Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

"Old Jabo"

Anyone have any references etc. on this song?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Countdown Singers

I Created an Article about The Countdown Singers, since they are already gaining attention among fans of unintentionally hilarious music. However, I'm not very good at writing articles, so if anyone wants to clean it up, Go ahead. Also, It would be great if somebody created an article on The Hit Crew. Retro Agnostic (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New proposal for Discography sections at WikiProject Musicians

Please take a look at this proposal and express your support or objections. Keep in mind we currently have no guidelines for Discography sections whatsoever, so this would at least be a start. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two orphans

The two articles titled Polyphonic HMI and Platinum Blue Music Intelligence are orphans. If there are (1) topics lists or (2) other articles that should link to them, could those familiar with Wikipedia's music coverage please add those. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GREEN DAY: If you agree a source listing GD as post-grunge and alternative pop is a bad source...

Please speak out here [1]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Hoponpop69 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[2] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

this is from Here. please add your opinion. SkaterBoy182 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Associated acts"

Hi! Recently I removed Eva Cassidy from Katie Melua's "associated acts", because in my opinion the two have nothing to do with each other. My edits were reverted by a user who claimed that because Melua made a "duet" (Cassidy died in 1996, seems a cover to me) she is an associated act. Ofcourse, I'm not going for an edit fight, so I'll just ask who might have more experience on the matter. My question here is, what is the strict definition of "associated act"? Kind regards, --Soetermans (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The single released last year was classed as a Melua/Cassidy duet of "What a Wonderful World", not a cover. Melua recorded lyrics with a recording of the late Cassidy; the song reached no. 1 in the UK singles charts. Here is the video and here is the news story. The two singers are clearly associated as they sung on the same record (even if one of the singers was performing with a recording of the other). --Hera1187 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, would you say that Nancy Sinatra and Audio Bullys are associated? Deep Dish and Stevie Nicks? Junkie XL and Elvis Presley? They all might be dance acts, but still they did collaborate (*ahem*, "duet") together. Oh wait, U2 and Mary J. Blige. Or Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston might be... I could go on for a while, I guess... With "associated acts" I think of... say Damon Albarn: Blur, Gorillaz and The Good, the Bad & the Queen. Or Korn and its solo member's solo projects. But that's just my opinion. C'mon, any WikiProject Music member to bring us wisdom? --Soetermans (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, acts are associated when the artists perform together in a song that has been released in some form (on an album or in a single). I believe Katie Melua and Eva Cassidy are associated by this definition, but Molly McQueen and Katie Melua are not. McQueen wrote some lyrics on Melua's latest album but did not perform on the album itself. The What a Wonderful World single however, was described as a duet by the record company and in all the media despite the fact Melua was singing along to a recording of Cassidy. I find the idea that the song was a cover very strange; if anything it was a cover of Louis Armstrong by Katie Melua and Eva Cassidy. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with you two about "What a Wonderful World", I suppose you are right. But still, what is the definition? Because by Stevens' method, all the examples I came up with are indeed associated acts - which doesn't seem likely either. English isn't my mother tongue, but doesn't association imply something like... Oh wait, I'll google it. Is this something? Still, I don't know, I only want to know the truth! --Soetermans (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well? Its been two days since my last message, isn't there anyone who can shed some light on this case? --Soetermans (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should copy and paste this discussion to {{Infobox Musical artist}}. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Terraced Dynamics nominated for deletion

I included a section on terraced dynamics in the article on Dynamics (music) and have nominated Terraced dynamics for deletion. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 898 of the articles assigned to this project, or 24.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Music in keys

I just noticed that the "list of songs in key X" sections were removed from the key articles for sourcing problems. I am skeptical of this - the obvious and implied source here would be the original recording. This seems a valid use of a primary source. I suppose you could argue that it's "specialist knowledge," but I'm skeptical of that - it seems much more akin to using a source in a foreign language. In which case listening to the recordings themselves should be a perfectly valid way to create these sections. Unless anyone has a more persuasive reason, I am going to re-add these sections. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for the way music genres are listed

We need some guidelines whether we break genres up with commas, or line breaks. This discussion has been going on in WP:METAL and we need some way of resolving this. MOTE Speak to me 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Statistics:Music, classical music and other arts projects

A number of classical music-related projects have recently completed bannering bot runs and I thought it would be useful to post the statistics here:

Projects (linked to article categories)	Parent	Articles (24 July 08)	Unrated	Stubs	Archives	'Active' members
Music Project	Arts	3,760	3,760	N/a	5	119
Classical Music Project	Music	9,282	8,696	517	9	142
Composers Project	Music	3,981	2,897	910	15	38
Contemporary Music Project	Music	2,691	2,186	145	3	37
(Popular) Musicians Workgroup (Biography Project)	Biography	51,388	326	37,297	3	90
+ Music Genres Project (Inactive?)	Music	944	55	602	1	30
Related arts projects
Arts Project (no banners)	Culture	N/a	N/a	N/a	3	59
Opera Project	Arts	4,864	0	1,532	66	32
Theatre Project	Arts	1,880	811	533	4	45
Dance Project	Arts	3,701	1,283	483	1	33
Ballet Project	Arts	2,416	876	176	0	13

I will have something more to say shortly, but if anyone else wants to comment, please go ahead! --Kleinzach 03:18, 24 July 2008 (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.

---

Banners and assessments

Based on the figures above (and those of other music projects not listed), there are more than 150,000 Wikipedia articles dealing with music. At present less than 4,000 of these are bannered by the Music Project - and none of them are rated.

Bannering and assessing all music articles could be undertaken. but it would be a huge job and it would duplicate work done by the descendant music projects - which will have more specialized expertise.

Unlike the Music Project, Arts is an 'umbrella' project with no banners which doesn't do assessments (see above). Instead it concentrates on general discussions, maintaining the Arts Portal etc. Should the Music Project base itself on the Arts Project and give up banners/assessments? --Kleinzach 04:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

I propose that:

(1) Music should be an 'umbrella' project concentrating on developing Music editing guidelines, general musical discussions, the Music Portal etc.

(2) The project should remove all existing banners and leave all rating to descendant (specialized) projects (such as Albums, Classical music, Composers etc).

Please agree, disagree or comment freely as you will! Best regards.--Kleinzach 04:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I warmly endorse this idea. Music is a ridiculously large and generic category and moving assessment to the relevant descendant projects makes sense and helps ease the banner pollution. Eusebeus (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree. Realistically the Music Project can’t deal with that many articles in any kind of detail. It could serve a highly useful purpose as an umbrella project. As you may have noticed however the Music Project is itself contained within the umbrella of WikiProject Arts. Is there likely to be conflict or redundancy caused by making Music an advisory project? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Per Kleinzach's reasoning. I don't believe there would be a conflict between the Arts Project either since usually that project focuses more on issues relevent to all articles on the arts and not ones specific to music.Nrswanson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup

Thank you. All the usual bot owners seem to be on holiday at the moment. When one of them is back, I will follow up on this. --Kleinzach 14:53, 31 July 2008 (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.

Request for comment on Afd

Hi I'd like some users to comment on the Afd for the article M.I.A. (band). There are no reliable sources on the article to establish its notability, and it fulfils none of the criteria for WP:Band as it stands. It's released one EP and one LP apparently on a label that is claimed to be notable. I've suggested at the very least a redirect. Would appreciate input. ShimShem (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

External links for compilation album

I was directed here from the WP:EL talk page for the general approach used by the project, and did not find my answer in the MUSTARD guidelines on External links.

For a compilation album, are external links to the official sites of the contributing artists generally considered acceptable or is the external link section reserved for the compilation album itself and sites for each of the contributing artists considered linkspam? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Music participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Blues FAR

Blues has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Music participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Request assessment of need, Music Publishers task force

As of 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC), Wikipedia^® does not have a Project to organize articles and related information on Music Publishers; my Requests for Articles on Music Sales Corporation (an independent New York corporation) and Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corporation (a Warner Music Group subsidiary corporation dedicated to music publication and copyright management) have not been acted on since the Requests were placed in 2007. Several existing articles on music publishers (e.g., Acuff-Rose Music) would fall in the scope of the proposed Music Publishers task force. How do we proceed with establishment of a task force to uniform the process for creating and maintaining Music Publishers articles? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Music project is an umbrella project so I don't think it has task forces. Classical music does have task forces, but maybe the music publishers you have in mind are not all classical? It would be possible to start a descendant project under Music Project parentage, however it might be best to check first to see if there is enough support to launch it. IMO a project should have at least five or six active members and produce at least 50 to 100 articles to be viable. --Kleinzach 01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New FP

Manuscript notes for Beethoven Piano Sonata No. 28

Hi, just dropping by to mention there's a newly featured picture that relates to your project. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 09:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try Classical music? --Kleinzach 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... Durova^Charge! 09:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banner template

Following the discussion above (Banners and assessments) the template is at tfd here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article in need of much attention

Article Fefe Dobson is, among other things, loaded with unreliable sources, trivia, and tons of unencylopedic language. It needs strong editing or even a total rewrite. It appears to be edited heavily by fanboys/girls and I no longer have the time or energy to deal with this sort of situation. Hopefully someone here is up to the task. I would post this on the noticeboard but this appears to attract more traffic. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Music of Europe

Hi there. Anyone willing to help out the Music of Europe article? For such an important article, it's in a really sad state. Any help, as small as it may be, would be great. Thanks, --Cattus ^talk 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

i think it would be much easier to delete it than develop the thing. It's been there since 2005 - looking for some kind of concept and never finding one.--Kleinzach 09:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only saw your reply now. As I said on the edit summary of the article, it's clearly true that the article has been almost completely neglected since it was created. But considering what the article is about, notability is definitely not a problem here. So, all it needs is knowledgeable people editing it.--Cattus ^talk 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed the prod I put on this. OK. My view is that notability does not trump common sense. Key here (as always) is encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information. Europe is notable + Music is notable doesn't necessarily equal a viable article. Do you have a definition for this subject? A concept? Or are we going to have an article that simply says "Welsh music is music in Wales. Belarussian music is music in Belarussia. . . ." If you put something together worth reading I'll be perfectly happy to applaud you, but if you can't it should be deleted as a non-subject. Over to you! --Kleinzach 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would if I could, but I'm just not knowledgeable enough. I'm trying to help the article as best as I can. Fortunately, I'm not the only person editing wikipedia, so if I can't help, maybe someone else will come along and do it. It shouldn't be deleted just because I can't expand it. This is not my personal wiki :) That's why I came to this project and to requests for expansion, to find someone who could help the article, in a way that I can't.--Cattus ^talk 06:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. No-one has succeeded in making sense of this title since 2005! Why do you think someone will appear now? It's a discredit to Wikipedia, a waste of time for any reader who accesses it. Why block its deletion? What's the point? --Kleinzach 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite its lack of quality, the article is on a very notable subject. Deleting it wouldn't be of much service to the readers. Many if not most articles start as stubs, and many remain stubs for a long time. Just because it hasn't been expanded yet, doesn't mean it never will. If you really think the article should be deleted, you should take it to AFD, so more people, and not just the two of us, can give their opinion on what to do. I'm going to read some articles on music and search Google Books to try to improve it.--Cattus ^talk 19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Have a go at rehabilitating it and I'll have a look later. I have an open mind on this, but please remember there are many other articles on European music - this is not the only one. --Kleinzach 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Klein. There is nothing notable about music of Europe. As for all the satellite articles: Music of Central Europe, Nordic music, Music of Southern Europe. These are all essentially categories, not articles. The only one that really attempts to be an article is Nordic music, and it fails. They should all be deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've prodded Music of Central Europe and Music of Southern Europe. --Kleinzach 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now put Music of Europe up for deletion here. --Kleinzach 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer/Country

PLEASE help me in my drive to improve country music articles. I'm begging you. I seem to be the only editor who gives a rip about country music; most of the country articles are crap. You can find more info here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pop music needs input/discussion again ...

could we get some discussion/consensus on the article on Pop music, please and thank you? the question has once again arisen whether the article is supposed to be about a particular genre of music or about trends in popular music charts. if it's not supposed to be about a particular genre, shouldn't it be merged with Popular music and/or Record chart? and if it *is* supposed to be about a particular genre, shouldn't it focus on that genre rather than deny its existence? if people could weigh in on the current "pop is popular" dicussion the article's talk page that would be great: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pop_music#Pop_is_popular thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Music genres

I agree Music genres should be merged into this project. --Kleinzach 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As a taskforce. Because working on genres & styles is essential. --Nagasheus (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you implement this? --Kleinzach 09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conundrum. Not an area I have edited much in but ruminating on how best to utilse strengths and minimise weaknesses. Problem is too many underactive wikiprojects which fractionate/split up editors and reduce possiblity for collaborative editing. I agree wit hthe idea of a music genre taskforce as the genre debate is a tricky one which will need negotiation from time to time. I would Move the music genre wikiproject to a subpage of this wikiproject and rename it Music Genre taskforce. I would then redirect its talk page to WP music discussion to keep discussion in the one place and archive old discussion to the WP:Music discussion pages. This way, discussion is centralised and hopefully facilitate active editors interacting with one another, and the isue of genres is kept active as a taskforce. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me - though quite a lot of work for you. Suggest you propose the task force below with a prominent header and see how many people are willing to sign up for it. Good luck! --Kleinzach 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging Infobox Single & Infobox Song

{{Infobox Single}} and {{Infobox Song}} seem to be used interchangeably, I have proposed that they be merged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[Comment moved to Template talk:Infobox Single#Merge to keep parallel discussion in one place]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sharp & Smooth at AfD

This house-related pruduction duo is in need of sourcing but editors are unsure what house music sources might be. Input welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharp & Smooth. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Big link problem

It appears, from a quick glance at Billboard's incoming links page, that hundreds of music articles link there erroneously, instead of Billboard (magazine). with such a large number of edits required, is this something a bot could/should handle? For starters, any article with a music-related infobox probably should link to the magazine, though this might not be completely accurate, admittedly. Any other ideas? --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

acharts.us

At the moment, there are several hundred articles using acharts.us as a reference, but I haven't seen anything definitive regarding the site's reliability. It was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#United World Chart and aCharts.us and more in depth at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rachel Stevens discography. According to the site's about page, its software automatically retrieves chart information from the charts' sites, but it includes contact info in case users notice errors "made by our sources or by the software which analyses new charts and adds them to the website." If there's a consensus to use this site, it'd be good to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style; otherwise, the references on all the articles that use the site will need to be tagged and eventually replaced. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with acharts.us (other than the reliability problem) is that it collects data from legitimate charts (such as Billboard) and illegitimate charts (such as Hot100Brasil)(see comment below). Because certain charts are valid, people are assuming that all of the data from acharts is usable in Wikipedia, when it's not. I've always preferred retrieving chart data from other sources (such as Billboard's actual site, for example) than acharts. It's a bit more work, but I believe it to be better in the long run. SKS2K6 (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Peer review/Discipline (Janet Jackson album)/archive1, apparently it's no longer allowed, particularly for FA articles. However Ultratop.be is still allowed and is just as good a source. — Realist² 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't say it's not allowed; it's just asking why that meets WP:RS. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When he say's "what makes these reliable", he usually means "these are not reliable". When it comes to RS he's one of the top guys on wikipedia, if he can't find a good argument for their inclusion I'm not sure anyone can. — Realist² 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which charts on acharts.us are unsuitable (illegitimate)? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If a suitable replacement has already been stated which is just as good, then use this. This saves hassle and it means that FA reviews don't need to worry about it. I've never used that other website so i couldn't tell you if it was any good or not. If it helps at all, i live in the UK and there's a wesite used here called http://www.chartstats.com/, which is a UK singles and album chart archive. As far as i know i has a gap-free chart archive for UK albums and singles from the present day back to the 1950s, as it says on the website home page. It also incudes chart positions lower than 100 i think (which are difficult to find). Users in the UK could use this. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:SteelersFan_UK06, the one example I know is the Bulgaria chart, which is a mirror of the Bulgaria National Top 40, which was deleted due to verifiability and reliability issues. The same applies to basically any site using the Euro200 stats, including, of course, the site itself. (If you look at the Bulgaria discussion, you'll see that Euro 200 was listed and deleted as well.) Also, Sweden and Ireland have no source on acharts. (Btw, I was wrong earlier, so I'm striking that out. That's another site, top40charts.com or something to that effect.) SKS2K6 (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)