Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Definition

Starting this since appaerently everyone is waiting for someone else to. See Talk:Rock_music#It.27s_time_to_improve_this_page. Zazaban (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For background, I said at Talk:Rock music:

There is one school of thought which argues that "rock and roll" and "rock" cover the same ground, and another that "rock" is a specific (but widespread) post-1960s ("noisy white men with guitars") development from the 1950s style. There is also a separate but related argument that the term "rock" is limited to that particular genre ("noisy white men with guitars"), and another school of thought which treats most modern rhythm-based popular music - including soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, disco, etc. etc. - as part of the overarching umbrella term "rock music". I'm sure that reliable refs can be found on either side. (There is an important side argument, which is that it is racist to exclude most black artists from "rock music".) What is important here is that the variations of definition are mentioned, and that articles are written which cover all the ground, with good solid links between articles and not too much overlap. In order to do that, some form of consensus needs to be reached.

User:Sabrebd replied:

I think it is a fair point that the article must deal with both definitions, if we can dig out appropriate sources - this would seem to imply we need a definitional section (at the beginning) and that it should be mentioned in the lead. There is a issue, increasingly reflected in modern musicology, that rock and roll itself can be seen as the marketing of a form of black music (rhythm and blues) for a white audience. Rock, as a genre that emerged in the mid 1960s (the sense taken in this article), was music largely performed by and for white males, with some very notable exceptions (both in race and gender). The problem is that rock is often defined in opposition to other forms of music (e.g. it is not pop, not classical, and for many it is not disco, soul, funk or hip hop - although only a very ignorant person could claim it was not influenced by all of those genres). These definitions were based on a social bias, among performers, fans and critics, but nevertheless, this distinction has dominated the genre, which had a clear sense that it had a separate history and identity. The distinction may be a false one (because objectively the "authenticity" of rock music is illusory), but it is one that has existed. I am not sure how we square that circle.

I agreed. That is, I think that there are multiple and overlapping definitions of both "rock music" and "rock and roll", which WP should try to explain. However, in my view, WP should not attempt to find a consensus for stating in article space that one particular definition is "right" and others are "wrong". But, it would be appropriate to attempt to define the scope of WP projects, such as this one.
Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should certainly mention both defentions, but not say one or the other is right. Anyway, I was the main contributer to the expanded version of Rock music, and the result is still linked from my talk page if anyone wants to look. Zazaban (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
We should point out some of the ramifications of taking a broader approach. It will be inconsistent to have main articles on each sub-genre that do not reflect that they can be seen as rock, for example on soul, funk, rap.--SabreBD (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [1]. --78.111.169.38 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy involving Dethalbum II

There has been a controversy concerning the said article and it has been documented with comments on its talk page. It is concerning a {{citation needed}} tag that I had placed a while back. It concerns this passage of the article:


Notice the invisible message to editors in the cquote. The two popular opinions about that passage are:

  • A: Information needs sources, and that section of information is unsourced; thus, it needs one.
  • B: The information is easily verifiable by looking at the album cover and needs no source.

There was a recent edit where this conflict was "resolved", but I wasn't sure about the edit (link here). I personally am sided with option A, since I added the citation needed tag was added by me in the first place. However, I'm open-minded to suggestions, and if the edit performed is an acceptable one, then so be it. Thank you. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Need Page No. from Top Pop Albums 1955-2001 by Whitburn

I don't know if anyone can help me out but I'm getting an article ready for GA assessment and part of what I need to do is put page numbers into some of the inline references that require them. Most of the references in the article have been added by myself, so no problem there, however, there was an inline reference that another user way back in the mists of time had cited, which was from Joel Whitburn's book Top Pop Albums 1955-2001. I just wondered if any kind folks out there might have a copy of this book and be willing to help me ascertain which page in the book the info I need is actually on. Many thanks in advance. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

more eyes needed

Little Richard has been undergoing considerable editing lately, and it would be very helpful if more good music editors could have a look to assist with keeping the tone encyclopedic and ensuring that the sources used are appropriate ... thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could someone please move User:Dylan620/Sandbox/Bright Nights * Dark Days into their userspace, and work on it? I have become involved with rating the album on two sites, and I must cease my work on the article as to avoid a conflict of interest. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


GA reassessment of Alec Empire

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Alec Empire/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Fall Out Boy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical facts.

In three articles, historical texts with reliable references, including references to wikipedia is more accustomed too.

Articles:

  • Art rock
  • Psychedelic rock
  • Progressive rock

All the texts are not opinions, and that the references (serious by the way).

My text Psychedelic rock first:

In August 1964, Beach Boys releases two singles, When I Grow Up (To Be a Man) / She Knows Me Too Well with a sophistication unusual for the time, and were placed on albums in 1965, Today! http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/music-records/today-the-beach-boys/1298336/ and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!), which contains introspective and experimental music with classical music elements. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:aifqxql5ld0e It has since come to light, and has long been freely admitted to by Brian Wilson, that he had begun using marijuana during december 1964 as a stress reliever, and once he realized the profound effect it had on the way he perceived music, Wilson became a regular user.Wilson, Brian / Gold, Todd (1991). Would not It Be Nice - My Own Story

See the references that I'm not lying, and is a justice to the pioneering groups. All of these articles cited The Beatles, but I showed, The Beach Boys in 1964, 1965 and 1966 were already with albums and songs that contain musical experimentation, indeed, much more experimentation before The Beatles. Interestingly in the texts that I wrote, I said that not one was experimental more than the other, just to avoid claims. These three articles refer to the music of avant-garde and experimental ...

See the article mentioning the progressive rock (precursors) Sgt. Peppers (1967), Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966) (ALL OF THE BEATLES) ... But the Pet Sounds is experimental very much. Pet Sounds (Beach Boys) is 1966, and Sgt Peppers is 1967.

The funny thing is that Rubber Soul of 1965 (The Beatles) is cited in this file, and, The Beach Boys albums in 1965 (Today and Summer Days), are experimental more. But still I did not say to avoid claims .

If you want to search the data sheet of the albums and compare the amount of instruments used by Beach Boys, is gigantic. In my text just said that these materials of the Beach Boys since 1965 contained 'strong elements of classical music and dismissed him. I'm subscribed to classical music portal (lusofone wikipedia). My problem is not having a good English (I'm from Brasil).

I now know original research. I rewrote the phrases.

Article progressive rock that was deleted too.

Look at the source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2622304 . In another addition to any other source in the article that art rock show that Paul McCartney took the influence of Pet Sounds About Sg. Peppers The Beatles. Including George Martin said that without Pet Sounds, Sgt Peppers would not have happened. http://www.brianwilson.com/brian/musicians.html

Sgt Peppers is quoted in the article as a progressive rock precursor. The article also cites the Rubber Soul claiming to have experimentalism ... So I mentioned The Beach Boys album of 1965 even before the cast Help and Rubber soul, claiming to have elements classical music experimentalism, and sophistication .

Why cite Rubber Soul and Revolver in Article prog rock?

The Today! and Summer Days (Beach Boys) albums are more experimental than Rubber Soul. Pet Sounds is more experimental than Revolver and Sgt Peppers together.

The experimentation, production ...., is essential to understand the pioneering art rock and prog rock.

But the article psychdelic rock is good to leave the passage of 1964 single and 1965 albums .... : In 1964 the single When I Grow Up (To Be a Man) has a harpsichord, melodramatic passages and sophisticated harmonies. It was during this period that Brian is using marijuana, which he said caused sensations in the form of writing.

Here rewritten (art rock) :

The Beach Boys release Pet Sounds album (1966) with its experimentalism ,the musical structure and production. The Beatles have said that Pet Sounds was a major influence on their album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

In Article prog rock, my text is good, and is not pretentious.

But it may be this:

The earliest traces of progressive rock can be seen in such albums as Pet Sounds (1966), by the Beach Boys, with its experimental musical structure, production and sophistication. Smile Unrealized (1967) and Smiley Smile (1967) and, The Beach Boys 1965 albums with classical music elements (or unusual elements), use orchestral arrangements, melodies and sophisticated harmonies on The Beach Boys Today! and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!) with harpsichord, zither, among other instruments.

Technical information Today! :

Woodblocks, temple block, bell-tree, tambourine, Timpani, Conga drums, sleigh bells, Triangle, Clave, Castanet, Vibraphone, Timbales, English Horn, French Horn, Tenor Sax, Baritone sax, Harpsichord, Harp, Piano, Electric piano, Accordion, Mandolin, ukulele, zither (autoharp), Harmonic, Acoustic Guitar, electric bass guitar, Electric guitar, drums, organ, upright piano, 12 string guitar, tack piano.

Technical information Summer Days (And Summer Nights)  :

Vibraphone, tambourine, Castanet, Timbales, Claves, upright Bass, Tenor Saxophone, baritone saxophone, Piano,Trumpet, Celesta, ukulele, harmonica, Viola, French Horn, Violin (various), Electric guitar, electric bass, drums, carnival barker, 12 string guitar, handclaps.

Technical information Rubber Soul:

Electric guitar, electric piano, piano, guitar,bass guitar, drums, sitar, hammond organ, harmonium, percussion.

So, why Rubber Soul only is cited on prog rock ?

Today! and Summer Days are experimental more!


Two references more: http://www.mp3.com/albums/1215/similar.html

http://spectrumculture.com/2009/07/revisit-the-beach-boys-summer-days-and-summer-nights-1965.html (psychedelic songs on Summer Days)


I do not want it written that Today and Summer Days are more experimental. I want them to be also recognized, as the Rubber Soul is deservedly. (Mago266 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6553833/2_pet_sounds (Paul and his Pet Sounds influence ....Sgt. P...)

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?sql=10:3ifwxql5ld0e (look Here Today too).

Other ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/5h3n (Mago266 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

I deleted the reference amazon. (Mago266 (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

is this band notable or not

I have a swedish hard rock/metal band which i started to write an article about, but it was deleted via CSDA7. The band is called 220 Volt, it sold records worldwide including the US and Japan and published on the labels CBS and Epic. The article was under 220 Volt (band). The band exists for 30 years now and was very popular (in the heavy metal scene) in sweden and other european countries in the late 80s. It's hard to find Information about them on the web from other sources than the official band page, the only source I found was here http://www.discogs.com/artist/220+Volt. I think the speedy deletion was not right anyway. Videos and clips can of course be found on youtube.com - the official page is www.220volt.se -- Lanoman (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This band have an entry (albeit a sketchy one) at the Allmusic website (here), so yes they are certainly notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article I would say. Allmusic is recognised by Wikipedia as a reliable third party source and is even recommended as a good source in the Resources section of the WP:NM page. In addition, this band clearly meet a number of notability criteria as outlined on the WP:NM page. So, the fact that such an internationally popular band has had their article deleted is ridiculous in my view and has obviously been done by someone with no clue as to the band's notability in the international market. If you decide to re-instate the article or appeal against this deletion, you can count on my help and support...just let me know if you need it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm in talk with this user now and I think we can solve the problem, it seems a lack of information (should have been provided by me) was the reason for deletion, as I was busy and did not insert further details into that page. As you might see, I'm no native english speaker, so I need some time (and some times a dictionary) to find the right words. -- Lanoman (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm a native English speaker and also a published writer, so if you need any help with copyediting, just let me know. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Careful objection

Hi, there. Well, I wanna ask something. Why US only releases are so notable that they deserve to be on the original album sections and discographies when they are only re-releases of the original global releases? WHY? Just because 300 000 000 America is a big country with big market doesn't mean that China or India don't posses as big markets! I don't see the reason for this conjunction by Wikipedia users. I think that my knowledge of the marketing and observational critics has pushed me to the edge of thinking in a more global way. So, why this distinction. It is merely of question. Thank you very much. I will express my opinion further.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Rock music to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

STYX Greatest Hits (1992) missing?

Hey guys I was just looking through the STYX discography and noticed that their Greatest Hits from 1992 is missing! I know it exits because I own it! I don't really know how to edit pages properly on here, can someone help me out? Here is a link I found through google that shows the cd cover:

http://www.allcdcovers.com/show/75995/styx_greatest_hits_1992_retail_cd/front

Track listing is as follows:

1. Babe [edit] 3:55

2. Blue Collar Man (Long Nights) [edit] 3:37

3. Come Sail Away 5:30

4. Crystal Ball 4:27

5. Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man) 5:08

6. Light Up 4:19

7. Mr. Roboto [edit] 4:44

8. Renegade 4:13

9. The Best Of Times 4:18

10. Don't Let It End 4:53

11. The Grand Illusion 4:36

12. Suite Madame Blue 6:31

13. Too Much Time On My Hands 4:32

14. Miss America 6:21

15. Love Is The Ritual 3:48

16. Show Me The Way 4:35

17. Lady 2:58

It may just have been released in Canada, I'm not sure but I do know that it's through A&M Records.

Cheers

~Grampappy Joe~ (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't attempt to provide articles for every album, even by a notable band like Styx. Greatest hits are a bit of a grey area, and are unusual as articles unless they have some special notability (such as being the best selling album of a decade). The real issue is whether reliable third part sources can be found for it. See WP:NALBUMS and WP:SOURCES.--SabreBD (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've gotta say that I agree with SabreBD here. Not every compilation by every artist is necessarily notable enough in it's own right to necessitate a Wikipedia article. That's not to say that STYX's 1992 Greatest Hits album isn't notable enough, just that there definitely needs to be something special about it for it to deserve its own article. Are there multiple songs on it that are not available on any other album or single releases, for example? Is there anything notable about its contents (ie. it's made up of exclusive live renditions of the songs, rather than the usual studio versions)? These are the kinds of things that make compilation albums notable. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You can start by adding it to Styx discography. It doesn't look like it ever made it to gold by the RIAA or BPI, unlike some of their other compilations. There are other compilations on that list that have their own article that would also be borderline non-notable. —Akrabbimtalk 18:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I wasn't saying that it necessarily needs to have its own article. But shouldn't it at least be noted in the discography article? This is something I honestly don't know how to do, haha I'm kinda new at this ~Grampappy Joe~ (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to act upon your suggestion and add the album to the Styx discography page but I found it quite difficult to find any reference to a 1992 compilation album by the band with a track listing matching the one you've provided. I've checked on the Allmusic website and on a fan compiled discography (here), but turned up nothing matching this date and with that track listing. However, I know the CD exists because I found a cover scan of it on allcdcovers.com and Amazon.ca has a listing for it. The compilation you're referring to seems to be an expanded version of the 1987 compilation Styx Classics Volume 15, since the first 14 tracks are identical on both releases, but it's obviously a somewhat little known compilation. Anyway, I've added it to the Styx discography page for you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks ~Grampappy Joe~ (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cregan

Can I ask for expert help from members of this wikiproject about the article Jim Cregan. I've been working my way through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing and Jim Cregan is listed in 2 maintenance categories - Articles lacking reliable references (Sep 2009), BLP articles lacking sources. The article says associated acts include: Blossom Toes, Family, Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel & Rod Stewart. I have looked online but am having a really hard time finding any suitable references to cite. Do any of you have better knowledge or reliable sources which could be used to add references to the article?— Rod talk 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


If you enter "Jim Cregan" in the search box on Wolfgang's Vault (http://www.wolfgangsvault.com) all the concerts in which he played with Rod Stewart are available to you to research. medecki--64.1.215.178 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mellotron Heart has been suggested to be merged into Porcelain Heart

An anonymous user has requested that Mellotron Heart be merged into Porcelain Heart. The above poster had this to say on my talkpage:


I think that the Mellotron Heart merge to Porcelain Heart wouldn't be a bad idea, considering that the Mellotron Heart page does not have much information about its assigned topic. However, I do not want to do that just yet, because I would want a consensus to be made. Any thoughts? You can post it on this talk page, the talk page of any other wikiproject I post this in, or the talk page of Mellotron Heart or Porcelain Heart.

BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 05:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Collins FAR

I have nominated Phil Collins 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help from someone who can read music

Hello, I have a request for anyone who can read music and has the music notes software. I'm trying to do some work on the composition section in "City of Blinding Lights". What I have so far from the music notes software (here) is "City of Blinding Lights" is played in a key of A-major at a speed of 139 BPM in common time. The vocals range from F♯4 to A7." What I think I need now is a chord sequence, the kind of tempo it is played at, and more specific vocal ranges throughout the song. The article recently passed GA and I'd really like to get it up to FA; but with what I have so far I think that just isn't possible. Any help that can be provided at all with this would be very much appreciated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it considered original research? Music Notes is used as a source in several current song FAs, including "4 Minutes (Madonna song)" and "Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song)". I'm just asking for help in reading the source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I would need to download software to see the link (and I don't want to do that), and I can certainly be wrong, but let me understand this site because I'm not familiar with it. You buy the sheet music to a particular song and it seems from the site that this is sanctioned by the record company that owns the song, correct? From there you read the music and "translate" into text for the page. If what I just described is accurate, then I suppose it isn't WP:OR and I misunderstood your original post, it sounded to me like something had to be interpreted. I did a search of musicnotes.com, and there are 171 pages that cite it. Sorry to question you. J04n(talk page) 01:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
From my understanding that is how it works, yes. No worries about it; I wasn't sure if it was a reliable source at first either, and I understand the caution in downloading the necessary software. If anyone who does have the program (or even better, the sheet music to the song) can help, I would really appreciate it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Scratch the above; I was able to find a source which detailed everything I needed to know. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion over at Deftones and Kid Rock

I need some feedback over at the article Deftones. The article Kid Rock has recently been the subject of edit-warring from a benevolent editor, Rockgenre, who refuses to accept a compromise offered in light of opinions offered by multiple editors on other talk pages, and insists that "there is no consensus" because very little discussion has been made on the talk page of the article in question, rather than on other talk pages. Anyone up to helping out? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

Barad (band)

Hi. The article Barad (band) was deleted by admin User:Cirt on 12 January 2010. As he suggested me I've written a new version (see User:Siechfred/Barad (band) basing on a translation of the article in de-WP. Could anyone proofread my english version and check if the band fulfills the guidelines for notability? Thank you. Siech•Fred Home 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things I should point out. First off, I've not heard of Hermes Records, and it doesn't have a wikipedia article, so I question the record label's notability (definitely for the latter reason though; if it were based on the first reason, I would be arrogant). It could be, though. Also, the article needs citations. That is of very high importance. In the history section, there are a few phrases such as "...which was sold very good in the Iran" that are unencyclopedic. However, I do notice that one of the members of the band has their own pre-existing wikipedia article, so that is a complement toward the page. My official result is that it could be notable, but needs a lot of working on it for this potential notability to be proved. Thanks for your interest. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Most of the informations about the band can be verified in the articles in section "External Links". I don't really wonder why you've never heard about "Hermes Records", because I've never heard of it too before I wrote the article about Barad ;). Hermes is a Tehran based iranian label, maybe their website could be helpful. On the "Musicians"-site you'll find some artists with an article in en-WP. I try to correct the unencyclopedic phrases (I'm not a native english speaker, so sometimes my style seems to be unencyclopedic) and look for more citations. Siech•Fred Home 13:17, 21 January 2010 (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) 03:51, 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 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rene de la Bush

According to an article in Hit Parader magazine at the time of the release of "Sally Can't Dance," the picture of the woman on the back of the album is based on one Lou Reed took with a camera given to him by his mother on the anniversary of his father's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.22.6 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


L'Arc~en~Ciel or L'Arc-en-Ciel?

the article L'Arc-en-Ciel has made a bit of controversy, but i think it should be reverted back to L'Arc~en~ciel because it's able to be typed in standard english keyboard, and it goes by WP:COMMONNAME and it's the official name.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that consensus has spoken. Talk:L'Arc-en-Ciel#Move was clear not to move. J04n(talk page) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As J04n has pointed out, the consensus of the Wikipedians involved in the discussion on the talk page was that the page should not be moved. I must say that after reading the talk page discussion myself, I agree with that decision. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

sigh...but there wasn't much. the only thing they went by was WP:TM and for course some things that didn't truly apply. oh well....I'll figure out something. because clearly there is more WP: supporting.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say that IMO, unless their is a serious breach of policy, decisions about a particular article that are made on that article's talk page have to be given weight over decisions made elsewhere. Folks that regularly work on and maintain an article are presumably the ones making the talkpage consensus, they should have a greater say in the decisions. J04n(talk page) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

the problem with the new name is that it doesn't exactly go by WP:OFFICIALNAME last section. Also, the name has not been verified.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Elton John

It is a concern that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [2]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. SilkTork *YES! 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"City of Blinding Lights" FAC

Hello all, I would just like to inform you that "City of Blinding Lights" is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should "aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification on the relevant subject's talk page (since the WikiProject is now inactive) would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similarly-worded notification has also been placed at WT:SONGS, WT:IRLMUS, and Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bruce Hornsby

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bruce Hornsby/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lafayette club

I work over Dire Straits tour and casually small article Lafayette club was born. Please, сheck up mine English.--Andrey! 08:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC) And JB's Dudley--Andrey! 13:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bon Scott

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bon Scott/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Started a bunch of AFD's

Discovered the category for music genre stubs and have started picking through it. I have nominated a bunch of articles. They all pretty much fall into The category of neologisms, stuff that so new there are no real sources. Stuff that's an OR blend of other stuff. Stuff that might almost kind of be a real genre but the differences is so small that it really should be part of a parent article.

You will notice most of them are dance music. I assure everyone this not because of any prejudice, it is simply because there is a huge number of poorly defined sub genres of dance music. Hopefully we can get this cleaned up, things deleted, things merrged things expanded and sourced if they can be. I welcome all input. Ridernyc (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the whole area needs serious attention and this action provides a good opportunity, it will be helpful if editors can contribute.--SabreBD (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxen Song + Single: merge redux

I'd again like to propose the merger of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}} (see past discussion). The templates are often used interchangeably, and this is long overdue. Please discuss at (arbitrary choice) Template talk:Infobox single#Infoboxen Song + Single: merge redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on the article Kid Rock

There has been some edit-warring going on, and despite repeated postings of the guidelines and sources, there has been no consensus on the article's talk page. Could someone comment on this issue? (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Request for comment on the article List of nu metal bands

This list features two bands incorrectly cited by sources that do not categorize them as nu metal bands. Could someone comment on this issue? (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

List of rap rock bands

Could someone expand this list with sourced inclusions? Appreciate any help. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Wykked Wytch

Your comments would be greatly appreciated at an Afd for an extreme metal band here. Neelix (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

gig dates on band pages?

I ran into someone who is adding not just a tour date range to a band page, but now individual concert dates. I assume this is incorrect... that this is not a myspace or facebook or band website where individual gig dates are oppropriate? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you link those pages? I remember dealing with something like that on the Epica (band) page. It was very non-notable and a misplacement there. It does seem non-notable to ad tours and single concert dates on pages, unless if an event of a very notable nature will happen there, such as a band performing a final concert at this place (maybe) or someone shotting someone on stage and ending a band, as what happened with Darrell Abbot (I know that those events are not on the same spectrum, but I hope you get the idea). Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, it's The Motels and the offender is floppydog6. He wants to put the gig date right there in the intro and you can get all the gig dates from the links to the Motels on the page bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Pat Benetar date would not be suitable for the introduction; a list of tour dates in a table would not be notable and would instead be unencyclopedic. I personally don't see the notability of the teaming up with Pat BEnetar unless if it receives notable enough coverage or is of worthy importance. Thanks for the interest. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom#Pictures in popular music articles. That is the appropriate place to have the discussion, but the project has only a few active members, so if anyone from can find the time to have a look at the debate it would be appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon FAC

Hello all, I would just like to inform you that No Line on the Horizon is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should "aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification here would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similar notification has also been left at WT:ALBUM and Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a new article within your wikiproject...

Desiree Bassett. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for sharing that. Also, thanks for adding it to the project. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 55 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis (band)'s FAR

I have nominated Genesis (band) 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

AfD for this article, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian music wikia

This wikia is pretty inactive and could use with some more activity. If anybody has an interest in Christian music and/or has an interest in adding articles to or editing existing articles of the Christian music wikia, then feel free to join it. The link is here. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating Achtung Baby as Featured Article Candidate

I have just nominated Achtung Baby as a Featured Article candidate. You may contribute to the discussion by visiting the nomination page. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The nomination has been open for more than 2 weeks, but the article has not received an overall review by many users. If you have the time, please read the article and stop by the nomination page to share your thoughts. It would be a shame if the article is not promoted because the nomination did not receive enough attention. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Architects

There are two bands called Architects. One is a metalcor eband from Britain and the other is a punk band from Kansas in America. This becomes confusing as they are both popular bands. However, upon further studies and looking into thier Merch and cds, I discovered that the one from America is actually called "The Architects" and not simply "Architects". Maybe you fine folks who head Wikipedia could change the American band name to "Architects" to help avoid further confussion. Just a thought. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikedabandit (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

take a look

Hello everyone, please take a look at this article Mavara , I think it has notability problem. Rock ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spada2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Action Bullet

Could someone knowledgeable please take a quick look at Action Bullet? This is not my field at all - I just stumbled over the article because I was looking for a particular word usage. If this is a real band then the article still has serious problems - please see Talk:Action Bullet. If it is not a real band, and I would not really know how to be sure, then it has even bigger problems. I don't want to seem deletionist or vindictive but at the very least it's not a great article, and could do with some help, and it the worst it may indeed need deleting, but you may be better placed to judge this than I. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article does not prove that this band is notable. I think I'll put it up for deletion. I have found a myspace and an official website for this band, but there seems to be a lot of tall tales surrounding this band. Thank you for bringing this up. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Additional note: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Bullet. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Yes, I saw those pages too (see Talk:Action Bullet) but as you say there are tall tales - they still don't seem to add up to verifiable and notable band ... where's all the rest? Great if someone does rescue it with some good stuff, but I fear they may not. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarakhs

Hello, take a look at Sarakhs (band), I'm not sure if the article meets WP:Music, Rock ON! --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'll put it up for deletion, due to them having a discography and being signed to a label with a wikipedia article. However, it does need sources, as the only citation suppled was something that has a broken URL. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kitrina Podilata

This is a band article that is currently being put up for deletion. For discussion page about possible deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitrina Podilata. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Abdi Behravanfar

Hello, take a look at Abdi Behravanfar , I believe it has notability problem. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does have its fair share of problems, but it does seem to have potential to be notable, if you ask me. I would recommend you gain several more opinions about this article. Also, if you find a notability problem with an article, feel free to put it into the deletion process like I have with Action Bullet and Kitrina Podilata. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Those 2 have obvious problems, but about this one I want to see what the others think. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated The Waterboys 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has made any significant edits to improve this article, so it will likely be delisted soon unless someone step up. According to the history it seems no single editor seems to have major input which is why it is not on anyone's radar. Can someone help out? If so, please drop a note on the review page which may buy some time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Autumn (Dutch band)#Requested move

I have requested that Autumn (Dutch band) be moved to Autumn (band). For more information, see the link in the subject line. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group

(Since Brit Eng follows a different standard on this issue than other languages, for now all edits will be confined to NON-British musical groups.)

I will be systematically going through and editing every single article that uses the plural forms of passive verbs when referring to bands. (i.e. - "The Killers are an American rock band" "The Moldy Peaches were an indie group") I'm not sure why this glaring error is something that has been used only for musical groups, but it is most assuredly incorrect. A band is a single unit - when talking about a band, in any tense, the singular form should always be used. Were we to be talking about themembers of the band collectivelly (i.e. - "Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward are the comprising members of the band She & Him") then it would be appropriate to use the plural forms of verbs, pronouns, etc... For further clarification, take the article on the United Nations. While the UN is made of of a large number of individual countries, the organization known as the United Nations is one single thing. So the article (correctly) states "The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN)is an international organization..."

(For a simpler way of looking at it, try replacing this band's name with the term "this band" - "The Killers are a band..." "This band are a band..." Obviously, the singular form should be used: "This Band is a band..." "The Killers is a band..."

I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it. Obviously, there are a lot of articles out there which need this kind of editing and it will take a long time for me to do so by myself. Feel free to pitch in and make alterations anytime you see this plural/singluar error. Send any questions, comments or objections to my talk page. (This entire text will be copied verbatim into the talk page of evey band article I correct.) ocrasaroon|blah blah blah 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Come to think of it, your assertion about bands being a single unit deserving the use of "is" and "was" makes perfect sense. Good luck on that editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I did just read Rodhullandemu's response to your message. There is that British English thing, and that user seems to know more about the wikipedia workings of those tenses for bands than I do. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You may have noticed that this "glaring error" is mainly on British band articles, for the simple reason it is totally normal in British English. Since the convention on Wikipedia is that articles about predominately British topics are in British English, you will probably just find them all reverted by the regular editors.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Because there is a different grammatical standard for Brit bands, the original proposal above has been edited to illustrate my exemption of all English bands. However, this is really just for now - basically to avoid any undue turmoil. The bottom line is: Wikipedia should be uniform. Whether the article is talking about an international organization, the latest MTG set, an art exhibition or a musical group, we should be applying the same grammatical rules to construct the articles. So I'll be avoiding U.K. groups (and yes, that's where the majority of these discrepancies are), but in the end we'll have a different set of standards for English bands as we do for non-English bands (which is a pretty huge chunk of them) and that English standard doesn't conform to the way other mass nouns are treated and it's just a whole big mess. Hopefully, those who use British English will respect my right to alter non-brit band articles to reflect the grammatical rules of my language just as I respect their right to refer to modify their nouns on English pages however is right to them. ocrasaroon (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider that British English is used outside of just England, including, the rest of the UK, Ireland and related countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. I think that many editors will accept that US articles should be left with singular usage, but I do not see why anyone would accept that US English is more appropriate everywhere else. I suggest, and this is kindly meant, that you limit yourself to US bands.--SabreBD (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I plan to and am glad to start with US bands and those that are based in locations with the US English standards. What I think we need, though, is ONE SINGLE STANDARD for the accepted Wikipedia usage of mass nouns. An actual documented, voted upon consensus that can be added to the Music MOS. I honestly don't care which way it goes, so long as it's all the same (although I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on using the singular form when referring to a single unit.) I'm just not sure where the best place is to actually start the vote - probably Music MOS. But I'll let you know. ocrasaroon (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Such decisions on Wikipedia work by consensus and not vote. You may wish for consistency on Wikipedia, but the truth is that use of English is not consistent and that probably makes it impossible. Nevertheless if you get a discussion going in an appropriate place then let us know here so that we can join in or see how it goes.--SabreBD (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I need to be very clear on all this, so help me out: I was under the impression that, to gather a consensus, one needs to say - "In situation A, the possible approaches are B and C. Please state which option feels correct to you." I would assume the topic would be left open for a short amount of time (anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks) and then closed. At the end of that time, whichever option had the most individual user's advocacy would be accepted as the consensus...let's assume "C". So from that point on, "C" would be the appropriate standard to use in editing. At least until someone disagreed and a new consensus was taken.
To me that feels like a vote. Informal, yes, but a vote nonetheless. One that gathers a consensus. Before I can do anything like this I need to be sure I'm doing the right thing and following the right procedure. (Though I am inclined to feel that simply by opening this topic in a number of projects, I've started the process.) ocrasaroon (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have replied on your talkpage as this is more a user issue, than a project one.--SabreBD (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already posted this on Ocrasaroon's talk page but I thought that I should put it here as well. If you take a look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you'll see that "The Killers are..." is correct, even in American English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun, then "were" or "are" (depending on whether they're still a functioning band I suppose) is correct, even in American English. Therefore, "The Killers are..." or "The Moldy Peaches were..." is correct and should not really be changed as far as I can see. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to try to get this all onto one thread, it has been suggested that any further discussion be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group. I am going to copy Kohoutek's important comments there as they have not made it until now.--SabreBD (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Clutch

Big time rewrite needed for clutch me thinks. 9 albums in and the information is so limited and cluttered it's quite shocking. I'm sure there are plenty of Clutch fans out there who would be interested in this one. Just finished an overhaul of Karma To Burn myself and going to start on Clutch soon. Help would be much appreciated.Gedmundo (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BRMC

According to the garage revival article it refers to BRMC as sort of riding on the success of the strokes,hives etc-despite the fact they had a hit single in either 1999/2000, which prempts the strokes debut by a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.125.88 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The cars song genres

Hello everyone, please take a look at some of the cars songs you know and please edit when you see something wrong with the song genre, you'll know what im talkin about if you hurd there songs before. Because half of there genres on wikipedia are wrong, because they are considered rock and most of there songs are not correct in the genre area, songs like my best friends girl, just what i needed ETC... needs to be added with some kind of rock genre. MajorHawke (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of "supergroup"

User:2tuntony has been removing the term supergroup as a description of a number of bands (e.g. XYZ, Circa, Yoso) from multiple articles. In some cases, there are specific issues about supporting citations, which we can leave to those articles' Talk pages. However, as you can see from our discussion at Talk:Circa (band), 2tuntony has broader issues with the term, arguing "it should be used sparingly, if ever, in an encyclopedia article."

I suggested that this broader view on using the word warranted a wider discussion, so that's why I've brought the discussion here. Do others have any thoughts? Should we be avoiding the term generally as being un-encyclopaedic? Should we use the term freely? I guess I favour using the term, but only where sources support it if any dispute arises. (Thoughts on the specifics of the Circa and Yoso articles also welcome.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Keith Moon

Keith Moon has been sitting at Featured article candidates for almost a week with little comment. Please take a look here if you get a chance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rock_music/Archive_3&oldid=1190133925"