I can by cleaning it up a little. If anybody wants to keep an eye on it and edit it that would be appreciated. Englishrose (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Joe Walsh

Hi, could anyone please help me make the article Joe Walsh, a good one, it has been a good article nominee many times but failed every time. Is there anybody out there willing to help? - I'm willing to give out barnstars for helpful edits. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maybe You're Right

This received no commentary during its first week and has been relisted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"?

There is a consensus to follow the definition of singer-songwriter in the reliable sources available. It is also useful to remember the distinction between singer-songwriter and singer and songwriter. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This began as a discussion on Mariah Carey's page where we discussed whether she could be afforded the job title or term "singer-songwriter" in her lead sentence. The term, according to the lead of that Wikpedia article, refers to:

Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition. Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano; both the compositions and the arrangements are written primarily as solo vehicles, with the material angled toward topical issues—sometimes political, sometimes introspective, sensitive, romantic, and confessional.

Several artists are listed on the page including Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, John Lennon and Dolly Parton. The question now is whether this term should extend to contemporary artists such as Mariah Carey, who co-write and co-produce all of their work, along with other artists, songwriters or producers. If yes or no, what criteria should constitute the use of such a term? And, if it is possible, could the decision here be added into MOS guidelines (or something similar) so we know how to approach this in the future. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 22:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Further reading
Comments
  • I'm on the fence here, but should note that the other term being used on Mariah's page was "singer" and "songwriter" unhyphenated. From what Jenn has said on talk pages of this and Rihanna, a singer and songwriter is distinct from singer-songwriter. Details can be found on their respective talk pages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Singer-songwriter is a very specific genre of music, and should not be thrown around willy-nilly for everyone who both provides vocals and writes songs. Carly Simon, Ed Sheeran, Tori Amos, Tracy Chapman and Howie Day are legitimately singer-songwriters. Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga sing pop music, and also write songs. The Lady Gaga article handles this well, as it says " American singer, songwriter, and actress". It does NOT say she's a "singer-songwriter", because she isn't. She's a singer, and she's a songwriter. And she sings her own songs. But she doesn't fit into the genre of singer-songwriter. The hyphenated term should be used specifically for artists that fit the genre itself, not merely for people who provide both vocals and writing. --Jayron32 02:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all of above - but that's just my personal opinion, if there are reputable sources that say "singer-songwriter" then that might well be right, irrespective of what I think. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The two Allmusic definitions are apt, and they agree with many other published descriptions of the singer-songwriter genre from the 1960s through today. It definitely does not include big splashy pop productions where the production is more important than the song. A month ago I went through and corrected a bunch of articles related to Donna Summer, ones in which an IP from Mexico had been adding "singer-songwriter".[1][2][3][4][5][6] I found that the problem extended to other pop artists as well.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] I also nominated for deletion three categories that I thought were null sets in that they contradicted themselves: Category:Rock singer-songwriters, Category:Rhythm and blues singer-songwriters, and Category:Pop singer-songwriters. (You can still vote on these discussions.) So I'm pretty active with regard to my narrow interpretation of the meaning of "singer-songwriter" which I hold to be part of the American folk tradition exemplified by Bob Dylan, where the song is personal and introspective, or the song advocates social or political change. Note that a musical artist who is not otherwise a part of the singer-songwriter tradition may write one or more songs which have been classified as part of that tradition. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The title singer-songwriter should maintain its distinction as an individual who writes and sings their own music and not be broadened as to water down the term. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a well-defined term and only applies to acoustic folk-music performers.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? So you wouldn't say you could apply the term to the likes of, say, Elton John or Ed Sheeran? Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. There are some acoustic country performers I would probably stretch it to.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify where your cut-off point stood. I think there might be some artists, such as Carole King or Neil Diamond where other editors would disagree with your strict definition for singer-songwriters. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While she is definitely singer AND a songwriter, the connotation of singer/songwriter brings to mind people like John Mayer or James Taylor or Patty Griffin because of the history of the way the term developed, much like I wouldn't consider John Mayer an R/B artist, even though his music is rhythmic and influenced by the blues. The term has a connotation that is greater than its denotation.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The above contributors make good points, and I find their arguments for the narrower definition persuasive. However, I did some of my own digging.
Dictionaries 1 2 3 prefer a more generic interpretation: singer-songwriters are people who sing and write their own songs.
However, page 98 of this book stresses individualism; this encyclopaedia on page 201 defines the term as "a self-accompanied solo artist"; and "investment [in] and ownership of the song" is important according to page 13 of this book. These three sources would all seem to lean toward the narrower definition. As such, I say use the narrower definition. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources. The folk and folk-adjacent artists whose names are being tossed around in this discussion are certainly singer-songwriters, and as such many, many reliable sources refer to them thusly. That should be the standard for classifying professions and genres. Our job isn't to define "singer-songwriter" and then decide whether this or that artist falls within the boundaries we set. Secondary sources do that. As a tertiary source, we summarize the conclusions of secondary sources. Lagrange613 02:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

Input requested at Talk:In Case We Die (mixtape)#Requested move. After an initial reversion, the mover nominated the article through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process, but no one has commented there since the discussion began on October 19. Please help us figure out a consensus title for the article. Dekimasuよ! 01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

GAR

I have put up Darius Rucker for Good Article reassessment. If you're interested in discussing the matter, please look here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Need additional opinions regarding songwriters

An editor recently removed songwriters from the writer category tree without input from anyone, thus some other opinions are needed in order to develop a consensus. Please see the discussion here: Category talk:Songwriters. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Charts

Can someone help me adding the charts to Mississippi (song) from the USA (I guess Billboard Hot 100 and/or Hot Country Singles), Canada, Australia, South Africa, France and Spain? I have added yet what I could find. As a matter of fact, the charts listed this morning were not from this song. Thank you in advance! (also if you can only add one country or so) Ymnes (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It made no. 2 in Australia – I can't find any evidence so far that it charted in France, Canada or the USA. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find it for the US either, but I have always believed so. With so many number 1 listings, it's quite unbelievable too that it didn't reacht the American charts. Ymnes (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge with source list with WikiProject Albums/Sources?

Should we merge or redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Sources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? The album project list is active and maintained, and far more extensive, while the music page hasn't been edited since 2007, and is highly specific to only a small number of magazine issues out of thousands upon thousands of published works.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

FAC for Taiko

Hey music folks, the article for Japanese drums called Taiko is up as a Featured Article Candidate, and as the nominator, your participation and comments there would be much appreciated. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Band/Artist MoS

I cannot seem to find a manual of style for band and musician articles. Is there one? I have noticed a tendency for band articles to include timelines, which is great, but they are being added with headings. Sometimes they're under the members section. Sometimes they're at the same level as the members section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Carrie Underwood

Hey , I have tried to start a portal for the Country singer Carrie Underwood but I don't have the skills , I hope people on here could help me with it. The reason it has a significance is because Carrie has transformed into one of the greatest female country singers and having 14 country number 1s and counting. I really hope that we can help with making this portal. I also would love someone to update the Portal:Country Music as well thank you. 

Vip Country (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Vip Country

Classical training

I have recently discovered that Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining what it means to be "classically trained". I have started the article in my sandbox here User:Boguslavmandzyuk/Sandbox/Classical training (music), which I intend to move to the mainspace when it is ready. Particularly, I will need to find actual reliable sources that back up the information that we all already know. Feel free to add to it and help me out. Any help is appreciated.--BoguSlav 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling singles of the 1970s in the United Kingdom

There is a discussion on the talk page for the above article as to how to improve it – in a nutshell, the current list in the article has been copied from a chart enthusiast's own sales estimates... very detailed and well researched estimates, but nonetheless completely unofficial, unsourced, and original research, so it has to go. The trouble is deciding what to replace it with: there was an official chart of the 1970s produced by the chart compilers of the time, the British Market Research Bureau, but compared with other charts produced at the same time, and indeed with the Official Chart Company's own current list of million sellers, the BMRB chart appears to be the most inaccurate of the lot and has been widely discredited since. If you are interested in adding to the discussion, please read through Talk:List of best-selling singles of the 1970s in the United Kingdom (there's a lot of it!) – any comments or opinions are welcome. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability: FEMM

FEMM was originally a redirect to a music-unrelated thing, but it has been transformed in an article about a band. I know nothing about music related policies and am busy with Wikivoyage, so I will let you check it, thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Vocal dynamo

Hello! I want to ask your help. What means the term "vocal dynamo" (for Russian understanding)? Thank you! - 37.144.121.240 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

I'm assuming it means the singer has a powerful voice. Or it's just synonymous for "good singer." Either way, it's a phrase that probably shouldn't appear in Wikipedia, unless it's backed up with a source (e.g. "Kurt Loder has described the singer as a 'vocal dynamo'..."). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious edit

I'm not very familiar with Music articles, nor with categories, but isn't this edit to Category:Aerosmith personnel an explicit PR edit? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FoCuSandLeArN, I came here because I noticed your question about using rollback for the edit on Voceditenore's page. It should be reverted, but preferably not by rollback, as it's clearly not intended as vandalism. It's better to use the "undo" function and leave an explanatory edit summary, which I have now done. It's promotional all right, and also utterly misplaced on a category page. It would be helpful if you'd explain the problems to the user on their page, FoCuSandLeArN — they may well be too inexperienced to read my edit summary. (I'm just going to bed myself — no energy left.) Thanks for the alert. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
Right-o! Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Myspace}}

FYI, Template:Myspace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Double A-sides

Just wanted to check – I think the policy for articles on double A-sided singles is to have a separate article for each side of the single? I ask because there are several singles by McFly which I notice are a single article with title "first side"/"second side". These are awkward examples because they are notable enough to have their own article (several of these singles made number 1 in the UK and other European countries" but splitting them into two articles provides little information that differs between the two sides... they do after all share track listings and chart positions. Any thoughts? Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian band at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammer 67 could use some input. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

synthesizers sources

hi! i'm interested in working on articles about Synthesizers. a lot of them are in pretty bad shape. i would have posted this in a more specific project, but instruments and synthesizers both seem sort of inactive.

i've been looking for good sources, and a website i use a lot just for my own personal reference is vintagesynth.com. i'm having a hard time determining whether it's a reliable source for WP or not. it includes a lot of basic technical information about many synthesizers (polyphony, memory, timbrality, etc.), plus short write-ups which give some historical information, etc. as well as a list of artists that have apparently used the synthesizer. i don't really intend to use the lists of artists, but i was wondering if anyone had any insights on using it as a reliable source for the other information. here is a sample page for reference, it's pretty easy to navigate the site though. although VSE has active forums, the content is apparently not user-generated. i might send them an email to get a better idea of their writing and editing process and where their information comes from. ~ Boomur [☎] 03:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch/*.vintagesynth.com and Hay's tool show that vintagesynth.com is already used on 191 Wikipedia pages with 241 links. I think that site is too much peppered with ads, but its content seems well researched and thorough. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thanks, i'll continue using it! might still send an email in to get some better citation info. ~ Boomur [☎] 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it to the RS list. In fact, to do so I created a whole new section for instrument-specific publications.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on quotations in an album's critical reception section

Please see here for discussion. --Lapadite (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request on Commons with several instruments

There is a deletion request on Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Krishnendu16. The request features several pictures of instruments but I cannot identify any of the instruments and thus if they are useful pictures, or how to name said pictures. Any help would be appreciated. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

IMEA Award (notable? scam??)

"International+Music+and+Entertainment+Association" evidently not the same as the German award see IMEA dab, so does this International Music and Entertainment Association really exist? I notice the website is looking for "volunteer workers" ... see the Lexi Noel AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC) The International Music and Entertainment Association does exist and is not a scam. It is a non-profit organization ran by volunteers (like most non-profits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30B:825B:7060:ED11:F516:F4C1:2C12 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

B-sides

There is a discussion going at WP Songs whether b-sides should be classified as singles. All are welcome. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A topic of interest

There is a discussion about the manual of style for member sections on band articles being had at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Band articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Producing credit categories on song articles

It has come to my attention that several songs, which the band Led Zeppelin happened to cover and of which Led Zeppelin were not the original recording artist, have been given the respective Category:Song recordings by producer (in this case, that is Jimmy Page). Now, with other songs across Wikipedia, it would seem that only production categories pertaining to the original recording are included. This would seem to make the most sense, otherwise 1) we currently have a whole load of song articles that are missing categories of the various producers that have produced versions of the song, and 2) there would be multiple producers listed for a lot of these songs due to the various versions, hence cluttering the categories section. That wouldn't seem to make sense. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. One has only to look at List of songs covered by the Beatles to see George Martin credited on many songs, not originally recorded by the Beatles. Far more songs than by Led Zeppelin. WorkArtMusic (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Your example does not demonstrate anything. Could you please be more specific, such as by pointing out a few songs that the Beatles covered, which have the George Martin category on them? - Bossanoven (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, start at the first one, Anna (Go to Him) and work down the list - excluding the BBC recordings. It's not rocket science for most people. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Apart from Richhoncho's example there is also "Chains (Cookies song)", "Boys (The Shirelles song)", "Baby It's You", "Twist and Shout", "Till There Was You", etc. It's not too difficult to spot them. All of these song were not originally recorded by the Beatles. The claim only original producers should be credited is not supported by any policy nor by the majority of articles I've seen on Wikipedia. The removal of a producer credit from thousands of song articles, I don't see as very constructive either. WorkArtMusic (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you've demonstrated one band's catalogue. Does this ring true for other artists? Neither of you responded to my points. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC) And what of all the live released renditions of music? That is produced, too. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We have demonstrated on Led Zeppelin and the Beatles here, a couple more songs for you to consider, I've Got You Under My Skin and The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine (Anymore). There are many other instances although probably not as many as there should be. I might add that the whole category was renamed from "Songs produced by" to "Song recordings produced by" for a very good reason. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I am wondering, though, why would we treat these categories differently than the Category:Songs by year that go on each page? - Bossanoven (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it is songs by year, not recordings by year. The category says, "Songs written or first produced in 20XX" That's clear enough, isn't it? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Touché. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I don't typically edit music related articles, so I wanted to know whether allmusic.com (and other similar online sources) are considered reliable here or not. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Check out WP:ALBUM/SOURCE for a list of pre-approved sources by the community for use as reliable sources in music-related Wikipedia articles. Allmusic is one of the most reliable and all-encompassing music sources. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, friend. Much obliged. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Question: in the comments of Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCE # Allmusic states "do not use genre sidebar". Is there a quick way of extracting genre info from Allmusic.com? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You have to take the time to read the prose. If reading the short paragraphs is not quick for you, then, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

On a related note (I think), I noticed that AllMusic is listed under "Online only," while the related (or at least previously-related) All Music Guide books aren't listed anywhere on the page. (In fact, there isn't any listing of any books; perhaps it would be too exhaustive?) Shouldn't/couldn't AllMusic be listed under "Online and print?" (EDIT: though I guess that's a question for WP:ALBUM) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Books are generally considered reliable sources with the exception of self-published titles, so my guess is that it was deemed unnecessary to include them there. Few books contain a lot of album reviews (although I have some that do), but there are many that contain useful information. --Michig (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Victor Talking Machine Company

Someone is inserting wrong info regarding the Victor Talking Machine Company. A new unrelated entity calling itself the Victor Talking Machine Company was formed last year and a problem editor keeps treating the two companies as one and the same. Please monitor the Victor Talking Machine article and revert erroneous postings. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I get some attention on an AfD?

Could some users look at the AfD for Cyberian hip hop here and leave some input? Thanks. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discography for "staff"

Quite often I see articles about album "staff" (mixers, producers, mastering, engineers and the likes) with rather deadly long list of albums that they have worked on. But is that useful? I doubt that as usually that staff consists of people with a job hired to do the job. They will never come on the front cover of an album.

Is it not better to leave the discography only to performing artists and composers? The Banner talk 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Often, the "staff" are important to the album. This is engineers, producers, those who mix and master the album in particular. I could let executive producers go by the wayside though. Also, depending on the album, the cover artist may be important to recognize. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess I was unclear, I mean the discography on articles about the mixer, engineer, producer etc. like Chris Kimsey. The Banner talk 17:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean like the "Discography" section of Phil Spector and so forth? I dunno... I guess it depends on the person. But the Wikipedia is not paper, and if the person is notable enough as a mixer or whatever to have an article, I suppose a discography doesn't hurt, does it? Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Antidote (Fashawn Album) and The Antidote (Fashawn album)

Hi, Can someone delete one of these ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a possible target for a link so I redirected it and cleaned the destination up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if query best suited for here or WProject Software, but...

I'm building an article for the iOS music sequencer app Auxy, but I'm just trying to figure out how to describe what kind of music-making app it is, because it kind of operates as a combination of a piano roll and drum machine/sequencer sort of thing like a Korg drumpad... no RSes really out and describe the app in more certain terms than a "music app" that I've seen, but would calling it a "sequencer"-style music editor app or something like that suffice? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No RSs (covering the app in detail) means it fails the GNG. Are you really sure it should have an article? --Izno (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, probably better for WP:Software. --Izno (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've found a few good places with editorial control that give it a fair bit of coverage as a start point, just check the relevant section in my sandbox for my sources so far if you have doubts. That's not really the nature of what I'm wondering, though. I want to know what kind of music editing program this would qualify as in terms of the type of interface it is, and I brought my inquiry here because I figured WPMusic would be better than WPSoftware to ask a question specifically about how to classify a DAW-- i don't know how many of the software guys are well-acquainted with audio programs, after all. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 02:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Forever Man (album) (Help!)

Hello folks,

I'm a german wikipedia member and just do a couple of changes on the english wiki for the better. Sadly I'm not able to complete the album Forever Man (album) with the track listings. I would like that someone, that as got some time would add the lists (for example the ones on german wikipedia). Otherwise I will take care of the article concerning charts, sales, critial reception and commercial success. Thanks. --Matthiasberoli (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Latin music portal peer review request

I have opened a peer review request for the Latin music portal. Any comments would be appreciated! Erick (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reed (instrument)

I have started a move discussion. Eman235/talk 00:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Music FLC nominations

Hey guys, I'm one of the delegates at WP:FLC (aka one of the editors that promotes/doesn't promote Featured List nominations). Lately we've been noticing a problem at FLC, particularly with music-related nominations, and I thought I'd drop by just to give you all a heads-up about it. Basically what we've been seeing is nominations where shortly after the nomination begins several other music editors drop by to vote support without any comments beyond "good job" or the like. Perfectly fine, if there's no real issues with the list, but several times recently those initial "reviews" have been followed by 2-3 fairly substantive reviews by other editors that find some major issues with both the list itself (tables, etc.) and the prose. (not to pick on anyone, but example 1, example 2.) When that happens, it gives off the impression that the initial reviewers didn't, well, actually review the list. I really, really don't think it's anything so untoward as editors trying to create easy passes, or support trading- what I think is that some editors, even those with plenty of experience, just take a brief glance at the list, say "yup, looks good", and support.

The problem is, when we (the delegates) see supports without comments, followed by several intensive reviews that show big problems with the list? We basically have to throw out the initial supports as invalid. This wastes everyone's time, including the nominator's and the initial reviewers', and tends to really upset the nominator. It's just a bad time all around. This is not a problem that's limited to music lists, and not even a problem that's limited to FLC- there was a while, for example, when WP:VG nominations at FAC would get several quick-supports from well-meaning editors, but the only effect was to piss off the FAC delegates and hinder the nominations.

All I'm saying is, if you're reviewing a nomination at FLC (no matter the subject)? Please take at least 5-10 minutes and look through it closely for prose, grammar, logic, formatting, and referencing issues. Just supporting without reviewing a bit in-depth actually hurts more than it helps- it stalls the nominations, upsets the other reviewers and the nominator, and too much of it can sour editors on FLC/music lists/whatever. Thanks! --PresN 02:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mac DeMarco discography FL nomination

Hello, I nominated Mac DeMarco discography for featured list status a month ago but haven't received any comments/reviews. I would really appreciate it if some of you could take a look at the article and leave your comments here. Thank you :) Littlecarmen (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Auðn the band and CD

Let's say this review in a major Icelandic newspaper (not only online) that is English language (only one) really.. would qualify as notable, could I add a page on it?

I'm borderline WP:COI and I do not know for a fact any of the criteria, except maybe barely nr. 1, would apply. How many is "multiple", 2, 3? I guess an excellent review has no weight?

w:is:Auðn is not about the band, but about kind of "desert" what it means, but it's not like they are famous in Iceland (more famous" probaby abroad, by number of CDs sold (only concerts have been in Iceland), no Black] metal, band would be.. in a population of 300,000 5,000 records give you gold.. They've got published by some (indie?) foreign company and got some good other reviews (online?), have to ask.

Full disclosure: I'm not in the band, not blood-related but know one band member through a girlfriend that is close to me that is his relative. I can say I'm proud of them, but also Julia that I edit and am "proud" of not because of my relation or anyone I know personally.

Just want to know what the protocol is, could I make a stub or at least propose somewhere.. I kind of have already. comp.arch (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Physical copies of zines to do with Zorch

I proposed an AfD for a very poorly-written, but perhaps still salvageable article about a UK-based electronic band from the 70s, and I want to know if anyone on this WikiProject might have some old zines or physical source material on these guys. General opinion at the AfD discussion appears to be that they certainly exist, they're known of, and they may very well have been a significant piece of electronic music history in the UK, although the mainstream press did very little reporting about them and information currently available online is slim because of the fact that it was all pre-internet. Anyone able to help is welcome to the AfD discussion. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about notability

WP:BAND says that a musician/band is notable if they have had a single or album on any country's national music chart- does this include any position or not? I'm currently trying to review Draft:Adam Eckersley Band, and not sure if having an album ranked 52 on Australian music chart is enough to pass WP:BAND. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, WP:BAND says that a musician/band MAY be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria, so an artist may have charted pretty high and still not be notable, if there's nothing else to support. In regard to how high an artist needs to chart, the general practice I've seen among editors is that the artist should be at the upper end of the chart, probably like the top 20 or 15.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It's really a shorthand way to state that something may have been written about the subject in those cases. If there are no secondary sources, the subject is not likely notable. Simply charting is not a guarantee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Help from gnomes needed for rock festivals

Hi there - this new template still needs a lot of cleanup and re-arranging and such (feel free to pitch in), but in the interim, it needs to be added to all the pages under Category:Rock festivals. I'd try to do it myself but this one's a bit beyond my slow internet speed alone, I think - any assistance would be appreciated more than you can imagine :) (if you do pitch in, if you can remember leave a little note saying which you've done, that might save someone else some cross-referencing time). Thanks! Earflaps (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

template


{{Rock festival}}

RfC on List of Christian metal artists

Hi, I've started an RfC on the List of Christian metal artists. Any interested editors may comment here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


Chart names

Go here. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Allen Klein rewrite

Hi, can someone please take a look at Allen Klein which has recently been entirely rewritten according to a single source. Thanks 66.244.200.2 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is not good form to base an article off a single source. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups

I've started a discussion on the talk page of this article as it has a few problems as I see it. Please feel free to contribute. Richard3120 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

There is an ongoing RFC discussion. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Breaking Benjamin

There is an ongoing discussion on infobox genres. Please feel free to join. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Best... Ever! album series

The Best... Ever! appears to be a Poland-only series of albums (separate from the The Best... Album in the World...Ever! series that will be familiar to UK album charts) – this fact alone might fail WP:NM, but additionally the editor has created articles for every album in the series, which consist solely of the tracklisting of each of the 4 CDs that make up each album, and no references. As it is unlikely that these individual articles will ever expand beyond this, I propose merging them all to the parent article above, as a list of each album with release dates and positions achieved on the Polish album chart, which would at least create some references. Any comments? Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Artist discography articles

Am I correct in thinking that articles "xxxx discography" should only include singles and albums released to date, and not include upcoming records until they have actually been released? The editor Christianofficial insists that Little Mix discography should be updated to include their new album, even though it is not out until November – I believe the article should state for the time being that the group have only released two albums, and not be altered until the third is actually out. Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that support future releases, then it may be included. I won't check this specific article, but unsourced content may be removed per WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Walter Görlitz: I'll probably leave it then, as the information will be right eventually (albeit in four months), but I really don't want to have to spend until November continually changing things or falling foul of WP:3RR. Quite how people "know" which formats the album is going to be released on is beyond me... Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation assistance needed: Dean (South Korean singer)

Dean (singer) is a disambiguation page to distinguish between the subject above and Belgian pop singer Dean Delannoit. The subject above was born in South Korea but is working professionally in the US. An editor (with a conflict of interest) objects to the term South Korean in the disambiguator.

The subject's birth name is not a natural disambiguator; Hyuk Kwon is already in use. Would Dean (R&B singer) be a suitable title to distinguish this singer from the other mononym-using singer? —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello i'm writing here to discuss the issue regarding the Title. Due to the fact that Dean (singer) is taken or has become disambiguator title, i was wondering if it is possible to change up his title to Dean (R&B Singer). In order to distinguish the difference between dean delannoit and Dean, it would be much appreciated if we could switch the title to Dean (R&B Singer). Dean is currently an active singer in America collaborating with Eric Bellinger and Mila J. Just by looking at the title of Dean (south korean singer) gives the audience the belief that Dean is a singer in South Korea. In order to make clear of his true region of his career, it would be the best if you guys could change his title. This is so that the audiences or readers do not have any misconception of Dean of being just simply singer in South Korea. Thank You Josephyangjoombas (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Albums articles needing expert attention

There is a discussion concerning the deletion of this category happening at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 23#Category:Albums articles needing expert attention if you would like to weigh in on this. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Studio albums" in discography sections

Is there any need to include the header "studio albums" in discography sections? It's a bit distracting and doesn't really need to be there. Most readers can tell only studio albums belong in the discography section so there's no point. The editor, IllaZilla, seems to insist these will help general readers. Also, IllaZilla is adding these headers to music-related articles I edited on. No one else seemed to have a problem with me removing them. Am I in the wrong about this? TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's not a generalization or rule of thumb that would work for all articles. Certainly in some cases live albums should be included in a discography section. If it's an article where only studio albums are included, then I would think the header is not necessary. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I would argue if there's a discography article, it should be linked with {{main}}. In that case, we already know that we should only be listing studio albums in the main subject's article. I agree with TheOnlyOne12 that we do not need to indicate that we're listing studio albums unless there's debate with editors.
However, if there is no discography article then indicating the type of album may be necessary, but should be done with a proper heading, not a pseudo heading marked with a semicolon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to tell the reader what they're looking at, so I believe it's important to label the list of studio albums as such. Editors and people who come to Wikipedia all the time to read music articles probably know the drill, but I agree with Illazilla that we should not overlook the general reader who won't be familiar with business as usual here. Whole discographies are rather large, so we need to identify what portion of the full discography we're bringing to the artist's article while providing a link to a longer list. It also helps to curb unnecessary edits — I find that when a list of studio albums isn't labeled as such, IP edits will start popping up and adding EPs, live albums and compilations because they rightfully see what they believe to be an incomplete list and would have no real reason to believe we're only providing an abbreviated list where a longer article exists. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I should clarify the query. The relevant style guide is Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section. I think we're all on the same page that, in situations where there's a separate discography article, we use {{main}} and then just list the studio albums (summary style). The question is whether there should be a small header labeling the section list as studio albums (FA-class example). There's nothing in the article guidelines either way, it's just something I've seen done a lot, and that I've used myself on numerous articles. I think Fezmar9 nicely sums up is usefulness: We should identify what portion of the full discography we're listing, so readers will know the scope of the list they're looking at. We, as frequent editors of musician articles, know what usually goes in these sections, but I don't think we should assume that the numerous readers of Wikipedia have the same familiarity with article conventions that we editors do.
In direct reply to TheOnlyOne12: The reason I only added them to articles you've edited is that I noticed you removed it from one article, and when I glanced at your contributions I saw that you'd done the same to a bunch of other articles. I disagreed with that, since in my experience the label is useful and commonly applied, so I reverted your removals. I only hit articles you'd edited because I was looking at your list of contributions. No one else may have expressed disagreement immediately, but you made a relatively small number of removals in a short time frame; not many editors are likely to have noticed, and they haven't had much time to respond.
To Walter: I agree that if there is no separate discography article to link to then the discography section should be more thorough and include proper section headers. I think that's the common practice (A-class example). When there is a separate article, and we're just listing studio albums, using ;Studio albums rather than ===Studio albums=== creates a smaller header that doesn't appear in the table of contents (which it shouldn't, since it's deliberately a small section). If there's a better way to do that, I'm happy to use it. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There are more FA class articles that do not indicate studio albums with a {{main}} than there are with it. Many of the examples you provided on your talk page that used these pseudo headings have been removed.
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings: "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup". The best way to do it is not to do it at all since it's not needed. The reader knows what they're looking at: a discography. If we need to prevent readers from adding anything but studio albums, we can add comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is that readers aren't looking at a discography, because the full discography is at a separate article. They're looking at a portion of the discography, specifically a list of the studio albums. With no label or header to indicate such, we're not being very clear. I'm less concerned about editors adding other releases than I am about readers being able to easily know what they're looking at. If the semicolon markup is problematic for screen readers, maybe there's a better way to do it (without the label appearing in the TOC). I just think a list of studio albums ought to be labeled as such. "Discography" is not an accurate label for a list that only includes studio albums, especially if we are simultaneously stating (via the {{main}} link) that the artist's discography is located in a separate article.
I'm not sure what you mean by "There are more FA class articles that do not indicate studio albums with a {{main}} than there are with it." That doesn't jibe with what I seen when I look through Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles...almost every one with a discography section uses a {{main}} link, because for most of these artists there are separate discography articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that if we look at all of FA articles, we would find more without the faux heading than with. I just looked at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music biographies. I removed two recently (within the past week) added by you. I found only ten of them using the studio label. Some included a full discography without a discography article. About seven used tables for studio albums, but none of those used the heading. More than thirty did not use the heading. So I'm not sure why you pointed to one, single FA-class example. It's misleading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You mean when I pointed to R.E.M. above? I only did that to give an example of what kind of header we were talking about. As for the number using the faux heading, articles change constantly. That's why I've pointed to the revisions of the articles at the time they were promoted rather than to the current revisions, as it was the past versions that were reviewed, not the current ones. Take Joy Division for example, an article you just removed the header from: It had a "studio albums" header at the time it was promoted in 2007. It seems to have been removed about 6 months later, and it was without one for about 3 years. The faux header was then added by WesleyDodds in 2011, and appears to have remained there until TheOnlyOne12 removed it a couple days ago. My only 2 edits to the article ever were to revert TheOnlyOne12's removal of the header, and to revert your undoing of my revert. My point is that the article had the header when it was made an FA, it's had it for most of the time it's been an FA, and I wasn't the one who added it. So when you ask "how did it become a FA without this?", my response is "it didn't", and since it's had one for years, I assume I'm not the only one who thinks such a label is useful. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if a heading will help readers and prevent IPs from adding non-studio albums, then I'm all for it. Still, I don't think it's that necessary to include in a discography section. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. Can you offer any support to the heading helping to do that? I have not seen anything help with that. I had to remove similar headings for compilations, EPs and live albums from one article that was marked with this sort of heading. Feel free to leave Sixpence None the Richer alone until you've shown good faith in editing in this area. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clearer to the reader, and useful to stop editors adding non-studio albums, to include a 'Studio albums' heading in cases where we have a separate discography article and list only studio albums in the artist article. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, has that helped? Hidden comments achieve a similar purpose and in my experience don't achieve anything. However, I'm not opposed to a change if it can be shown to help, but we would have to avoid the accessibility issue.
Would someone like to draft a revision to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Discographies? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Your comment above, "Feel free to leave Sixpence None the Richer alone until you've shown good faith in editing in this area", is inappropriate, Walter Görlitz. You have no business telling other users which articles they may or may not edit. Anyone is free to edit any article unless under a topic ban. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it? When editors follow others around to harass them, that's inappropriate. It's know as WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Anyone is free to edit any article unless they're under a topic ban, but following other editors around to make a WP:POINT is not appropriate either. When I was doing the research for the use above, I could have easily removed every instance that I found, but that would have shown bad faith, and so I only modified those where I saw IllaZilla had made a change after July 1. The SPNtR article is one of the articles IllaZilla edited that alerted me to the problem. So please edit in good faith rather than wikilawyering your way out of being courteous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And for the official record, if we do come to consensus that some indication must be made that the section only contains studio albums, I will personally apply it to that article so no one else is put out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups

I have some serious reservations about the above article, which I have aired in two separate discussions on the talk page. I would be grateful if editors could take a look and add their opinions, and how it could be improved – I note this page has been nominated for deletion once before, but it was decided at the time to keep it. Richard3120 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Genre question

If a single source can be found for a certain genre, regardless of how inaccurate it might be, is there really a case for stating it in the infobox? I refer to Fleetwood Mac (1975 album) which has "easy listening" in the infobox. I don't think Christgau was really referring to the genre as we know it, rather just an album that is 'easy to listen to'. I have discussed it with the editor who added it, but he's on a mission to add his favourite sources wherever he can, and isn't listening. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

For some albums, you won't see many sources, but that album you will. If only one source can be found, and the quoted source is not specific, I would argue against its inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. That genre has now been removed by the editor who added it, and replaced with a more suitable genre, so all's well that ends well. Thanks for your input, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on unusual prepositions in titles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposal regarding unusual prepositions in titles (re: clarification request in RM closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammy-nominated producers

Hello all, I was scanning the music notability guidelines, trying to figure out if Howard Benson meets the criteria. The criteria is clear that an artist being nominated for a Grammy may be enough to show notability, but how about for a producer? I can't find any sources about Benson besides interviews, which aren't independent of him, and the Grammy noms are the only things that've kept me from taking the page to articles for deletion. I guess my question is, are the noms enough? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Global track example removal

Hi,

Today, Binksternet has rolled back almost all the track examples in the electronic music articles. The reason cited is that no reliable source says those tracks are from the genre. Wikipedia lacks images and sounds in its articles, so we need to add examples. This page says that it's better to search free licensed tracks but free licensed tracks are rarely notable. This page says that a non-notable document can be featured in an article if it helps to understand the subject. Even if those tracks are not sourced by a third party as matching the genre which is quite impossible, the authors have tagged their tracks with the genre like here. What do you think about that?

PS: Binksternet has left Changing Faces ft. Charli Brix - Everything Is Gone. Where are the reliable sources? Ftiercel (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:V, which means that we cannot accept material in an article that cannot be verified. Your own analysis is not sufficient. In fact, your analysis was disputed by track composer Jonjon with regard to an example you called techstep, Jonjon's "Pale Horse", as can be seen here at the Audiotool "Pale Horse" page. Even if Jonjon had agreed the track was techstep, the source is not reliable per WP:RS.
The answer is that our examples should be drawn from the most notable songs, using a non-free fair use rationale. That way the example is not only verifiably part of that genre, it will also be relevant. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why we "need" track examples in the articles, nor how having them "proves" the genre type. Richard3120 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words. Are you thinking that our readers will better figure out what a genre is without any sound? This thing is very hard with only words, isn't it? Ftiercel (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Or in this case, a note is worth a thousand words. ;-) Oh, I don't doubt it would be useful to help understanding, I just thought the word "need" was a little strong, the article would survive fine without it. But I think Binksternet is right, whatever track sample is used would have to be from a tune actually described as tech-step (or whatever) in a reliable publication like Mixmag. As he's pointed out, a lot of the time you can't even get agreement as to whether a particular track is of a certain genre or not. Richard3120 (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request

Is anyone here interested in doing a peer review for me on a musical group article? The review is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Diamond Rio/archive2. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer review request - Las Vegas EDM

Requesting input/feedback on a draft under way at Draft:Las Vegas EDM. — Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Questioning the importance of YouTube views

Two years ago, I question the usage of YouTube on WP:CHARTS on Wikipedia stating that even though it might be the largest video, that does not mean it's the only one. I pointed that out this would fall under WP:SINGLENETWORK just like iTunes even though that site is the largest digital download store. As another user in that conversation stated, YouTube does not represent a worldwide view nor does YouTube hold a monopoly over video streaming. And as he also says: "But even "it received X amount of views on youtube" adds very little information to the reader -is this alot? -its not quantified information. Most of the big names regularly rack up hundreds of millions of views so more often than not it is not some impressive fact." Now as I point out in my comment in that conversation, I'd be okay with it's inclusion but only under special circumstances such as it being the most viewed video on YouTube (like Gangam Style) or it's view count is the subject of multiple reliable sources. I would to ask this WikiProject for their thoughts on this matter. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the number of views only seems to be important to me when you are talking about the first video to break a certain barrier, such as "Gangnam Style" with a billion views, or if YouTube or another form of video media played a significant part in the career of the artist, such as Justin Bieber or Sandi Thom. Otherwise, I just don't see the point, and in addition if we allowed this to become a standard part of the article it would become very difficult to patrol articles to keep track of the number of video views, as these are constantly increasing. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Views are Not truly accurate at all. You might search (request) a certain video, which would be accurate. But after that finishes, it continues (on its own) to 'offer' you other artists and videos. MANY have played in the background while I was typing this! I presume it counts ALL those also! Record labels might pay for such "advertising" (being placed on the automatic offering list). —Iknow23 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed plenty of articles being littered with YT view counts and the term "Vevo Certified". At the end of the day, there are hardly/no third-party sources reporting this, so I'm not sure they should be considered a notable inclusion to begin with, especially with the view counts constantly changing and becoming inaccurate. Either way, a policy or agreement regarding the inclusion/exclusion of YouTube views/Vevo certifications needs to happen as it is becoming rather out of hand and a source for fancruft. CoolMarc 08:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
My response probably won't help.
It does give a clear view of the popularity of the video. However those counts can be easily manipulated by bots and fan campaigns. That sort of popularity can be used to "promote" the video and then the band or artist.
With that said, the demographic who are watching these videos is generally skewed. That's not substantially different from the way MTV or other video stations were in the 80s and 90s.
If the information is simply a mention of the total number of views, I don't see a problem. If it uses adjectives to describe the views, I would call it original research unless it was supported by a neutral secondary source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Coolmarc: Agreed. My only question is where we would put said policy. @Walter Görlitz:, but see that's the thing. Like what you pretty much said, major record labels have a monopoly on YT view counts; even if the artist isn't well-known, it will still have at least or nearly a million views. Well how does it give a clear view of the popularity of the video when well-known artists are usually going to get hundreds of millions of views even if the song or video was not received? You list MTV as an example, yet even MTV is listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Explaining the number of views isn't helpful to the reader, because whether it is a lot or little is subjective. As I stated in my original post, I'm okay with YT views being listed but only if it is the subject of multiple reliable sources. Erick (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not calling YouTube a chart, but to mention the total views for a video, without interpreting what that means, is not a bad thing. As soon as you claim "reached 100,000 views in 24 hours", or "was the fastest to reach 500,000 views", or "the video's meteoric rise in viewers was fuelled by..." are all out of the question, at least without a RS to support. However the following is reasonable.
The single, "Call Home", was released to multiple formats on February 29, and as a video to YouTube three days earlier.<ref> The song peaked at No. 42 on the Billboard Sentimental Songs chart<ref> while video has exceeded 10,000,000 views on YouTube.<ref>.
We have to recognize that readers understand the social implications of YouTube in the same way we expect readers to understand charts. In other words, charts indicating fleeting popularity, usually in popular music format, not the quality of the music. YouTube and other video services indicate the appeal of a video, not its quality or lasting value. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That's why I'm in favor of including if the number of views is notable and mentioned by multiple reliable sources. My main concern is the listing of YouTube views by itself without any context provided by reliable source which is what I'm against. Erick (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the Latin music portal for featured portal and I would like to ask for feedback from this project. Thank you, Erick (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Band Aid/"Do They Know It's Christmas?"

For a while now I've been pondering the wisdom of having separate articles for these two. Obviously there is a lot of duplication between the two articles... there is little you can say about the band and its various incarnations without mentioning the song, its chart positions, etc. The version I have spent most time working on is the article for the song, rather than the article for the band – this version is better referenced and (I hope) better written than the article for Band Aid. Does anybody have any opinions as to whether we should keep both articles or merge them? Richard3120 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to add I've proposed a merger of USA for Africa/"We Are the World" for precisely the same reasons... the case for merging is even stronger there as one article is FA status and the other is unsourced. Richard3120 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Richard3120 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Recreating an article

I'd like some advice from other editors about the possible re-creation of an article. I have been having a discussion with somebody on WikiProject Pop Music who would like to recreate a deleted article about Jason Hayward, one half of the outfit Phats & Small. He/she has new sources, reliable ones from newspapers and music magazines from the time, but they are in the form of newspaper clippings and the like. So the questions are (a) how to convert those newspaper clippings into a Wikipedia article, when the other editor doesn't know how to do that, and (b) how do you go about recreating an article that has already been deleted once – I assume it can't be recreated as a draft and put forward again for consideration as an article? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources counts for demonstrating notability, even if links cannot be provided. And recreating deleted articles, with new refs to show notability, is perfectly fine (unless salted, in which case you will probably want to make a request at WP:DRV). However, the Phats & Small article is itself quite small, so I would suggest starting by adding a section there for Hayward's personal bio. If that section becomes unduly large for the duo's article and is sufficiently well-sourced to demonstrate independent notability, it can always be spun off into a separate article. In the meantime, a redirect can be created for Hayward to the duo's article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Hobbes Goodyear. Hayward's article has already been deleted, so there will be no need for a redirect: I suspect that the information the editor is going to provide will indeed only be good enough to expand the bio as part of the Phats & Small article and that there will be no need to recreate the Hayward article, but it's difficult to say without actually seeing what the information actually consists of. There is no doubt that the sources meet WP:RS as they are from national newspapers and the leading dance magazines of the time, but I'm still not sure how we can get to see scans of the cuttings in order to add them to the Wikipedia article. I don't really want to have to do it by e-mail. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You dont need a url to cite a newspaper source, if that is what you are asking. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Eddy: no, the issue is that the other editor has the newspaper cuttings in his possession, but obviously I have no idea what information they contain, so I can't say how useful they will be. Short of him typing out word-for-word on my talk page what they actually say, I don't know how to get that information off the printed page and on to Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It may be on newspapers.com, if you have access to that. Otherwise why dont you ask the other editor to write a draft page using the contents of the newspaper clippings as references? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the lack of formatting on the questions they asked me, I suspect they are very much novices when it comes to handling Wikipedia. I think what they will have to do is type it out in Microsoft Word, with the references in brackets, cut and paste it into my sandbox, and I'll take it from there. Richard3120 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox music festival at TfD

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 3#Template:Infobox music festival. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Philippine Music Survey IEG

We have submitted an IEG Proposal related to this WikiProject. The project proposal is called Philippine Music Survey. You can check the proposal at meta: meta:Grants:IEG/Philippine Music Survey. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions, please post it at the talk page of the IEG. Thanks. --Jojit (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of discographies and awards lists

For those of you with the Advanced Gadget "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches" turned on, you may want to look at these edits which, as far as I can tell, are vandalism. I've reverted some of them, protected the targets, and blocked the range but the rest need to be checked. I believe this editor also registers accounts (example) so you may want to check any pop/rock/alt discography or award list articles you keep an eye on. Pinging Hzh to see if they have more info. --NeilN talk to me 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Several long term editors

including myself, have had serious arguments about the listing of covers in song articles. The one that has gotten me here is, River Deep Mountain High. I feel that wikipedia should include as many covers as possible in an article about a song and that "notable" means that the song is recorded by a blue link artist or is on a blue link album or collection. Do I need to start a WikiProject Music Covers or can this be resolved here? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:LINKFARM and possibly WP:COATRACK. Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information might merit a read even though it's about deletion criteria, since it sounds like you're suggesting collecting an indiscriminate collection of information related to the subject of a specific song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I, and several others, am doing this: "So, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy. Enthusiastic editors are encouraged to put thought and care into collecting information for meaningful articles." This from the page that you sent me to. Carptrash (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the indent level was suddenly so deep, but I linked to three pages for you to read and consider. Clearly they had little effect as you're looking for an argument, not a discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The indent level jumped because I am never sure how to treat discussions within discussions. I am looking at the links that you provided (thank you) but find your "you're looking for an argument, not a discussion" to be a bit premature given that I was just responding to what you (or another) directed me to. I think that perhaps this is an example of what, in Psych 101 we used to call "Projection." And just for the record, the first word of your posting, "Clearly" is one of the words that I have identified in my "27 Words and phrases" as meaning "in my opinion." But let us continue our discussion.Carptrash (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspected that was the reason the indent jumped.
As for projection, I don't really have a position on the topic so there's nothing for me to argue and hence I can't be projecting. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
And more specifically, WP:SONGCOVER, of course. Richard3120 (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"Of course." Yet another of the Words and Phrases that mean "in my opinion." At that link I find "Songs . . ... that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." How is this to be demonstrated if those versions can not be mentioned? Carptrash (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Carptrash: No, it didn't mean "in my opinion" – I meant that such a guideline already exists and that it can be referred to. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the Yesterday article, the song has been recorded over 2,200 times. Then there are live performances that some fan wants to add because *their band* is notable. Should they all be added? So to talk about RDMH, what made the Nilsson version worthy of inclusion? Surely not because it was recording by Nilsson (see WP:NOTINHERITED)? Or was it because the arrangement was significantly different (the article is silent about what is contained in any version of the song). It seems appropriate that the covers section is limited to encyclopedic entries. I agree with Egghead06's removal of the unnecessary filling. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at My Way. Is that how editors would like to see the covers section of songs' articles? Apparently it was once covered by one of The Muppets!!--Egghead06 (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The original commented that "the song is recorded by a blue link artist or is on a blue link album or collection" and so abuse can be reverted when a non-notable band is added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Carptrash: I agree that the blue-link criterion is normally sufficient, and that's the approach I was introduced to in a GA review two years ago and have found reviewers adhering to since then. I think everyone here's making a good point, though – in that the overall message is to be discerning. For example, Richhoncho mentions 2000+ covers of the Beatles' "Yesterday": well, there's no way every blue-linked cover artist can be included there, but in an article for a song that's had 100 covers, say, it should be possible to mention a greater proportion of the notable covers.
For "River Deep – Mountain High", I don't see any problem with including the recordings you highlighted; I just suggest you hunt around for some better sources. The Harry Nilsson cover definitely deserves a mention, because all of his interpretations of other artists' songs during that period were so highly regarded. Unfortunately, it seems to be his recording of Lennon's "You Can't Do That" that gets all the attention, because Lennon made a point of championing Nilsson's Pandemonium Shadow Show (1967). From a brief search, all I can find to support the Nilsson cover of RDMH is this mention in a book by John C. Winn. I suggest that the AllMusic ref combined with a mention of Lennon's admiration (via Winn) should be sufficient.
Alternatively, you might want to check Amazon previews for the Richard Williams, Mark Ribowsky and Mick Brown biographies on Spector: maybe they mention Nilsson's cover. Put it this way, Spector was certainly a huge fan, because he introduced Harry to his associate, Richard Perry (producer of Nilsson Schmilsson etc). Ultimately, I think this would all come out if the article were expanded – because historically, with regard to the Nilsson cover, you've got Spector shutting up shop in late 1966 due to the "failure" of Ike & Tina's single; Nilsson then records it the following year for Pandemonium Shadow Show, which goes nowhere until George Harrison meets Harry and takes copies back to London for the other Beatles; Lennon loves the Nilsson album and plugs it, while Harrison continues to think the Turners' version of RDMH is "a perfect record" and endorses it as such on the cover of the 1969 A&M Records album. The point is, the Nilsson cover serves as a bridge between Spector's retirement in 1966 and full return in 1970, when, managed by Allen Klein, he starts working with the Beatles in London.
Way more information than anyone needs here, I realise. But, as I say, if someone gave the article the sort of attention that the song undoubtedly merits, there'd be no question that the Nilsson version deserves a mention. JG66 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@JG66: But regarding the hunt for better sources, should we then include the cover version with the expectation that better sources will eventually be found, or leave it out for the time being until those sources are located? Richard3120 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined towards the perspective that it is covers (among things) by 'notable" artists that make some songs noteworthy and that all these covers should be locatable somewhere on wikipedia. If you are not an editor who has gone looking for such information and had a difficult time finding it, then I think you should consider giving those folks the right of way. A big storm just arric=ved, I have to shut down. Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Well, my approach is to limit the level to which Wikipedia come across as lacking or, well … stupid. It's far from ideal but a Discogs ref at least shows the artwork for a single or album, usually with a date – which proves that the release in question actually existed. I mean no offence to anyone posting here with a WP:DontDoThis message, I admire the high standards, but at the same time it's easy to forget that much of the outside world knows full well that artists such as Harry Nilsson, Allison Durbin and Anita Harris have recorded "River Deep". Yet Wikipedia would have us believe that this isn't so. To repeat, I'm sure that details on cover versions will come to light if and when this song article is expanded – in fact, I'm very surprised there isn't a dedicated article at AllMusic, because I've often found that Erlewine, Unterberger, Eder, Jurek, Planer & co. end up discussing cover versions in their AM song articles.
I'm not advocating the inclusion of trash sources (for the articles I choose to work on, I'm fortunate enough to have a great range of reliable sources). Just that, "River Deep – Mountain High" is hardly a high-quality article right now, and I'd think: get the details in there as best one can and expect that, as the article is improved, the less-stellar references get replaced. I've certainly adopted that approach as I'm preparing a song article for GAN. Worth noting also that there are some shockingly poor sources in FAs from five or more years back, from what I've seen. We improve this thing as we go, and that's all good, but to omit some basic details such as notable cover versions just seems remiss – which is what I mean by Wikipedia coming across as "lacking". JG66 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

JG66 writes above, "but at the same time it's easy to forget that much of the outside world knows full well that artists such as Harry Nilsson, Allison Durbin and Anita Harris have recorded "River Deep". Yet Wikipedia would have us believe that this isn't so." This misses the point that WP is an encyclopedia and not a directory of all songs recorded and who by. There are other sites that fulfil that function. It should also be pointed out that often, "Lists of songs recorded by XXX" articles are deleted because the content is non-notable. That is not to say I am not listening to your well-founded arguments to include the Nilsson recording. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the argument . . ... i mean, discussion point, that this information can be found on other web sites as being ludicrous because, . . . ..... well what percent of the content of wikipedia is referenced to other web sites? Surely you are not suggesting that all that information be removed. I also find the statement, " much of the outside world knows full well that artists such as Harry Nilsson, Allison Durbin and Anita Harris have recorded "River Deep" to be silly because I, for one, knew only about the Nilsson version and I suspect that if I went outside and asked the first 50 people I meet about it no one would know nothing. But there are sort of (another term for "in my opinion") two different issues here. 1) should, for example, those covers be included at all or 2) they should be included but what sort of reference is needed. Is that sort of where we are in the discussion? Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I was probably too eager with my support for including the Durbin and Harris versions: it's the Nilsson one I see as being really important, and because the Durbin and Harris covers were part of the discussion that started at talk:RDMH, I've also ended up grouping all three together. But I still see scope for allowing a Discogs ref, just to prove that an album/single release existed. And, to repeat: that's as long as the release and/or artist is recognised as notable.
Carptrash I'm confused by your position here. Not only that but, as someone else has pointed out, you do seem to be looking for an argument, or otherwise turning editors' comments against them. Along with OfficeBoy, you were wholly in favour of mentioning the Allison Durbin and Anita Harris recordings, judging by the song article's edit history and talk page. I only got behind including those two out of trying to (partly) agree with your point that the notability of a song can often be down to the number and range of cover versions it has attracted. JG66 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
JG66 Yes, I will admit that I came here with a chip on my shoulder, not looking for an argument, but believing that what was going to occur was that a bunch of marginally relevant rules would be tossed out followed by the removal of information that I felt made the article better and more useful. Information, if it matters, that was not added by me or any editor that I am associated with. Which is pretty much what seems to be happening. To music historian or those interested in that sort of thing, who records a song, when it is done and other such information is not only useful and desired, it is why wikipedia exists. Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Carptrash, sorry if I annoyed you with my comment about WP:SONGCOVER. What I meant was that this already exists as a guideline and answer as to whether a song cover is notable enough to be included in an article – maybe you don't agree with it or consider it vague enough to be open to different interpretations, but at least it serves as a starting point for this discussion. I have seen other editors interpret this guideline as meaning if a notable third-party source has written specifically about that cover version, even if it is only one line, then the version is notable enough to be included. That way we get around two issues: (1) that we have a citation for the cover version, and (2) we don't include every blue link artist, because as Egghead pointed out, the Muppets are undoubtedly a blue link artist and pass notability in Wikipedia terms, but would you consider their version worthy of mentioning (I'm just asking your opinion here, nothing more)? Richard3120 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Richard3120, no I am not annoyed, more like . . ….frustrated. We are talking about songs here, articles about songs and what is to be allowed in those articles.  Most of the guidelines that have been pointed to are about whether or not a song is notable enough to have an article about it.  One of the guidelines you (or someone) sent me to reads, "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.” So how is this guideline going to be meet? The most obvious way to me is to list the notable artists who have recorded it. Including the Muppets. Why do you feel that they should be left off? Surely it is a tribute to a song that they record it. Surely there are folks out there who want to know what songs the Muppets have recorded? It is always fascinating to me to learn about all the different genres a song might be arranged into. Carptrash (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Carptrash: I don't necessarily disagree with you about the Muppets: that's why I asked what your opinion was, I just wanted to know what you thought about including them. I don't have any strong feelings either way on this matter – however, other editors clearly disagree far more more strongly and feel that if you are going to list all the versions they need to have reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with reliable sources. That is (opinion) what wikipedia is about. I tend to use my record & CD collection for sources, but think that most of the standard music sites that include that sort of information are okay, Carptrash (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Appalachian music

An anon has been attempting to remove mention of black influences on Appalachian music in this article. I don't want to hit 3RR, if someone else wouldn't mind keeping an eye on the article, or suggest a re-wording if the wording is confusing. I posted a message to the anon's IP talk page. African and African-American influences on Appalachian music have been pretty well documented ([15], e.g.). Bms4881 (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

New discussion at WT:ROCK

Hello.

Please see this discussion at WT:ROCK.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability of songwriters, producers, mixers etc.

Is there any consensus about whether producers or songwriters of notable songs are notable? I'm asking because an agency has been writing articles about their clients and while most of them fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG, I'm aware that they could still be notable. Your input here or at the COIN thread would be appreciated. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

New member!

Hello everyone! I am so excited to be apart of this project! I hope I can help and get some things done around here. --Xavier (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

New changes

Hello again members! I am reaching out to my parent project to try and recruit members to some vital projects that are in a desperate situation. I have been basically operating them alone and desperately need help to fend off the uneducated original researchers that are overtaking our precious articles with nonsense.

This is a call for duty! Who is willing to help!?

The list of my active projects:

--Xavier (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Blue-eyed soul singers

Category:Blue-eyed soul singers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


Automating musical tidies

I keep running into pages -- most recently Gordon Crosse -- with masses of incorrectly MoS formatted opus numbers. I would like an automatic way to replace: Op.N -> Op. N (for all numbers N)

Does anyone know of a trick for doing this already implemented? I think I can write a regular expression thingy using Auto Ed, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed winnowing full festival lineups

(cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians)
Yesterday I created Camden Crawl, about the UK music festival. An IP editor has joined in helping to flesh out the article, but several of their edits were to add full listings of all performers for a given year, amounting to dozens of names each. I'm inclined to think this is not encyclopedic, and that highlights of the most significant names for each year would suffice. However, my initial plan, to just remove any names that either had no Wikipedia article or had only a stub article, was insufficient; the majority of the names checked by me and Gronk Oz appear to be notable. I know basically nothing about the UK indie / alternative music scene myself. Would any of you happen to have ideas for how to further pare these long lists down to a handful for each year? Thanks in advance, —GrammarFascist contribstalk 08:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As a Brit many of the names on the list are recognisable to me, and I am sure that many of them could indeed to be bluelinked to their Wikipedia article. I agree with you about just having lists of names: normally I would say for festivals that perhaps just the headliners should be included, but in the case of the Camden Crawl there were no headline acts as such, just lots of acts playing in lots of venues around north London and people going from one venue to another to watch them. Apart from finding sources that review the event and just including the acts featured in the review, I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Richard3120. DLManiac suggested on the other page that full lineups should be included, and suggested putting the lists of acts into table format. I see that several other festival articles have indeed included tables listing performers for each year, though I haven't seen an example where the lists of participants were as long as Camden Crawl's. I'm wondering whether it might make more sense, since many acts performed in more than one year, to create a timeline-type table to show which years each musician or group performed? For each year I have sourced articles that note highlight performers, and I have added these highlights to each year's section above the full lineup lists. This is my first time working on a music-festival article, so the opinions of editors with more experience in this topic area are very welcome. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah go for full lineup in table form. If someone is omitted then it would look as if the act did not actually play.Yellowxander (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The final year of the festival, there were two hundred acts that played. (That's not counting acts that played prior years but not that one.) Even in table format, I think 200 names would overwhelm the article. What do people think about making a separate list article for the full lineups? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there some way to use the "show" function that I have seen put to use in talk pages? I've no idea if that is something suitable for articles or not, but it would be nice to have a relatively clean article, with something that can be clicked on, for each particular year that would expand and show the (entire?) line up. Otherwise, the list certainly needs to be smaller. I'm sure that lots of the articles that would be removed are semi-notable, but having huge festival line ups, is like having entire setlists for DJs. The artists may be notable, but is their actual performance at the festival notable? I would say not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The MOS advises against using that markup to hide content on article pages. However, there is the possibility of putting lineup information into a template like the one at the bottom of the article The Rocky Horror Picture Show Event, which can be set to display collapsed by default.

I think the three best options are these:

  1. Put the full lineups for each year in a separate list article, broken down by year like the main article;
  2. Put all 200+ acts into a timeline-type table like these, showing which year(s) each act performed, at the bottom of the article (mockup);
  3. Put all 200+ acts into a template like this at the bottom of the article that will display collapsed by default (mockup).

In each case, the section in the Camden Crawl article for each year would list only acts whose performance that year was noted in a reliable source, and the full listing would be elsewhere, but linked to from the various years' sections. Pinging @Cordless Larry, DLManiac, Fuhghettaboutit, Gronk Oz, Richard3120, Spacecowboy420, and Yellowxander: please consider following up your previous comments with a !vote for one or more of these options (or for none of the above). Thanks in advance for your opinions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 06:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
added links to mockups for options 2 & 3 —GrammarFascist contribstalk 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Vote for option three. Funky collapsible tables seem good ! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Vote for 1 and 3. Create a separate article for sure, and at the bottom of both of those articles, you could consider putting a template of all listed in alphabetical order. Page titled "List of Camden Crawl Lineups", Template called "Artists that have performed at Camden Crawl". Down vote for 2 because 200 on a timeline is insanely impossible. − DLManiac (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Appending my vote, I only support option 3 if the festival is very notable and important. And per template guidelines, you would need the template on every band page that is in it which sounds messy. I think that this is something that could be implemented on all festivals in the future. — DLManiac (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The festival does seem to have been notable and important; it was credited by multiple sources as being the first festival with its format, which sparked the creation of other multiple-small-venue urban festivals. It also helped launch the careers of several musicians and groups that I know of from researching the article. Putting the template on the article of every performer listed could be a pain, but it might be less headache than making a timeline. I don't think a separate list article would be necessary in conjunction with option 3, though, since the template itself would technically be a separate page. Thanks for your input, DLManiac! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It becomes a bit of a nightmare however you do it, doesn't it? From a balance of editor effort and reader's point of view, I like Option 3 best. Personally, I always liked the idea of a collapsable list, but the MOS disapproves in the body of the article. I didn't realize this meant adding the template to each band - I wonder if somebody skilled with one of the fancy tools could do that in a semi-automated way. I agree with DLManiac that setting up a timeline that size is dangerous to anybody's mental health, and maintaining it would be worse - and I worry how it would display across different devices. So my second choice would be your Option 1.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the third option is the best aesthetically. I have concerns that the template will become very big for festivals that have been running for a long time though, and therefore unwieldy on individual band articles. Has the solution at Glastonbury Festival#Lineups been discussed? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly not a timeline. I don't think the tag box would be the right way to do it either as years go by this box would just get bigger and bigger. For a large lineup and separate page would be warranted. Or, collapsable tables, with each stage dropping down to reveal?..Yellowxander (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad everybody seems agreed against the timeline approach. Timelines are a robust format with a huge amount of customizability, but they're also headache-inducing to code. As a reminder, the MOS is firmly against content being collapsed in articles; the sort of template I linked to (and did a mockup with) seems to be the only exception other than a collapsible infobox section I saw somewhere. I agree that the template option has the potential to become unwieldy on pages it would be used on, though I don't consider that a big issue since the template can be collapsed by default. That said, part of why I proposed the template option at all was that I believed the Camden Crawl was a defunct festival that ended in 2014. I've now started seeing indications there may have been a 2015 Crawl after all — I'd been focused on finding sources about the early years, so I need to do more research. IMO it would be a strike against the template option if the festival is ongoing. Meanwhile, to go along with the mockups of options 1 and 2, I created a draft of what option 1 might look like. There are varying amounts of data available for different years, and some years had novel formats, 1997 being one example as it took place in 3 cities rather than just one. Do people have any opinions as to whether venue information should go in the list article, the main article, both or neither? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
GrammarFascist, it is defunct – there was no festival this year. A good place to find info about the dates and line-ups for each festival is http://www.efestivals.co.uk/festivals/camdencrawl, but this probably isn't acceptable as an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Citing Nielsen SoundScan database as a source

Hey guys. What can any of you tell me about the Nielsen SoundScan database? Specifically, what information would a proper citation of the database include, to ensure that such a citation would be easily verifiable by future WP editors?

Over at The Game discography, I've been trying to ensure the album sales numbers stay in sync with their citations (and that the sources stay reliable and verifiable). In doing so, I've crossed paths with an editor (Jayceon123) who significantly increased all the album sales numbers for the hip hop artist The Game without providing any citations, and by way of explanation, subsequently told me he had direct access to the Nielsen SoundScan database.

Not having access to the SoundScan database myself — I'm under the impression it's very expensive to get access to — and not having found other current, reliable sources for the album sales numbers at The Game discography, I haven't yet found a way to verify the numbers myself. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Is there anyone here we could ask who does have access to this database? Should I advise Jayceon123 to just put "SoundScan database" in between ref tags? What would a proper reference citing SoundScan look like? Is there a more widely accessible source available? If attempts to get proper citations for the article's current but as-yet-unsourced numbers fail, are years-out-of-date but properly sourced numbers preferable? AtticusX (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I see the editor in question is currently blocked for abusive behaviour. I doubt any Wikipedia editor has access to the database as it costs a fortune to subscribe to (a six-figure sum), which makes me wonder how Jayceon123 could have access to it and if he has a COI working for a record company, who really are the only people who can afford to pay this amount of money.
I would say old-but-verifiable figures are the best option – if Jayceon123 really does have access to the database he must reference it, it's no good just changing the figures and saying the equivalent of "I know, I've seen them". Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Jayceon123 must be expected to reference the database if he does in fact have access to it, which indeed would suggest an undeclared COI, as you say. (His username also reinforces the apparent likelihood of a COI, as Jayceon happens to be the real-world name of the rapper "Game" whose articles he exclusively edits.) Based on his past obstinence, I suspect that as soon as his block expires, he will be back trying to protect his updated sales numbers, which are not impossible numbers and may or may not have come from SoundScan. Which brings me back to the original purpose of my query: what info would a proper reference to SoundScan contain? Has anyone here ever seen a citation of the SoundScan database on Wikipedia? How would we recognize a genuine citation of the database? Despite the editor's belligerence and incompetent editing, there's still a chance he's telling the truth about those numbers, and I'm willing to assume good faith on that matter a little longer if it helps get citations for correct, up-to-date data. If he can't provide credible citations, we'll know he's editing in bad faith and should probably be permanently blocked. If he can, well, then there's probably a COI issue to deal with. AtticusX (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not really sure how to answer your questions... :-/ His figures certainly aren't unbelievable, so he may be telling the truth, but either way, if he won't cite them then I think they have to be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Band Member timeline standards at WikiProject Musicians

I wanted everyone here to know about the current discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards that may put an end to all of the edit warring and inconsistency surround band member timelines. — DLManiac (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw(talk) 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of FLRC

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Ne-Yo for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cowlibob (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of FLRC

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Nine Inch Nails for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject 19th-century American Music invitation

Most courteous Greetings to you, music lovers! Your participation is ardently sought in helping to establish one of Wikipedia's newest projects - 19-century American Music a collaborative venture to improve the coverage of '19th-century American Music' on the English Wikipedia. A treasure trove of adventure awaits you as we improve and expand upon the wealth, heritage, history and impact of this music genre. What is a project without participants like you? If your interest is piqued please leave your calling card and add your name to our proposed Project page. You will be kept informed of the development of this new project in the coming weeks. To leave your valuable opinions and suggestions, please contact me. With All Cordiality and The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Car song for AfD?

See Car song. Not sure what this is, or is trying to be. No references at this point. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask AmericanLeMans, who appears to have created the page six years ago. Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In the sixties there were novelty songs created to capitalize on the sudden popularity of performance sedans in the US. I was trying to create a page about that. AmericanLeMans (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I nominated it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found (band) (2nd nomination)

I'd appreciate expert opinions (either way) at this AfD, please --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

LaTour‎

Can anyone knowledgeable about American music please take a look at LaTour‎? A lot of contentious editing (involving what appear to be single-purpose accounts) has been happening for days. utcursch | talk 05:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested page protection. utcursch, If the issue is one or two editors violating WP:PAG, report it at WP:ANI. Lapadite (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Izes Marshall

Do you think Adrian Izes Marshall is notable? Please comment at Talk:Adrian Izes Marshall. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Courtney Love FA article review

Hello all, I have been working on the Courtney Love article over a number of years now, and it is currently a Featured Article nominee. I wanted to post here to see if any editors would potentially be interested in doing a review. So far, there are 2/2 reviews supporting it for FA, but I wanted to reach out to some other related WikiProjects to see if anyone would be interested or willing to participate in the review process. Given as divisive of a figure she is, it's been a bit difficult getting interest from editors, in spite of how high-traffic of an article it is. Thank you! Drown Soda (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Scale fingerings??

I would like to know if there are any thoughts on adding piano scale fingerings to each major scale article (e.g. C major.) In case anyone's wondering, here are the fingerings, numbering fingers in order from 1=thumb to 5=little finger:

  • C major, G major, D major, A major, E major and B major all use the fingering 1-2-3-1-2-3-4-1-2-3-1-2-3-4-5.
  • F major, B-flat major, E-flat major, A-flat major, D-flat major, and G-flat major each has a different fingering where the scale starts with the 2nd finger (some prefer to start the scale on the finger that ends the scale; this doesn't affect D-flat or G-flat major scales) and the thumb always occurs on the notes C and F (except that we end the F major scale with the 4th finger.) For example, E-flat major's fingering is 2-1-2-3-4-1-2-3-1-2-3-4-1-2-3.

Any thoughts about including fingerings in the major scale articles?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because if you include piano, then other editors will argue why not guitar fingerings on the fretboard, or open/closed holes on woodwind instruments. Strike that, you're talking about chords, which you can't play on woodwind instruments, only notes. The bit about guitars still stands, though. Richard3120 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Richard raises a good point. Also, there is WP:NOTHOWTO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, on the guitar there are just fret positions. Whether you're playing a note in isolation or as part of a melody doesn't affect how it is to be played. Georgia guy (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
If I understood Georgia Guy correctly, he wasn't talking about chords, but about the "official" (i.e., most efficient ?) way to play the sequence of single notes that make up each of the scales. So, yes, the question can be raised even with respect to non-chording instruments. As for guitar, playing the note isn't just about the fret position, it's also about which finger gets used to play it. In any event, WP:NOTHOWTO suggests that this kind of instructional material doesn't belong in the articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting -- it looks like you may have discovered an encyclopedic topic not yet covered in detail in Wikipedia. Methods of keyboard fingering have a long and interesting history -- for example, in the present day, we use the thumb a lot more than was done, say, 250 years ago. The scale fingerings you list are a modern consensus of what's most efficient to play the wide variety of music played on a keyboard. Seems to me the specific scale fingerings could be included somewhere, but I wouldn't put them in the articles on the keys. Maybe in an article on keyboard fingering. I'm surprised we only have a few short paragraphs in Fingering_(music)#Keyboard_instruments. My Oxford Companion to Music includes quite a long article, with many subsections, and there is a substantial literature on the topic. Antandrus (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Disturbed"

The usage and primary topic of Disturbed is under discussion, see talk:Disturbed (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Are some genres of music systematically underreported?

I reviewed Draft: The Whiskey Bards and declined it on notability grounds. User:Cybotik then posted:

The trouble with the Wikipedia guidelines in regards to music is that some genres of music are automatically left out. Folk music gets little notice. Most folk performers will never meet the Wikipedia guidelines because nobody writes about it anymore. So the Wikipedia guidelines essentially caters to the music that sells the most ad space. Wikipedia has a page for Renaissance Faires, and it refers to the music performed at them. But it will never give any information on the performers because they’re not on Billboard’s top 50 and the local papers merely mention that the Faire happened. There are fewer than 2,500 black rhinoceroses left in the wild. There are 1,241 people living in New Laguna, NM. There are only 2 people in the world speaking the Chamicuro language. But all three deserve a Wikipedia page. There are 10,000 views of The Whiskey Bards’ YouTube performance of Pirate Lullaby. More than 32,000 people heard them perform at the 2011 Las Vegas Renaissance Faire. Their music is available from iTunes, Amazon (disc or streaming), Google, and Spotify. Well-known and popular does not meet the Wikipedia qualitifications. Only the blessings of journalism can render a style of music "notable." Wikipedia has a page for jongleur, but makes no mention of modern jongleurs, many of whom now sing the original songs of The Whiskey Bards in various pubs and taverns across the U.S. The ancient bardic traditions are continued with small circuit performers like Whiskey Bards, Pyrates Royale, Rubber Biscuit, and Briefcase Blues, but this kind of performer rarely gets noticed by Rolling Stone magazine, so an entire segment of American music and the continuing life of traditional music is ignored by Wikipedia as well until someone wins a Grammy.

What does anyone here have to add? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for commenting on my own issue, but let me pose a question to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. If three new albums were to be released, containing previously unknown songs from the Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Peter Paul and Mary, which would receive the least attention? Would folk music from the '70s get as much coverage as rock music from the '60s or pop music from the '80s? Would new music by James Taylor, Joan Baez, or Leonard Cohen get the same treatment as new music by the Rolling Stones, Elton John, or Paul McCartney? Does a lack of press attention automatically mean a lack of notability? Cybotik (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment – I'm not sure how active this WikiProject is... you may want to raise the issue at WikiProject Albums as well, which tends to be more active. Richard3120 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree Wikipedia gives disproportionate attention to current pop (ditto current television). That said, I don't see why current folk bands playing the Ren Faire and bar circuits are more notable than most of their "ancient bardic" (and individually undocumented) equivalents. Jim and Jean, Tom Rush, Mimi Fariña, Anne Briggs, Peter, Paul and Mary, they have Wikipedia articles, and a new album of previously-unheard Woodie Guthrie would get more press attention than all of them combined. Wikipedia isn't a free home page for everyone with a CD and a YouTube channel.
You mention that "jongleurs" (by which I presume you mean medieval-style current-day Minstrels, not the nightclub) are propagating songs that originated from The Whiskey Bards. If you can get documentation of that from independent, reliable secondary sources, it might make a case toward keeping an article on that act. Specialty publications like Dirty Linen would seem a more likely place to find these than the above-mentioned Rolling Stone magazine. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The question I was asking in reference to Peter Paul and Mary was whether undiscovered music by them would get the same media attention as undiscovered music by the Beatles or Michael Jackson. The same question could be asked of Woodie Guthrie. Would a new Woodie Guthrie album generate even a hundredth of the press attention as a new Rolling Stones album? But the larger question is why do the Wikipedia guidelines give greater weight to a an online local newspaper with a readership of under 1000 than to a YouTube channel, with a worldwide audience, and over 10,000 views? And the Whiskey Bards are not simply limited to their YouTube audience. Their music is available on the subscription music service Spotify.com. Spotify has made national news twice recently, first when Taylor Swift pulled her music from their site, and again when the Beatles music became available on Spotify for the first time. Spotify has apps available for iOS, Android, Vizio, Samsung, and Roku. They are certainly a well-known and permanent online presence that has made significant notice of the Whiskey Bards. But because Spotify is a subscription site, I cannot rely on it as a reference because many of the links would redirect to a "Please subscribe" page. But for what it's worth, they do have one open song from the group. Fireship Cybotik (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that I've come a bit late to the discussion, so I'll just make a brief statement on the off-chance that someone is still watching this. As a regular participant in the Articles for Deletion process, I think it very likely that the article would have been deleted had it been nominated there. And so, I think Mr. McLenon made the right call. As for the philosophical question of whether traditional musics are underrepresented on Wikipedia, Edgarde makes a pretty convincing case that this isn't so. But even if he's wrong about that, the solution is not to declare all its practitioners to be individually notable. Instead, the solution is to expand the encyclopedia's treatment of the genres themselves. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

New FA nomination - Slug (song)

I have nominated Slug (song), an obscure track by U2 and Brian Eno, as a featured article . This is the article's third nomination, as it was previously rejected for being "too short", despite being fully comprehensive and comparable in length to similar articles. I would appreciate to the support of other editors in this project to help get this featured. Thank you.

Link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slug (song)/archive3 –Dream out loud (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

When should edition names be italicized?

I’ve just opened an RFC at WT:MOS#Are editions of major works also major works? to ask how Wikipedia should present the names of special releases or re-releases of creative works, such as collector’s editions or extended versions. The way I asked it focuses on video games, but it applies to all creative works that are commonly released in multiple “editions.” Please join in the discussion there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor/Major Works

Hi all, please can you take a look at Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen#Major Work? and give your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks. :) ‑‑YodinT 16:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New article

Hello, I created the article Do You Mind (DJ Khaled song). Could you add content and/or footnotes please. Thank you — Sincerely Issimo 15 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:DIY. Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Artist pages infoboxes being changed to infobox person

Just wondering is boldly changing artist infoboxes from {{infobox musical artist}} to {{infobox person}} ie Joan Jett, Paul McCartney and Roger Daltrey to name a few, what's the projects take on this ? Mlpearc (open channel) 13:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, provided that this infobox is included in some way, it is not a bad thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I don't have too much of a problem with it – with the likes of Daltrey, Cher and Bob Geldof they are well known in other fields outside of singing, so referring to them just as "musical artists" is a bit misleading. Richard3120 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: WikiProject Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales

Hi there, just to say I've proposed a project Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales .

It's scope would include everything in the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and_Scales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) project,. But it adds "Microtonal Music" to the title. This makes it broader in scope, for instance to include microtonal compositions and composition technique, microtonal chords, microtonal composers, microtonal organizations, microtonal regional and national music, etc etc. The idea is that as a larger project we would get more participation.

If you support the idea please add your name to the #Support section, or if you have any thoughts on it that you want to share, do add your voice to its Discussion section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I would love to help you with this project. I studied microtonal theory throughout college especially as it relates to Computer Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am jewsus (talk • contribs) 05:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EMI, Parlophone and Capitol

For about 15 years, Radiohead were signed to EMI. As far as I understand, EMI used the subsidiary label Capitol Records to release Radiohead's albums in the US, and Parlophone elsewhere (or at least in the UK, not sure about other territories).

What is the best way to explain this in prose? "Kid A is the fourth studio album by the English rock band Radiohead, released on 2 October 2000 by ...

  • "Parlophone internationally and Capitol Records in the United States"?
  • EMI?"
  • EMI through its subsidiaries Parlophone international and Capitol Records in the United States?"
  • some other construction?

Truth be told, I'm confused about what the relationship is between all these entities, and how to clearly express it. Also, did Capitol only handle the US release, or other North American territories too? Anyone know? Popcornduff (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Amazon.ca lists "Warner Music Canada" as the label for this Radiohead album; Warner bought EMI a few years ago: https://www.amazon.ca/Hail-Thief-Radiohead/dp/B00009NOF4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472726331&sr=8-1&keywords=Hail+to+the+Thief
Meanwhile Amazon.com says the label is Parlophone: https://www.amazon.com/Hail-Thief-Vinyl-RADIOHEAD/dp/B000092ZYX/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1472726428&sr=8-2&keywords=hail+to+the+thief
What is the proper way to credit subsidiaries? Do we do it at all or should we just mention the main company, or something? I'm very confused. Popcornduff (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
First, different countries will have different labels and distributors. This is quite common in Canada. Second, Amazon is not a reliable source. It's not clear if they are listing the label or distributor and so don't use them as a source. This is where discogs.com comes in handy, particularly when they show the rear tray insert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I know different countries have different labels, but when they're all owned by one company or "master" label, should we report the separate subsidiaries or only the umbrella label? Popcornduff (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I know Discogs isn't 100% accurate as it's user-generated, but it's a useful starting point for these things, and it looks as though the US was the only major country where Kid A was released on Capitol rather than Parlophone. So if it were up to me, I would write something like "... released on 2 October 2000 on Parlophone Records worldwide, except in the US where it was released on Capitol Records". Walter is right, Amazon often credits the distributor rather than the actual label. I personally would use the actual labels (Parlophone/Capitol) rather than their parent company because, well, those are the actual labels that they were released on, and they'll be the ones quoted in any review of the album. But all this is just my personal view, others may have a different opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys, useful responses. Popcornduff (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_36&oldid=1259720504"