Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article structure

OK, I think I have listed most of the main U.K. related topics on the main project page. This is what I think is the basic structure of articles:

Pop, Folk and Jazz

Orchestral, Church, Opera/Light opera

Obviously there is more information in individual articles on people and venues etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

English operas

Category:Comic operas is due to be renamed to Category:English comic operas per the discussion here. There is also a Category:English-language operettas. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical music of the United Kingdom

This article was neat in length but very thin indeed. I have been fattening it up in the 19th century but it is still hopelessly inadequate. If sufficiently fattened in all periods it could become a series of period articles (though I'm not sure that centuries is the most sensible way to subdivide as this cuts across significant phases) - such 'fattening' would also provide a more adequate basis on which to produce a lean but suitably detailed synoptic article under the original title. Hope this approach meets with gen approval, please post it or me if not, and please add/edit as seems best. Perhaps we could pack this with information and let it burst into a period series leaving an informative core. Dr Steven Plunkett 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steven- that looks a really good job there! What you say about splitting the page is probably a good idea (although I have seen very long pages) - the Music of the United Kingdom page does a similiar thing linking to Early Popular Music, 50s-60s, 70s, 80s-90s etc. We need to decide about the Folk Music of England page also- I think it should be probably moved back to Music of England unless we change all the other UK subpages to specifically folk music. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category editing

This is a tedious process but there is a lot of clearing up to do before we get to work on articles in general. If the infrastructure is wrong, the route to articles will be misleading. One of our prime objectives I think should be to enable clear demarcation (except in the few examples of crossover) between folk music, pop music and composed/classical music in categorising articles. The present categories allocated to articles are often misleading, or insufficiently considered, and prevent this.

Take e.g. Category:English musicians. There are innumerable sub-categories to this, so no person should be listed in the head category, but everyone should be listed in the category/ies as far down the hierarchy as appropriate. Most of those listed there presently should go to some category of English pop music e.g. Category:English pop singers, Category:English pop guitarists, etc. That raises further problems down the line: e.g. Category:English guitarists lists 197 guitarists who need to be sorted according to the existing categories of . Similarly with singers, keyboard artists, etc.

I have just been looking at Category:English musicians and doing some weeding. Many of the entries are 'double-counted' - i.e. already listed under a sub-category (although not always the appropriate one) - so just need to have Category:English musicians deleted. Others are just worng - for example there were a number of English musicologists whose category Category:English musicologists is, correctly, a sub-cat of Category:English music - they are not, for the most part, musicans at all (Of course if they are they can be members of both categories).

Can I suggest a target to see Category:English musicians empty of all entries save for sub-categories. If a number of us do a few a day it won't take that long to clear up. Then we can start on English singers, etc. --Smerus 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to point people in the direction of the WikiProject Musicians WP:MUSCAT guidelines on how to categorize musicians, in case anyone's missed them. A couple of editors in this field, including myself, have started using edit summaries that specifically refer to this, e.g. "recategorization of article per WP:MUSCAT guidelines". It helps justify the change and publicise the guidelines at the same time. Just a thought. Good luck with the recat project. I tacked Category:Welsh musicians some time ago, and it can be done! Bencherlite 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
brilliant tip, many thanks--Smerus 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

wikimobileactunsigned.com

Hello guys,

Have just started a wiki-directory of local music info across the UK - does anyone fancy popping over to help start it up? I think it could be a very powerful resource, when filled up :)

More info on the site here: http://www.wikimobileactunsigned.com

Annihilatenow 16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished writing

  • "Timeline of trends in Music of Spain"
  • "Timeline of trends in German Music"
  • "Timeline of trends in Music of France"
  • "Timeline of trends in Russian Music"

I notice that the "Music of the United Kingdom" is structed very differently. It is done year-by-year, which makes it impossible for me to list the major UK composers in chronological order. It certainly looks to me as if people have completely given up contributing to this page, so I shall simply edit the "common template" to make it look like the rest of Europe, unless I hear commments from someone within the next few days. Ogg (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now created "Timeline of trends in British music" (if anyone is reading this). Ogg (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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

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

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

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

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

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

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

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

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

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Templates merger

I know that this page is pretty much abandoned, but I thought it was a good idea to post this here just in case. There are two templates this one called Template:UK music and which has British Music at the top and Template:Britishmusic, which, ironically, has Music of the United Kingdom at the top. Suggest a merger, combining the features of both. My preferred title would be "Music of the British Isles", since both include places that are in the British Isles but not in Britain or the United Kingdom. If I don't get any objections I will do this and put one template on all articles when time allows.--Sabrebd (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Britishmusic is now deleted. Plastikspork (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD help

I'd be grateful for input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Anthony Jay‎ - probably a borderline case, but on which side of the border? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Early music of the British Isles

A proposal for splitting or other changes to this article is being discussed here.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

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

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

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

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

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

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

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

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "[[WP
Incubation|incubation pages"

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

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

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

Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening up a discussion over recent changes to the following articles with the aim of adding pictures:

and

From my point of view, I am very happy to have pictures, and have tried to accommodate as many as possible, but they have to take second place to the text. Too many can overpower an article and a number raised copyright issues.--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This template is too big to justify being at the top right side. It works much better at the bottom - in the same way we have done with the US music template (which you can see at the bottom of this article). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I didnt understand what you meant by moving it to the bottom (ie changing the nature of the template). This may be a solution, but it is a major change and (given that I did object) it might have been a good idea not to just ignore me, but to explain and then see if there was a consensus on this before adjusting every relevant article. I dont plan to revert them all these changes (ie the template and move the it it back to the top of of the articles at this time), but suggest we wait bear in mind that there might be some objections from editors here. However, in the mean time, and this is quite imporant, its great to have the map on the new template, but it includes the Republic of Ireland, which is not part of the United Kingdom. Can we possibly find a more accurate picture before someone comes here with a (frankly justified) complaint, as experience suggests they will?--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly I had to do so to show everyone that this solution works better - mainly because you kept on reverting any changes I made in the decade articles. I hope you would forgive me now that the you see the changes. Either way, if many other editors would object to this I promise to revert all the changes I made myself (Still I believe this won't be necessary because as you see it works much better).
I have put a flag of the UK instead. hope you like it better.
Does anyone else besides Sabrebd think the former template worked much better? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I am not sure that the old template did work better, I am rather neutral about it. It might take some time to get any replies as this page does not get heavy traffic. On the union flag, I have to admit I did prefer the map, but at least this image solves the boundary problem. As to reversions to the content articles, those were really about other issues, so we may be able to take them page by page. Some of them are connected with guidelines and some with Wikipedia policies, so they are hard to avoid.--SabreBD (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackie and Bridie

A slightly surprising omission: Jackie and Bridie. I'm not in a position to work on it right now, but I think they deserve an article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Music of the United Kingdom articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Music of the United Kingdom articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

British Soul entry

I have concerns about the quality of this article. I accept that some hard work went into it but it makes certain assumptions that are contentious. It mentions a string of artists who were influenced by soul music but who can't be described as soul singers ie.Tom Jones. It fails to mention a number of legitimate British soul acts such as Jimmy James & The Vagabonds (active in the 60s/70s), The Real Thing (a pop group yes but surely more akin to Soul Music than say David Bowie or Simply Red), Delegation (successful in the UK & USA) or Hot House (who cut one of the best british soul LPs . If one looks closely the 60s only produced a handful of soul/R&B records from England. There were more in the 80s with groups like Light of the World and solo acts like Junior the latter who had a huge no 1 in the USA.

There is a body of opinion that argues that Soul Music asa seperate entity was subsumed by other genres and I'm in this camp. The article mentions the British soul invasion - Some fine singers but its not soul music that morphed into something else around 1980.

Just a suggestion but why not ask the author Clive Richardson to write an article or perhaps John 'Soul' Smith. They were around in the 60s and understand what went on. dorkinglad (talk)

British rock etc music categories - a standard?

As I've pointed out on the project 'deletion' (rename to British Music?) page, I've had problems with Scottish music categories. The problem was the rock and indie cats - indie being a sub cat. I couldn't understand where famous Scottish indie bands like Jesus and Mary Chain were, then discovered the mess. Initially I notices the band The Fire Engines were not categorised at all - which is no wonder really, as these things are not very accessible. I'm not always a big fan of WP lists to be honest, but music is an area where they can be useful. As a proviso to that I would say that British music has to be a category too, as bands in the UK can classically be 'multi-cultural' and move around, whichever country they are (or sometimes simply happen to be) formed in.

The main thing with lists is that they don't really work when things that should be in them are missing.

For the band called Ballboy (an indie band that was in the Scottish rock cat, but not in the indie one), I've done this:

DEFAULTSORT:Ballboy

Category:Scottish rock music groups

Category:Scottish indie rock groups

Category:British rock music groups

Category:British indie rock groups

This could perhaps be a standard format (ie top and sub cats for both the constituent UK country and 'British'), with editors adding the other cats ('Bands from Edinburgh' etc) as they see fit - or via this project if it starts up again. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Mfd/proposal to redirect

The recent Mfd was closed as follows:

"The result of the discussion was No consensus. Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice to further discussion taking place to decide what to do here. In passing, any new discussion should probably start from the guidelines provided at the MfD page for WikiProject pages: "It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable." It should be noted that the options listed there don't need a new MfD but can be done by any editor. "

I propose the project be redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom. Alternative proposals are welcome. --Kleinzach 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no responses about this, I'll go ahead and make the redirect. --Kleinzach 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK - I've reverted the redirect. How do you know that people haven't read my comment above (for example) and are taking its advice? People do come to projects to read you know, not always to comment. I must admit I was tempted to just start Wikiproject British Music, but I did promise to make that move request per The proposed project-deletion discussion. People may just want to keep what we have here. Certainly we need something. UK contemporary band music is in a mess - deleting this project is not the answer, it's just part of a disorganised area. If you expect UK noticeboard contributors to help out, then post a comment asking them to do it - redirecting there isn't going to solve anything. My apologies to people who have been waiting on me to start the Request for Move - it's late, but I'll do it now. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly needs a bit more time to allow replies.--SabreBD (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the recent Mfd (and apparent interest in this issue) I allowed sufficient time, however I'm happy for this to be discussed again here. --Kleinzach 07:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you bothered reading most of that apparently "humongous" Mfd given your representations of it and where it left us. It's not in any way for you to say where and whether things are discussed or not. You are just one editor with one opinion. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to WikiProject British Music

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - While there is no consensus to move, a merge appears to have more support. If a merge is to take place, it should be discussed through the normal channels. Neelix (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom → Wikipedia:WikiProject British Music –

During a recent Request for Deletion for this wikiproject - closed as No Consensus - I promised to essentially move discussion onto a Request for Move. In truth, I think that the result may be to keep the title as it is, but more discussion is certainly needed, esp as there are people who wish to delete this Wikiproject because it never really took off. I find that unacceptable though, because A) how many wikiprojects are 'thriving', and why should they be? B) people can always refer to it when needed (ie at least it is there), C) people like me waste their time looking for them, and it will only be restarted - so it may as well be sorted out now. Also, contemporary British music is in a bit of a mess and does need sorting, and no doubt there are various other issues too.

The renaming suggestions that arose in the eventually-fruitful AfD were:

  • WikiProject British Music (which parallels WikiProject Irish Music) – ie this request. Northern Ireland and Ireland are/were British, though were never in Britain, only the UK. When dealing with pre-unification times, the term 'British' is less political than 'United Kingdom' - and thus more acceptible (if not entirely accurate).
  • WikiProject Britannic Music - perhaps stronger in being more flexible? It perhaps better suits music prior to unification and the eventual use of the term 'British'. In all cases, a leading paragraph can detail what is covered by the project and not.
  • Keep the same WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom title and simply lead the project with a paragraph explaining relavant history (ie that Ireland was part of the UK during the 19C etc, the Channel Islands are included, early music is covered too etc). Crossover sometimes happens with these things – it's not a disaster.
  • Other suggestions included WikiProject Music of the British Isles (living alongside WikiProject Irish Music – which could be seen more specifically as a 'sound' than an area), or having multiple wikiprojects for each of the constituent UK countries (although some music is simply 'British' in that it doesn't easily slot into those nations, or wish to, and those projects could also appear with a UK/British music project in existence anyway.)

I would actually be happy with any of them (apart from only using the constituent countries), but I'll initially go for "British Music", partly because it neatly parallels "Irish Music", and partly because I think people will clearly see that it covers what it does (which of course will be laid out anyway). It seems the least problematic to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that now Mr IP (I actually meant to last night). Kleinzach put it in, and after I'd contributed to the project, and people were debating on it too. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Given this discussion, it's fine to remove the {{Inactive}} tag, that doesn't matter — but it should be remembered that this was nominated for Mfd as a "Dead project". --Kleinzach 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I seriously object to you crow-barring pejorative "politics" into the decision simply because of the word 'British' (or previously 'UK'). I just cannot tell you how offensive I find it. The UK simply exists, yet is constantly under threat on WP from people who suggest it is best to 'stear clear'. It is actually you who are concentrating on 'politics' all the time Kleinzach, by insisting it is a real and negative value (instead of just a technical one to work out in terms of content). And I wish you'd stop telling people what to do and how to do it all the time - I've started successful wikiprojects before just by going ahead and doing it. The word 'British' is a cultural-enough term, and music is very-often cultural - or at least the music I listen to is. Look at folk etc. The UK is famous for crossover and musical diversity - a UK/British project is essential to make sense of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Pls just disregard Kleinzach comments - hes does not speak for the rest of us - Why he goes around insulting people and there projects is beyond me. Saying you need a dozen or more volunteers is a lie! He seem to think that projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music despite there many many FAs and GAs are useless. He seem to measure projects success by how much they use there talk page rather then the article they work on. Moxy (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Moxy: WP:UNCIVIL Read it. It starts "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict.'' Once again you have gone over the line. --Kleinzach 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as "Music of the United Kingdom". "British Music" is obviously perfectly valid as a category, but it might be better to keep "Music of the United Kingdom" for the project, which is more specific and more contemporary. It's also a neater way to define and accommodate the inevitable British/Irish overlap. "British Music" is more ambiguous, as "British" can refer historically to the music of the ancient Britons and medieval Britons (Welsh), or geographically to the British Isles, Great Britain, and in a wider sense to the shared musical culture of the British Empire, British Commonwealth, etc. Ideally, there should be room for both categories, as "British" and the "United Kingdom" are close synonyms only in a contemporary context. Lachrie (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to Merge to WP:UK

Following the 'Requested move' discussion above and closure with the words "While there is no consensus to move, a merge appears to have more support. If a merge is to take place, it should be discussed through the normal channels." So we should now consider a merger. I propose a merger to WP:UK/Music. (Another alternative would be a merger to WP:UK as a task force.) It would be appreciated if everyone could remember that this is an exercise in establishing consensus. Please support, oppose, suggest or whatever! Thank you. --Kleinzach 04:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1190139903"