Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

Talk page template

Is there one? I can't seem to find anything general, nor for the Musical Instruments subproject, only those massive lists of other instruments that go in the article itself. -Bbik 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be {{Music-project}}. –Unint 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to add that to the main page, so people can actually find it. -Bbik 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looks like it could use some updating too, to at least include the rating bit, but I'm not going near that part -- I'd destroy it all. -Bbik 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Membership?

Can I join the project? I wasn't sure where to ask or what to do. Thanks, thesublime514 (Talk) 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to add the project userbox to your user page. Jogers (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just signed up as well, considering that I edit a lot of articles on music.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization for solo artists

How do we normally deal with categorization for artists who did work with a band and solo? I'm looking at Category:No Doubt, and it seems to me that Category:Gwen Stefani should be a subcategory. On top of that Category:No Doubt songs is a subcategory of Category:Gwen Stefani songs. Category:Paul McCartney is set up completely differently, and it includes Category:Wings (of which it is also a subcategory) but not Category:The Beatles. What is the general consensus/convention on how this should be handled? ShadowHalo 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gwen Stefani should be a subcategory of Category:No Doubt, and Category:Paul McCartney should be a subcat of Category:The Beatles. It only makes sense. --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of doom metal bands

Hi, could someone provide an extra opinion here? An editor keeps insisting on removing certain bands citing they are not doom becuase one website doesn't mention them as such, despite multiple other websites asserting they are (and being provided for him). He has no consensus, has extremely weak arguments (I don't say they are doom, so they must go. This website makes no mention of them at all, so they must go.) and continues to revert edits despite policies and sources supporting keeping the bands on the list. DarkSaber2k 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely more likely to get feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. Jogers (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Musical Instrument Makers - Is there a WikiProject that covers them?

Hello all... I was wondering if there's a WikiProject that covers musical instrument makers. If so, what is it? If not, is there an existing WikiProject that could be expanded? thanks! -RobbyPrather (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My assumption is that they belong with the projects dedicated to the instrument they make; if they make multiple instruments, then multiple projects may tag any articles about them. -- TimNelson 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists of works

There has been an ongoing effort at AfD (articles for deletion) to delete or merge lists of works or bibliographies of authors. If you have an interest in this topic, please join the discussion here. The outcome will inevitably effect many editors of this project. Also, please post this alert anywhere you think it might apply. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional Reviews?

I'm not sure if this has been discussed or if you could point me to a discussion on Professional Reviews on album pages, but I was wondering why they were included as part of Wikipedia since they are opinion pieces and don't use the unbiased "Neutral Point of View". This is one of the few places I've seen on Wikipedia that has any articles linked to something that's pure opinion. Thoughts or is there a discussion elsewhere? In addition, is there an outline that expresses what exactly a "professional review" is? Thank you. Vacantlips 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM addresses this directly. Could be worth discussing. –Unint 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My take on this is that for discussion of any art to proceed past a very superficial level, opinion must enter into that discussion. Citing published opinions is acceptable within WP:NPOV ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."). NPOV actually even uses a musical example. ('Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority).') The requirement that the review be professional (intentionally vaguely defined) is in support of the 'implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority'; a professional reviewer is generally considered more authoritative than some person on Amazon. NPOV doesn't require us to pretend that opinions don't exists; they do, and sometimes they matter. It simply means that we present conflicting views fairly. Cmadler 11:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If that's true, why do we disallow reviews from Rate Your Music, which seems to objectify and represent mass opinion better than any professional review could? Torc2 (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Published critics are professionals whose opinions are widely respected. They know what they're talking about. They can describe what's so good (or bad) about music. The average guy's opinion is seldom so well spoken. Nor is it representative by itself. It only becomes important when collected together with thousands of other people who feel the same way. Led Zeppelin Rules! Each member is the greatest musician in his field, ever. Nobody could play or sing like those guys, and after they came along, everybody tried to. Coming from me, that doesn't mean much, does it? You'd require me to find reliable sources to back me up, wouldn't you? On the other hand, if you collect thousands of Rate Your Music reviews that say that, you might be able to make a case for including that in an article. But that might only be able to prove that there are more Led Zeppelin fans there than for other artists. -Freekee (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As a regular of that site, I can say you're much more likely to get skewed results for albums that aren't very popular as opposed to albums everybody hears. If we set a minimum threshold for number of votes and explain how the ratings are obtained, it seems like it'd be extremely worthwhile to include them. Being deigned as a "professional critic" really doesn't seem to mean much to me; ultimately it's still just one person's opinion. I mean, what's the substantive difference between a professional music critic and a blogger who can write well? Some publisher who doesn't know anything about music writes one of them a check because they sell advertising. Besides, we're reducing these critics' alleged literacy to a star rating; it doesn't matter how well they can express themselves, since we'll never see a word of it unless it's included in the article body itself. Torc2 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sales

As a non-member of this WikiProject I have a suggestion for a new standard for music related articles. Can we please require a source for album sales and certification and to otherwise have a {{Citation needed}} placed with it? FAR too much do I see editors come on here and boost the sales of their favorite artists or lower the sales of artists they don't like. It has reached near epidemic proportions. This also leads to the problem of having an article on the artist say one thing and the actual album's article saying another. --Ted87 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, WP:CITE already requires this and the problem is simply that people aren't following it. I'm not sure if saying it again here would do much. ShadowHalo 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh thanks. I did not know that. --Ted87 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on eliminating Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre from the categorization guidelines

For those interested in how musicians are classified, but who do not have the WikiProject Musicians/Categorization talk page on your watch list, I have started a discussion here about whether we need the category level of Category:American pianists by genre, etc, and I would appreciate views being expressed (at that location, of course). My (possibly incomplete) list of categories that would be upmerged if the guidelines change as I suggest is here. Bencherlite 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to replace Infobox Guitarist?

There have been a growing number of Wikipedians questioning the need for a separate infobox for guitarists. The {{Guitarist infobox}} was created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists, and it easily survived a deletion nomination back in September of last year, but that was before {{Infobox musical artist}} (which is supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians) became a widely accepted standard. Both infoboxes are currently endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, but recent discussions between some members of the Guitarist and Musician Wikiprojects have concluded that it may be time to deprecate the guitarist infobox, and start replacing it. (Unfortunately, this is not a task for bots, and will have to be done manually.)

Before making any final decision on the matter, we would like to get feedback from the broader community, so I am posting this notice to several Wikiprojects which may be affected. Comments should be posted to Template talk:Guitarist infobox. If you have strong feelings about this infobox, one way or the other, please feel free to let us know. Thanks, Xtifr tälk 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ISO codes

Does anyone have any views (or experience) in eragrd to adding:

to articles about musical recordings, sheet music or works, in the same way that we use the corresponding ISBN for books? Andy Mabbett 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for 26 "List of songs by topics"

There does not seem to be any participation from this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, which is actually an AfD about a long list of such lists. If you are interested, please come and look at the nomination and weigh in. There seem to be several, perhaps many, users who believe that all List of songs about a topic lists should be deleted. There are some that think that they should (almost) all be kept. And there's a range in the middle--previous arguments have frequently centered on whether the lists are maintainable or verifiable. Some have suggested keeping ones that could support an article (as I would support a list of protest songs in order to clean up the Protest song article). If any of you are interested, it might be good to have a clear guideline statement about such lists, either here or in the MoS, perhaps at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).--Hjal 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


"Social Networking" Links

Is it appropriate to link a band's wikipedia article to their virb.com webpage, or something similar, if they don't have an official website? I couldn't find this issue specifically mentioned in the wikiproject: Music guidelines. Thanks --Tman930 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Music External Links

Hey. John recommended coming to WikiProject Music for some help. Artists House is a free, nonprofit, and education-oriented site. All of its material was created exclusively for the site. I'd like to add some of the video interviews as external links to relevant Wikipedia pages. For example, I'd like to add a video interview with Teo Macero to the Bitches Brew page. Here is the interview. However, if you look at the site, you can see that there are a lot of videos that would be extremely relevant to a lot of pages. Would this be something WikiProject Music would be interested in supporting? Ammosh11 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Songwriters

I am confused for terminologies like songwriter, lyricist and composer. Since I am categorizing musicians, I would like to know: a) When someone is called songwriter? b) When a composer can be included to category:X songwriters? c) When a lyricist can be included to category:X songwriters? d) Do all the pop music composer belong to category:Songwriters?? I will appreciate if you help me.--KRBN 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In general: a lyricist writes the words, a composer writes the music, and a songwriter does both. It's not actually that simple, but that's a good first-order approximation. If you're categorizing musicians (or musical groups), you might want to check out the Musicians Wikiproject, WP:MUSICIANS, and the main categorization scheme for musicians, WP:MUSCAT. Xtifr tälk 12:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Compulsory Sampling License

The article Compulsory Sampling License, which is relevant to this WikiProject, has been proposed for deletion, on the grounds that the article is primarily original research. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compulsory_Sampling_License. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion.

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reggae

Can we get Reggae into the genre list?LBCboyee 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not unless there's a WikiProject Reggae. ShadowHalo 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Please take notice of the following CFD nomination which is likely to be of interest to members of this wikiproject: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_29#Categories_named_after_musicians_-_A

Tim! 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

some info about songs & albums

I want to find these: 1. Which song is #1? (in all countries and in the world) 2. Which song is #n (#2 or #3, ...) 3. How much selling does an album have? and like these....

In many albums' and singles' article in WP they are mentioned, but what's their reference? And how can I find these informations for article don't have it?--♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Billboard charts and follow the external links to the charts. I think that's only the US, though. I don't know how you'd find the number one song in the world, but different countries will have different charts. I assume by #1, you mean popularity. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I didn't get to my destination! --♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 10:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New uncategorised category info

Just wanted to let you know a new category's been created relating to your project, Category:Uncategorised musical groups. Please refine or alter in whatever way would best suit your project. There's already a Uncategorised albums, so figured this would be along the same lines. Hope this helps. :) -Ebyabe 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Musicians and musical groups are more specifically covered by WP:MUSICIANS. Xtifr tälk 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Timpani FAR

Timpani 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

requesting help for musical articles in need of expansion

I wonder if within this project there's a section in which help may be solicited to the community or the project members regarding articles in need of expansion. Rosa 02:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MN. 17Drew 02:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Track listings in discographies

I'm bringing the discussion here from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography. Basically, most of our discographies are formatted very differently. There's no real standard since up until a month ago, there were none featured to serve as a model and WP:MUSTARD doesn't cover discographies very thoroughly? There's some disagreement at the candidacy over whether or not track listings should be included. One reviewer refused to support without them, and another withdrew support when they were added using the {{hidden}} templates. This is really something that affects more than that list, so it'd be nice to see what the consensus is on including the track listings. And add that consensus to WP:MUSTARD since it currently only says that it "should be created using summary style," but not how to apply WP:SUMMARY to discographies. 17Drew 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a discography as an overview of what an artist or group has released during their career. The inclusion of track listings, songwriters and producers is just overdoing it. All this information can be found on the article about the album. I think that discography pages should include chart positions and sales data. This listing of extra information just makes them look cluttered and confusing. -- Underneath-it-All 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Track Listings suit the album's article page only. A person who would really like to know the track listing of an album will surely make an effort to go in to the article page. Track Listing is a thing which should not be expected in a discogrpahy as far as my thinking goes. Track Listings come in extra information. But, if we see the dicography of Gwen Stefani on Billboard.com , It includes her albums with all the track Listings. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=239085&aid=814844 User:Luxurious.gaurav
Track listings don't harm the article, they enhance instead. Everyone can be picky and say "oh, no, no track listings in the discography", but whenever there is a chance to make an exception that benefits the reader, we have to take it. The most common question that one can have about albums is "what songs are there?", he/she can just click on "show" and take a look then click the "show" button for the other album and compare while being on the same page. Plus, 17Drew has done it perfectly (I tried and couldn't make it as neat), there is a list of songs in the order they appear in the album. There are no songwriters, producers, or lengths of each song, a reader can click on the album if he/she wants to read this secondary info. Underneath-it-All, an artist or group has released many songs, too, why can't they be shown in the discography?
P.S. I was the one who refused to support Gwen's discography without track listings. --Crzycheetah 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate discography articles are a necessary evil that should be avoided unless strictly required, IMO. How Billboard presents their information is irrelevant: we're an enyclopedia, not a music chart listing company. Anyway, of the several music sites I refer to on a regular basis, most do not include the track listings in the discography (e.g. [1]), although that's irrelevant for similar reasons. I dislike redundancy, so I dislike the notion of including the track listings in the discography, but not enough to say it should be forbidden. Just enough to say it should be discouraged. Especially for artists with several dozen albums. I would tend to oppose promoting a discography to FA status if it included song listings, but then I would tend to oppose promoting discographies to FA in general. In general, a featured discography makes about as much sense to me as a featured DAB page. :) Xtifr tälk 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the track listings from Gwen Stefani discography. I do want to comment that featuring a discography isn't completely pointless since they generally include guest appearances or unreleased material, which isn't as easily retrievable as the rest of the material. Based on the discussion here, I recommend rewording WP:MUSTARD#Discographies to say "If a simple system cannot accommodate an artist's entire discography, a subpage should be created. Summary style should be used for the discography, and including track listings is generally discouraged." Any thoughts or comments? 17Drew 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, reword it. User:Luxurious.gaurav

Heads up - Crowded House

Hey guys. I've just set up a new wikiproject for Crowded House.

Hi! I've seen you editing Crowded House related articles, and would like to invite you to join WikiProject Crowded House, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the band's coverage on the encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here.

Feel free to join if you feel you can contribute! --lincalinca 07:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

International Charts

Hi everyone!

I would like to know where I can find the non-US or UK charts, as I am trying to save the Ray of Light GA and cannot find a sourcing for those. Any help is greatly appreciated. --SidiLemine 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the one thing I could direct you to is the 10,000 Days article, where nearly every chart entry has been sourced. Some of them link to news articles, but most to the official charts table, where you can probably look for the Ray of Light position as well. Best wishes! Johnnyw talk 18:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a quick shot right now (I got curious ;) the swiss charts entry for ray of light list other countries as well, here, have a look!
  • country code, peak position, duration
  • ch Peak: 1 / weeks: 57
  • at Peak: 2 / weeks: 42
  • fr Peak: 2 / weeks: 93
  • se Peak: 2 / weeks: 60
  • fi Peak: 1 / weeks: 34
  • no Peak: 1 / weeks: 53
  • nz Peak: 12 / weeks: 2
hope that helps! Johnnyw talk 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! This is truly amazing. Thank you so much! I'll try to get a list of official references at WP:CHARTS for everyone to access.--SidiLemine 10:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that site gives you 16 different charts, though some go back only about a year or two, while others go almost as much as 20 years back. Just click on the top right on "other countries". Most countries provide bilingual info, though some only provide a foreign language, which can be a pain. --lincalinca 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of covers

What should be done with lists of covers? (You know, the section of the article that grows exponentially if not carefully watched.) I consider them trivia, unless the cover itself is notable, perhaps like Alien Ant Farm's cover of Smooth Criminal (I'm just throwing it out there, not making a serious notability claim. The idea is that every techno remix of a 1960s pop song doesn't need to be listed in the original band's article). The specific article I'm working on is The Kinks, by the way.--Gimme danger 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be done about them, I've seen the list on the article for Muse growing recently and have just brought the issue up on the article's talk page along with some criteria for inclusion adapted from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Songs#Songs but that could probably do with some work. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession charts

A member of WP:AUSMUS and I have been having a debate at Talk:Back to Bedlam about the relative merits of succession charts. Rather than get into an edit war in the article, I would appreciate it if a few editors with greater knowledge of the Music wikiproject could provide some insight into the current thinking on preferred practices in this regard. Risker 01:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Records WikiProject

Invitation
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject G-Unit Records. We are currently on demand for new members and we believe that the project could benefit from your contributions. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards The-G-Unit-Boss

--The-G-Unit-Boss 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Good idea, people might mistake it for music if we covered it here... :o) Cruftbane 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Drumtar AfD input requested

I have nominated the Drumtar article for deletion. One of the participants in the discussion has suggested that the discussion would benefit from more input from people who are knowledgeable about music. So I mention it here in the interest of getting more input from the project members. Please visit the discussion to weigh in. Thank you. Nick Graves 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Bedlam Hour

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Bedlam Hour is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick reference work?

Hey there. Music is not exactly my forte, so I'm asking here. Could anybody dig up a good reference about the use of the expression "dinosaur band" (apparently in punk rock parlance) for Cultural depictions of dinosaurs? (specifically the "Public perception of dinosaurs" section). Circeus 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging/redirecting Electronic Music and Electronica articles

Discussion about redirecting or merging Electronica to Electronic music taking place at this link: on the Electronica talk page. -- Parsifal Hello 06:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion has since been closed with clear consensus to keep the separate article title Electronica. --Parsifal Hello 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus"? Really? And how many editors were involved? 10? 100? 1,000? The case is not closed. there is no "electronica" in serious encyclopedias.There should be no space for business-like labels. in this encyclopedic site. OVER. GOT IT? NO ElLCTRONICA.Doktor Who 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to read the discussion that resulted in keeping Electronica as a separate article, they are welcome to do so, or enter comments if they don't agree.
I'm having trouble understanding what's bothering you about the use of the word "Electronica". The article already has 19 references, including seven or eight books, the All Music Guide, several articles in Billboard Magazine and an MIT University journal article. There are more references available that will be added soon. The text of the article needs improvement, but it's very clear that the word exists in common usage and there is a place for it in Wikipedia, according to policies and guidelines. --Parsifal Hello 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
That word is a catch all term, as all the sources show. A catch-all term that is almost useless for us, we are here to categorize and explain things, not to report and write-about the "common" use of words. This is not a dictionary. Just please wait to see that whole group of articles in a new perspective. I will be going to explain more within next days. ^_^ Doktor Who 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Electronic dance music be renamed to Electronic Music (popular & dance)?

An editor redirected Electronic dance music to a new title Electronic Music (popular & dance) without consensus, along with major changes to the content causing loss of information, and with duplication of information from Electronica

The changes were reverted but there was much confusion, so I don't know which title will be on the page at the time someone is reading this.

I am requesting other editors to take a look and form a consensus about which version is wanted.

I think we need a page about Electronic dance music because it's not the same as other pop music that uses electronic instruments.

Comments are invited at this talk page link. --Parsifal Hello 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above RFC discussion has been closed with consensus to keep the original page name of Electronic dance music. --Parsifal Hello 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As abpove, "Consensus"? Really? How many editors were involved? 10? 100? 1,000? The case is not closed.You just continue to ignore me, yes, we'll see..Doktor Who 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you don't agree, you are welcome to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article.
There is a wider discussion in progress on reorganizing the various top-level electronic music articles to make an easier to navigate system with less duplication of content. If you would like to participate in that discussion, it is happening on Talk:Electronic art music. --Parsifal Hello 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we have to "make an easier to navigate system with less duplication of content". I'm going to create a new wikiproject that, among other goals, will help to make a great progress on this whole matter.Doktor Who 11:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fathers and mothers of music

Please come and add to and to help fill in this table. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting - Albums and songs

I have created a new deletion sorting page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, which emerges from discussions here and here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(see 2004 in music) vs 2004

Hey everyone in MP Music. Please don't consider me a rude imposter but having completed a few good article reviews of albums and singles, I've come to slightly resent the use of "(see...)" in the text of an article. Piped wikilinks seem to more than adequately cover for this, I was just wondering if the project had a feeling about this as I recently brought it up in my review of the excellent article Underneath It All. The Rambling Man 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The albums project has a position on this (see WP:ALBUM#Dating), and recommends exactly the practice which you resent. --PEJL 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe he's asking if the position should be reconsidered. I've had people at at least two FACs comment that the link should be piped. 17Drew 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fender WikiProject Proposal

Hi, I have proposed a WikiProject for the Fender company. If you are interested, please add you name here. Izzy007 Talk 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

iTunes link in Infobox Song

I propose that a link to iTunes is added to Infobox Song and Infobox Album, in a similar way that there is a link to IMDb in Infobox Television and Infobox Film. The reason being that a lot of people use iTunes, and if we have an IMDb link in the film templates, then I consider it a double standard not to have an iTunes link in the music templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GallifreyanPostman pwns you 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't iTunes links country-dependent? This seems to suggest so. --PEJL 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Plus, IMDb has information about films. iTunes is solely a sales site. 17Drew 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I strongly oppose endorsing a single vendor. Bad enough that we tend to endorse a single commercial information site (AllMusic), but at least that's a relatively valid source of information in most cases. Xtifr tälk 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No chance, sorry. As there's a little bit of information found there, it's seldom anything other than existent to endorse the song as a product to promote sales. If anything, we should look at things such as AMG or Popmatters or another massive catalogue that lists the songs. Perhaps the location in the Gracenote archive? Though, that may be more appropriately discussed in WP:ALBUMS. --lincalinca 09:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope of project

Is the scope of the project defined somewhere, and if so, could someone give it a (more prominent) place on the project website? – Ilse@ 10:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly an umbrella project, not unlike Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I think the scope is obvious from the name, but if you have some more specific suggestions, feel free to post them here for discussion. Xtifr tälk 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

albumofthemonth.com

Not sure where to post this, but as it is a music related site, I guess this is the right level. This morning a seemingly coordinated attack to add a large number of these links to wikipedia was performed by a significant number of accounts. This has resulted in first blacklisting on User:AntiSpamBot, later on Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. Therefore, these links can not be inserted anymore (and they should be removed from the articles that still have the link). Editors involved in this project might want to have a say about the situation, I am giving some links here:

Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Concert names?

So, I know that album names should be in italics, and song names in "quotes", but what about concert names? Should we use any special typographic conventions for names like "Woodstock" or "Lollapalooza" or "Not Too Big on the Head"? (Yes, that last is a real concert name.) What about named tours? Many bands give specific names to individual tours. Is there any specific way these should be marked? Should I take this question to the Manual of Style talk page? Xtifr tälk 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. Lots of tours share their names with an album by the artist (The Sweet Escape Tour, Bridges to Babylon Tour, Back to Basics Tour). Do the album titles get italicized in the name of the tour? 17Drew 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:MUSTARD#Formatting and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Archive 1#Formatting of tours. --PEJL 10:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Kamien

People here may be interested in the ongoing AfD discussion of the article on the musicologist and performer Roger Kamien at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Kamien DGG (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with 156.x.x.x

Anons in this range have been giving me problems - such as reverting my edits. Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't appreciate when anons undo the work I put into articles. It's just that there are times when I think only registered users should be allowed to edit. FMAFan1990 03:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What articles is this happening on? Sometimes the main music articles get vandalized a lot, and we can request that they be semi-protected for a while. --Parsifal Hello 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about edits like this: [2]? That "anon" you speak of is utterly correct in reverting your edit there. Please read WP:ATT as he has recommended. ScarianTalk 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That edit looks good to me too, I don't see it as a problem. FMAFan1990, If there are other edits that you feel are a problem, please post some diffs so we can take a look. --Parsifal Hello 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Music

I propose to make that page a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard. The content on the page can be removed without concerns, all requests are older than 2.5 years. (I hope this is the right place to discuss this.) Pepve 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make the change. -- Pepve 23:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinions...

Recently, the article Twilightning was speedied under A7. After a user requested a copy to work with, I restored it and moved it to userspace at User:Chubbles/Twilightning. Chubbles has put some work into the article, and has now approached me about whether it would be a good fit in the main namespace again.

My question is, could you all, the experts at WikiProject Music, be able to give this user some guidance about where this potential article stands? I don't particularly want to see it get speedied again, or fail an AFD, so I'm hoping you can provide some guidance in that regard. I'll let the user know that I've posted here, and I presume that if you post comments to User talk:Chubbles or User talk:Chubbles/Twilightning that the user will see it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize this would be such an issue...the group meets WP:MUSIC by having four releases on notable labels and having charted three times in Finland. Three other Wikipedias have articles about the band. Their notability was never really an issue; they just had a crappy article. Chubbles 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it still eeds a lot of work (sorry chubbles) but they're definitely notable enough to warrant a page, but arguably a great deal more depth needs to be explored in the page, including a bio, member info and some rewording in the discography. If you'd like, I can help you adopt the article and bring it up to at least B class, which with your references should be easily done. --lincalinca 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to update the bio as much as you like; I was most concerned simply with restoring the stub, which is, I think at this point, quite clearly eligible under WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

←This band has an album on Universal Records and is listed on All Music Guide. I see no problem with meeting WP:N or WP:V. I recommend the article be moved to mainspace. --Parsifal Hello 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some tweaks. TBH, there's more sources, V&N on this article than on many mainspace articles as it is. I reckon make the move. --lincalinca 05:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone and Y Done it, plus I've expanded the article for their debut album Delirium Veil in an attempt to improve the coverage and therefore, hopefully reduce the chance of the article being removed again. Unfortunately, I'm more versed in the WP:ALBUM guidlines, so I'm more inclined to work and and try to improve an album than a band or musician (plus, they're generally easier). --lincalinca 11:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My Kind of Town (Sinatra song)

My Kind of Town (Frank Sinatra song) is this week's WP:CHICOTW.

1964 or 1965 Grammy nominees

It would be interesting to find out if the song was nominated for a Grammy Award since we have confirmed it was nominated for an Academy Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sinatra Oscar noms

The Academy Awards do not include the singer in the award for Academy Award for Best Original Song. Thus, I can not use the http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org database to determine how many songs sung by Sinatra have been nominated for Oscars. Is this something that is easy to find out some other way?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions

Finally, is there a way to research cover versions of My Kind of Town (Frank Sinatra song).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tour Pages

I just come to know that tour pages are unassessed. What proper template should be added? Freekee said {{WikiProject Music}} would be fine. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 09:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

navigation boxes

I've been looking at some of the articles on brass instruments in particular. It strikes me that linking the articles on orchestral instruments with a navigation box, by sections and range, would have some merit; also it would help me to work on the brass articles and make them a bit more consistent, they are rather uneven at the moment. It might also allow us to avoid redundancy - the description of conical and a cylindrical bore are duplicated in several places, whereas a single article on brass instrument bore would be better. That sort of thing. Ideas? Any template wizards out there? Cruftbane 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An RfC on the appropriateness of an image in the Culture section of the WP:FA India

It would be very helpful if members of this project could weigh in on a dispute about the appropriateness of an image in the Culture section of a country page. The RfC is posted here. The image itself, while not explicitly about music, represents a "tribal" culture with a rich tradition of extempore music. 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates seeking approval

I have created a set of music Navboxes, and I'm trying to seek approval. Each one covers a certain genre or category. Now I realize we already have a Template:Navbox musical artist. I feel that one template can't support all genres of musc (suppose if the one template was changed, it would affect all other template, which could be a pain). The templates can be found HERE. I have only created navboxes for "solo hip hop artist", "hip hop groups" (i.e. D12, G-Unit, NWA, etc.), "solo pop singer", "pop group" (i.e. Destiny's Child, NSYNC, etc.), "solo rock singer" (i.e. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, etc.), "rock band", and "other". If there are any other notable genres to be created, I can create it. The more feedback I have on this, the better. MITB LS 23:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey... can I get feedback on my talk page? cause I'll be checking that a lot more frequently than this talk page. Thank you. MITB LS 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

About WP:PNA/Culture and Arts#Music

Hi, I'm just popping in to see if anyone objects to clearing the Music section of the Culture and Arts subpage of WP:PNA. And replacing the contents by a link (accompanied by some explanation) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard. The main motivation of this exercise: 1) the section is inactive (eight new, one removed request(s) in the last year), and 2) it detracts focus from the active noticeboard. -- Pepve 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Λυδαcιτγ 06:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, done. Feel free to review and improve the edit, everyone. -- Pepve 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Chord articles nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F major (chord). Perhaps some members of this Wikiproject will have informed opinions about whether individual chords deserve articles or not. --Itub 10:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • These appear to me to be redundant to the much more comprehensive key articles. Cruftbane 11:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Format for discographies

There are currently all sorts of debates over formatting for featured Discographies (e.g. Use one cell with bullet points vs. different cells vs. all this should be in the album articles—but then, i wonder why we bother making discographies!; destroy all bold for album titles vs. keep it). Could this project please come up with some sort of preferred format (ideally not too wildly different from what has been promoted) that we can judge lists against? Circeus 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already brought up this topic at WT:ALBUMS#Discographies, just the other day. --lincalinca 02:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mariah Carey FAR

Mariah Carey 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. Gimmetrow 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Need input at Punk rock

There are a couple of problems with this (featured) article as it stands. One is the overuse of fair use images, and the other is the preponderance of unreferenced breathless student journalist words like "seminal" (used four times and also quite rightly listed at WP:PEACOCK as a word to avoid). Unfortunately an editor there seems to be suffering from WP:OWN and was so offended I flagged up the problems he has reverted my changes. I'd be grateful for some wider input; the article really needs help in my opinion. --John 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Of weasels, peacocks and fancruft

It would be great if people could remember to trim out instances of peacock terms like "seminal", "iconic", "legendary" and the like wherever they see them. Along with the weasel words like "Some believe that..." and "Much to the fans' surprise..." they do not belong in an encyclopedia article unless perhaps as part of a sourced quote. Language like this is a major obstacle to improving our coverage of popular music; much of the work I do involves removing such breathless student-journalese fancruft. I'd be grateful if people could help by not using language like this when writing, and by removing it whenever it does crop up. Thanks, --John 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh hell yes. And I'll tell you another one that gets hideously over-used: virtuoso. To read some of the articles on crap modern bands you'd believe that every two-bit plank-spanker is a "guitar virtuoso". Virtuoso means a performer of such stature that people unfamiliar with the genre are likely to know the name, and usually the surname is enough. Menuhin was a virtuoso, Rostropovich was a virtuoso, Paganini was a virtuoso, Joshua Bell is shit hot but not, I think, a virtuoso yet. Cruftbane 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, though your examples aren't really the ones I'd use. I'd use truly virtuostic players like Mozart or Chopin. But as guitarists, I'd use people like Jimmy Page or Brian May, though they may not be as brilliant as some of the technically superb players, they're considered virtuostic because they're undeniably great players, but also "household names". But again, I agree with you (this may be a first, John). --lincalinca 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Toytronica

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Toytronica is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 12:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC - Use of line breaks or comma breaks

Fixed RFCxxx template - section heading did not match section parameter in template. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


See Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Standardizing genre delimiters, where several arguments in favor of commas were made. Also, the description linked to above is incorrect, as the only other section of the musical artist infobox that prescribes either commas or line breaks prescribes commas (labels). --PEJL 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Question - Are there any genres with commas in them? Torc2 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No. --PEJL 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All music guide as a genre source

I'd like to call into question the accuracy when it comes to sourcing bands genres. The site lists Green Day and The Offspring as alternative pop and post-grunge.[3] [4], it lists blink-182 and Korn as post grunge[5] [6], Rancid as alternative pop[7]. I and others have spoken out against as a bad source of genre information. (Talk:All Music Guide#Prominent Genre Sourcing) I am seeing this site used for multiple band pages in the genre section of the infobox, can we get an official ruling, or open a wider discussion on whether this source is reliable?Hoponpop69 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some links in your post, hope you're not offended. -- Pepve 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Correction: those bands are listed as "Alternative pop/rock", not "Alternative pop". Either way they're just saying "alternative rock". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm much more offended by the fact that no one has weighed in on this.Hoponpop69 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think AMG is unreliable. Of course there are errors and omissions. When that is the case, other sources have to be found and used. There is plenty of good information on AMG, so we should not 'officially rule' that it is an unreliable website. (Also, I fixed your indentation.) -- Pepve 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is unreliable as a whole, but when it comes to genres it seems it is clearly incompotent. Also how would you prove with other sources that this information is not correct? I don't think any sources explicitly state "band x is not genre x", in most cases they simply do not claim band x to be genre x.Hoponpop69 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources indeed do not state that a certain band is not genre X, but they are likely to state that it is genre Y. I think that two good sources stating genre Y may lead to the conclusion that AMG is incorrect in a certain case. And then these two sources should be used, and the error of AMG should be noted on the talk page. However(!), this is just my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I would believe that we're not the first to run into contradictory sources, but I can't seem to quickly find a policy or guideline about this. (Off-topic: I fixed your indentation again. Could you please read this subsection of the Talk page guidelines and follow it? Thank you very much.) -- Pepve 11:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
So AMG sources for genres should to be backed up by a second source? Can we get some more people to weigh in on this, it sounds good to me. --Hoponpop69 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's not precisely what I meant. An AMG ref can be sufficient in a lot of cases. Other sources only have to be found when someone thinks the current source is wrong. We could of course note somewhere that AMG is not a definite source for genres, but that goes for most sources that are referenced in music articles. And seriously, someone else please chime in, I don't feel I'm on common ground here. -- Pepve 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody please chime in, this still seems like it's a grey area. -- Hoponpop69 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I generally avoid genre arguments. Sorry. The big rules of Wikipedia kinda fall by the wayside when it comes to popular culture articles. It's really hard to find a source that meets WP:RS, when you're dealing with a lot of this stuff. All you can really do is try to keep the edit warring to a minimum. I suggest keeping the listed genres as broad as possible. -Freekee 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that All Music Guide should be avoided, for it has a lot of inaccuracies and errors. Listing nu metal band OTEP as black/death metal is a good example. I don't know about its accuracy in the other musical genres (electronic music, hip hop, etc.) but it is certainly not reliable when it comes to rock music and its subgenres. Zouavman Le Zouave 13:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic is generally valid, but sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. For instance, The Smashing Pumpkins pages lists them as grunge, but the grunge page does not list the band. Also, some of the albums list both "grunge" and "post-grunge", which is just silly. And that has to be the only source that labels them "indie rock" (which the band is in many ways sonically opposed to). Sometimes you just have to use your best judgement. But it's generally a reliable source, particularly for biographies and discographies, and at times it's the only reputable source that attempts to classify the genre of bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be used as a valid source for information on artists bios, but would you agree Wesley that there are countless times when AMG lists genres that are simply ridicolous? I think we should discourage it from being used as a source for band genres.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree, as my latest edit has asserted. Sometimes the genres are head scratchers (INXS as alt-rock? HIM as goth?) but in my experience (and I went through a phase once where I read tons of Allmusic pages just to read bands genre classifications) their categorization of bands is pretty sensible. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm more worried when editors try to reference retail websites or a band's MySpace page for a band's genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
AMG as a source should be avoided, if possible. It does get things wrong a lot, at least for the rock sub-genres, and there are always better site than AMG for sources for genres. Personally, I think metal-archives.com is spot on for genres. Oh, and myspace should never be used as a reference for anything.Navnløs (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is there really isn't a more reliable general source for genres. Metal-Archives.com for one does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Not to say that Allmusic should be the final arbiter of a contested genre; rather, if an artist's genre is uncertain, Allmusic is one of the valid sources to at least look at. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no other reliable source? What about music magazines like Rolling Stone, or the people who write for the music page newspapers like the New York Times? Hell even the artist bios on VH1 or MTV's websites will give more reliable information on genres.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of the last speakers. AMG as a source should not be used unless you know for a fact its right, and it does have a record of being wrong. There are much better sources. And I know the encyclopaedia metallum does not fit the criteria, but regardless people use it and I think it works great, it has little info besides basics, but its always right and it usually lists the official band site for w/e band you're looking at. Navnløs (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I must point out that both VH1 and MTV (and Billboard, for that matter) use bios from All Music Guide. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well there's nothing wrong with using it as a source for other things in my opinion, it just has been known to fudge up genres and therefore should not be used as a source for genres. Navnløs (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, isn't AMG user submitted information? If so, shouldn't it already be regarded as unreliable? ~Ambrosia- talk 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Genres are the only part of amg I find inaccurate. I.E. They refer to Grindcore as a metal genre. Inhumer (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The big difference when trying to compare Wiki to AMG (or use AMG as a genre source)... is that AMG distinguishes between genre and style while Wikipedia (unfortunately) has got "style" confused with "sub-genre" For Wiki that has two negative results: A) A large bulk of Wikipedia pages listed under "List of Rock genres" ends up being false information since the bulk of them aren't real genres .. and B) Editors are using AMG to reference genres in band infoboxes when... if you actually look at the AMG band bio page... they've split genre and style into two separate headings. So AMG is saying "style" and editors are trying to reference "genre". By WP:V/WP:CITE AMG is being used incorrectly as a genre citation simply because, on their end, they aren't actually saying genre at all. I think AMG meets and exceeds WP:RS. But by a simple swap of two words; "genre" and "style"... AMG is being used incorrectly as a cite. For 90% of the acts that have an AMG link stuck in the genre field as a ref... the only genre that AMG is actually a valid citation for... is Rock. 156.34.217.154 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another problem I have is that I fell like some editors act like AMG is the be all-end all for music and genre sources. Inhumer (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for additional comments at Talk:Electronic dance music

There's currently a discussion of whether the article dance music should be exclusively about "electronic dance music" or whether it should be about all forms of "dance music". It'd be nice to get some new folks and additional eyes in on the discussion if anyone here has a chance. Wickethewok 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

History of music needs help

The History of music article needs something. I think it needs more coverage of Oriental music, ancient music, folk music, modern music, etc. It also could use some more music samples. Will you help? What do you think it needs? Please contribute to the article and the discussion page, and help us figure out how to get this article up to FA status. Thanks. -Tea and crumpets (t c) 17:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Music of the United States 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.

New WikiProject

I've just noticed this. I'm not a member of this project, but I thought I'd bring it over here as it doesn't seem notable to deserve its own WikiProject. I might be wrong though. Davnel03 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to take that to the council, since there's a very small scope for the project, and the label's artists aren't very notable to begin with, not to mention the central article of the project is tagged with neutrality tags and reference tags (which refers to information listed by the WikiProject's creator). --lincalinca 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AR1

Hello WPP:Music. If you like to create articles, might I suggest a trip over to our list of music articles requested for more than a year? There's a rather lengthy backlog to be cleared in this subject area. Best, sh¤y 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It isin't as bad now. Any contribution is more than welcome :). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vruk

I recently came across the article Vruk it appears to have re-appeared after being prod-ed, having the prod removed,then being deleted G11. The text does not seem to have changed that much if at all, which leaves me a little suspicious only the link to the official Vruk site is missing. I originally made a merge proposal [[8]] and another editor was of the opinion it was advertising. I hope by posting a note here some experienced music editors will review this article based on its merits.--Matt (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags in band infoboxes, again

I raised an interesting discussion about this back in January; it has come up again on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Band infoboxes, if anybody feels like commenting. --John (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indie Music Photos

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tammylo/sets/

She has lots of CC-BY photos of Indie music bands if anyone is interseted in importing a few of the pictures to the commons. --gren グレン 04:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

50th Grammy Awards

There appears to be an edit war over the inclusion of a "Protest" section in the article, and things have gotten rather heated. Can some experienced editors come decide whether this section is appropriate or not? shoy 03:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Year in Music articles

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums released in 2007 for a discussion about the formatting of the "Year in music" articles. It was brought up that the albums released in 2007 section of 2007 in music made the article too long. This section was moved to its own article. Then it was brought up that this was a list article, and possibly redundant to the category. Please stop by and offer your opinion, since this will affect all future and most past articles in this series. -Freekee (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for more opinions: Please stop by to discuss the List of albums released in 2007 if you have any thoughts on ways it could be improved. -Freekee (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Pop music task force?

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Pop music for a group to deal specifically with pop music which has gotten five members, which is generally thought enough for a task force. Would this project be willing to take on such a subproject? John Carter (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea. (But I'm quite new here.) -- Pepve (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mull Historical Society and/or Colin McIntyre

I have moved an interesting conversation from my user talk to Talk:Mull Historical Society. The bone of contention is which article should bre the main one? Key question; was McIntyre essentially recording under the name Mull Historical Society (as he claims on his own site), or was it a band which split up? There are seemingly reliable sources on both sides of the argument. It would be interesting to have some other views. --John (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

List of pieces that use keys

In each of the articles on a specific major or minor key, there's a list (usually two lists - one for Classical and one for contemporary music) of pieces or songs that use that key. For example, check out F major - the other articles can be accessed easily through the nav box. I don't really see much use for those lists, and I definitely don't see any citations. The whole thing strikes me as WP:OR, WP:CRUFT, and really kind of pointless. I'm sure if I just started deleting them, the reaction wouldn't be at all pleasant, so I wanted to raise the issue here to see if anybody agrees or disagrees and has a suggestion of what we should do about these. Torc2 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just delete them. I was curiously pondering it myself the other day thinking "Why the hell is this here? Half of the contemporary songs listed are covered and in most cases, the key is changed". Clear them out. Leave the classical pieces, though. They're appropriate, since the keys don't change, but only keep notable and verifiable ones. --rm 'w avu 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You could try asking this question on one or two of the articles, in case someone with a stake in them thinks they should be kept (and doesn't watch here). They don't seem very useful to me. I could see maybe, where someone could listen to the song to get a feel for what the key sounds like. But that didn't really work for me. And don't most contemporary songs change key a lot? Would published sheet music list the key? If so, I'm not so worried about citations. -Freekee (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did already cite-tag that section in every article, so I would assume people would realize they need to add the citations. Sheet music would list a key signature, but it might not be clear what the actual key is. Plus a lot of rock music uses powerchords that don't include a 3rd, or write parallel chords. I mean, if it the list doesn't fail WP:V, then it's WP:OR. I kind of have a problem with it even for Classical pieces, since there's so much modulation going on. Even something that seems obvious like Terry Riley's In C has a whole middle section that's in G. Torc2 (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Music genres

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres was tagged as inactive at the end of Nov 2007. My feeling is that if this Project remains inactive that merger into Music as a part of the Music WikiProject or as a 'taskforce', depending upon the activity and disposition of this Project's participants. In my listing of 'deletion notification' information, I am recommending that deletion notices go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music and I will be so tagging the DelSort page and the genre wikiproject (see their "to do" list) shortly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the inactive tag on the project. Cleaning up the genres has become my new pet project. Currently I'm basically alone in this. My only problem with the merger is this, when I proposed merger of the Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal articles I informed both the genre project and this project. Genre is inactive so that went no where, this project which has an active group totally ignored it. I would rather try to get a task force together and get the genre project not just active but active in the proper direction rather then just merge it here where it will just get lost. Cleaning up the genres is a painful and thankless task. Not only do you run into a mass of editors all editing against policy and pushing POVs but you also end up with patrol editors not active in the conversation reverting edits for no reason. Multiple times I have left notices on talk pages about changes months ahead of time, normally there is little to no activity at all on the talk pages. Heres an example [9] talked about the issue on Dec. 12th., made the change a month later on Jan 10th[10], had the edits reverted by an editor telling me to bring the issue up on the talk page [11]. The genre articles are currently a mess, there needs to be a team of committed people to help clean them up. I really don't have the time to rewrite every article, plus discuss every change for months, just take a look at the last 6 months of conversation at Industrial Rock, basically one editor has taken over the article and is pushing his POV, despite having 5-6 editors point out major problems. Ridernyc (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

List of...

Is there a real need to have articles for "List of <genre> <musicial instrument players>"? Of the ones I had a look at here, here, and here, these types of lists would be better off in categories, of which there already are. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CLS, lists vs. categories shouldn't be an either-or choice. Lists allow additional information that cannot be included in categories, and may be preferred by some users (like myself). Torc2 (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This question does not fall under this project talk page it would fall under the WP:MUSICIAN talk page. As for your question... in the case of musicians the list can convey more information then the plain category can. For example; nationality - birthdate/death date and genre can be conveyed in the list and not in the straight category. Making the list a much more valuable resource as well. The only thing that needs to be kept clean from these list of musician pages is that they are not full of red link nn vanity entries. It is only when they are strewn with red that the list loses its validity as an encyclopedic resource. I cannot speak for list of classical pianists... but as far as drummers and guitarists (most of the other "stringed instruments", in fact) are all maintained with great scrutiny by a group of dedicated editors who wish to keep the lists as 'resourceful' as possible. And not simply a collection of high school band amateurs. Requirement for inclusion in most of these lists is that a Wiki article must exist for the list subject. And a great deal of these lists are also "pet projects" of several Wikipedia administrators which means the list guidelines are kept intact. Want to look for useless lists to remove from Wikipedia?... Lists that fall under the WP:MUSIC portfolio? Then go after the List of "any genre" band lists. ex: List of doom metal bands. These types of lists are more general in nature and can be easliy replaced with a category. Some have been successfully AfD'd already. While others were AfD'd... and for some unknown 'wiki-stupid' reason... they survived. If a concentrated effort to remove these types of lists were undertaken... Wiki would be greatly improved. Go here: Category:Lists of musicians by genre... and start AfD'ing. Wiki will be the better for it. 156.34.214.181 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Editing those lists would benefit Wikipedia. Deleting them would not. List of XXXgenre articles are entirely appropriate for Wikipedia if XXXgenre is notable. Torc2 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Lists of [sub-genre] bands" like the doom metal bands list are completely worthless; Wikipedia will be a lot better when they're all deleted. WP:LC describes those lists pretty well: "The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category." Funeral 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You find them worthless, but I prefer them over categories. For that matter, categories are not "self-maintaining" - somebody still has to tag each article. Torc2 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(followup) I didn't mean that reply to sound snotty, though it might. I just do prefer lists over categories. The other issue is that lists can have citations to prove whether a listed name actually belongs. (Most don't, but they should.) Categories don't have that. How do you {{fact}} tag a category entry? Torc2 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Torc2, most music-related lists I've dealt with have been informative and useful, although sometimes time consuming to remove non-notable red link entries. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Are there any specific reasons why Template:WikiProject Music doesn't include all the assessment stuff that other WikiProject templates do? --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Flip response is because no one seems to have added them. If the members of this project were to indicate what specific kinds of parameters they might like to see included, particularly parameters for other Projects or groups which don't yet have assessments, I could probably set it up within a week or so at the outside. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me to be very useful. WikiProjects on more specialized subjects like albums and jazz are more likely to have an assessment scheme, and I doubt adding the additional layer will benefit much. Any theoretical benefit that might seem possible is probably purely theoretical, as it would be mostly the same people reviewing. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I've created a new wikproject - Wikipedia:Wikiproject free music. Anyone who is interested is welcome to join. Raul654 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sticking notation on percussion pages.

I edit a lot of percussion pages, and it becomes necessarily to notate the sticking. For example, in the diddle article, I mention five-stroke rolls, which have the sticking RRLLR. This notation of sticking seems both unencyclopedic and confusing, especially when more complex patterns come up. It has no indication of relative duration of the notes, and adding in more complicated rudiments such as flams, drags, and ruffs makes the whole thing completely confusing. For example, two consecutive flam drags can be notated as lRLLRrLRRL, but that can probably only be understood by those who are already familiar with the rudiment. Are there any suggestions to make notating the sticking of a pattern both more encyclopedic and more efficient? --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dagon James

This article has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagon James. Pairadox (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Brian Crozier (guitarist)

Could somebody take a look at Brian Crozier (guitarist)? It reads like a lot of the information is nonsense, but there's enough there to do some Google searching to verify that at least some of it is correct, but it really needs a lot of work, as well as sourcing. Corvus cornixtalk 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it to a one-para stub from the nonsense that was there before. Corvus cornixtalk 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD on SRV guitars

AfD on SRV guitars. Have a look and offer an opinion. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Ferreira

Could someone take a look at Jorge Ferreira? It makes the most astonishing claims I known not to be true. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I started in on it. Phew! Plenty left that needs to be done. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've seen it. Thank you for your time and patience! The Ogre (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would like to take a look here, I've done a major overhaul but wanted some feedback before replacing the article. I hacked out most of the year-by-year/album-by-album stuff and mentions of non-notable musicians etc. I'm not too happy with my writing style—it's hard for me when I didn't write the material in the first place. If anyone wants to make edits to my re-write or leave comments on the actual article's talk page, I'd appreciate it. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bands

Is there any wikiproject dealing with bands? If it isn't there should be one such as there is one for albums. There should be also some style guide for band article like one for albums because some articles about bands have bad/unprecise names, but for general purposes also.

Currently WP:ALBUM redirects to wikiproject dealing with albums containing guidelines and rules, while WP:BAND unfortunately redirects to more general notabiliti guideline for music, which is without proper enough guidelines for band articles and no naming rules for them. It would be good if this woud change.

Also why are there some wikiprojects for only one band, while there are sometimes (or maybe always) no wikiprojects for this band's music genre and there is no wikiproject for bands in general? --193.198.16.211 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only project relating to bands in general that I can think of is Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. WikiProjects and/or portals related to specific bands such as the Beatles are begun by individual editors. Hope that helps. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, there should be something like WP:ALBUM#Style on wikiproject albums to reduce the mess. --193.198.16.211 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, WikiProject Musicians is for bands. And I think you're right that WP:BAND should redirect there. Feel free to write the guidelines you're talking about. Copy them from the album page, and modify them to fit bands. Either add them to the project page, or put on a subpage labeled as a proposal, and get people to agree that they're useful. -Freekee (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will do it. Guideline proposal is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Style. --Qsaw (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not planning on reverting the change, but A little more discussion in a broader forum probably would've been nice before changing the WP:BAND redirect. I've seen several editors, myself included, linking to WP:BAND as a shortcut to the notability criteria for the past couple weeks without realizing it had been changed with basically no input. --Onorem♠Dil 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind after thinking about this more. WP:BAND is linked to more than 25,000 times, and I believe more discussion is needed before this change is made. --Onorem♠Dil 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Track listing template

After agreeing that some of the (sometimes strongly) fluctuating track listing layouts found across Wikipedia were somewhat less than ideal, a friend and I cooked up a new template. It derives most of its handling and design from navboxes, with standardized per-track parameters, such as title, length and (if desired) track-specific notes and writing credits, as well as optional header information for disc titles and general credits. It'd be great if some of you guys could give it a spin and comment on any missing features and other necessary improvements on the template talk page. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks great and will be giving it a whirl soon. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I like it too. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A long-standing dispute

I am here seeking help from editors interested in well referencing, music MoS but also checking POV instances - a kind of a general cleanup, for the following articles:

You got the picture... Two bands dispute the authenticity of their existence; in other words guess who 'is' the real and authentic band! This dispute has been going on for a decade or so and for a couple of years here. Probably user:TUF-KAT is familiar with this issue if i am correct. In fact they both exist and play at concerts around the world but it appears that Wikipedia became a battleground for this dispute. For instance, this section (Brian Jones#Other contributions) is a total mess. No referencing, nothing! Totally unsourced. No single reader would understand, let alone believe in anything.

I tried to mediate this issue for almost 2 years but in vain. There is a clear conflict of interest (since both parties are directly involved with the subject of articles in real life) and it was violated in different occasions until i started using my admin tools.

I am in touch with both parties on and off-wiki and it seems that both are heading for an arbitration case. Anyway, since my mediation was not formal in essence i think the ArbCom would decline if this case is filed. I am therefore here to seek editorial help to clean up these few articles bringing them back to norms. Also, since one party refuses mediation for some particular reasons, i am thinking about restricting involved editors from editing those articles or at least apply 1RR and put the articles under probation.

Someone could help with detecting descripancies on those articles (there are plenty) and check references and reliable sources. I could help but due to my involvement in the mediation and the arbitration processes i can't or otherwise i'd have to recuse myself in case this goes to the ArbCom... unless the parties agree to my editorial help of course. Also, since i am not an expert in music (neither discussing its reliable sources nor being a good music-related artricles' editor), i though you guys know better. All details about the mediation can be found here. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Schools DVD

Anyone thought of archiving some of the above? Anyway I was going to say that the changes to the 2007 DVD Selection for schools to make the 2008 Selection have been proposed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Music any feedback very welcome. --BozMo talk 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Albums

I have started a conversation concerning the notability of "unreleased albums". I invite everyone to take part in the conversation. Ridernyc (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAND

And speaking of notability, WP:BAND now redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, which deals with bands. It used to redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (music). The shortcuts for that page are WP:NMG, WP:MUSIC and WP:MUS. Personally, I'm not sure why MUSIC doesn't direct to the WikiProject Music, but there you have it. I recommend using WP:NMG, which stands for Notability Music Groups, or something. -Freekee (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. Over 25,000 pages link to WP:BAND, and I'm assuming that most of them aren't trying to link to the WikiProject. I think there needs to be more discussion before this redirect is changed. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, no one should ever change redirects to policies and guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't WPP:BAND be a better redirect anyhow? (e.g. WP:MUSIC/WPP:MUSIC) —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion:

  1. Does anybody disagree that WP:BAND is a better name for the band project than it is for Notability of bands? I've been here for two years, and that name has never made sense to me.
  2. Onorem says that over 25,000 pages link to WP:BAND. How many of those links are current and would screw somebody up if the link was redirected? Does the You might be looking for hatnote cover it? How many of the links need to stay as they are for historical purposes? If they do need to stay, can they be changed by a bot?

-Freekee (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

the links being current have nothing to with the fact that archived discussions link to a guideline page.Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it inappropriate to change the name of a Wikipedia page because of archived pages linking to it? My opinion is that it sounds absurd. There's would be a hatnote saying "you might have been looking for," when someone is seen to say fails WP:BAND #3 in an archived deletion discussion, it will be quite obvious what they're talking about. But regardless of the answer to this specific question, there are several more lumped together with it. -Freekee (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to go through the archives and change all the links in the thousands of discussions that use WP:BAND. Someone recently tried to this with WP:PLOT and it was unanimously rejected by the community. If you are serious about this I recommend taking the discussion to WP:RFD. Ridernyc (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This has happened before (I forget where). An easy solution is to make the shortcut for the wikiproject to WP:WPBAND. Rider is right though; the old link has to be preserved for the archives. —Torc. (Talk.) 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried to do it with WP:Plot[12], they actually took it to RFD and it was unanimously rejected, I tried finding the actual discussion but I got tired of looking and I don't think we really need to find it. If this ends up at RFD I'm sure the result will be to not change the redirect. Ridernyc (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How can I merge album articles?

It has been stated by Ruhrfisch at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis/archive2 that each individual album by Harry and the Potters is not notable enough due to a lack of independent, reliable sources and asked whether it is worth merging the albums into one article. I am supportive of this and I am sure there are other album articles similar to this which could be merged into an article. I have not seen one on Wikipedia however I have seen it suggested atleast twice before. I would strongly appreciate if anyone could show me an example of such an article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New Percussion WikiProject

For all interested parties, User:Kakofonous and I have started a percussion WikiProject. All input is appreciated! --Evan ¤ Seeds 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Musical artist template "awards" parameters discussion

We could use more input on the suitability of including a collapsible "Awards" section in {{Infobox Musical artist}} (similar to what already exists in {{Infobox actor}}). The discussion has kind of stalemated. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Call for peer review

Hello everyone, I would kindly ask you to help review the Metamorfoz article, as you are experts in music-related articles, your suggestions and improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Bell

I need assistance in expanding this article. Bell was a very important figure in American soul music history]], and one of the key figures behind Stax Records. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

George Lowden guitars

appears to be a lift from the co's website. Anyone feel like rescuing it? --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Band Nationality in Introduction

I should like to suggest an effort to modify the introductions of each band from the United States of America. Most of them start off saying something like: "(band name) is an American (genre) band from (town, state), formed in (a year)". The problem is American is too ambiguous of a term. It does not simply suggest being from the United States of America, rather it suggests from being anywhere in the American continent(s). Saying "AFI is an American rock band", does not explicitly suggest AFI is from the United States of America, rather it is from the American continent(s). Therefore, I suggest an effort be made to change introductions to something more along the lines of: "(band name) is a (genre) band from (town, state), United States of America, formed in (year)". Or something else if someone suggests something better. Bands should not be referred to American though. Rather as from the United States of America.Dale-DCX (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Music-related articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently about 100 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Discography Format Problem

by Langdon (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)i7114080 In Carrie Underwood discography, Omghgomg and I argued about formats. I've held a mini-vote on this, but Omghgomg didn't approve, and he used excuses to persuade me not to change and keep his formats. Those things are really personal, but I think we need discussions to unite the formats.

Here are some examples: (The examples are all correct, and they contain all information needed.)

Album notes

1.

Year Album
2005 Some Hearts
2007 Carnival Ride

2.

Year Album Label
2005 Some Hearts
  • Released: November 15, 2005
  • Format: CD, digital download
 Arista Nashville
2007 Carnival Ride
  • Released: October 23, 2007
  • Format: CD, digital download

3.
The record label of all albums is Arista Nashville; albums are released in CD and digital download forms.

Year Album
2005 Some Hearts
2007 Carnival Ride

4.
All albums are released on Arista Nashville; albums are released in CD and digital download forms.

Year Album
2005 Some Hearts
2007 Carnival Ride

For this one, there isn't a result after mini-vote. I would say a lot of discographies use #1, but I don't think that's good. The label will repeat so many times. This is what I've said the other day about release date: "we can briefly know when a album is out by looking at the year column. month and date is not very important because most country artist do not release 2 albums in the same year. it is not really necessery. and, do we have to do the same thing to singles too?" In country discographies, #4 is usually used, and it is simple. If the artist had more than a record label, we usually use a column like #2 to show. Example: Reba McEntire discography

Certifications

Certifications
US: 7× Multi-Platinum
Canada: 3× Platinum
Certifications
US Canada
7× Multi-Platinum 3× Platinum

About this one, of course the right one is more comprehensible.

Dashes

Year Single Peak chart positions
US Country US Hot 100 US Pop 100 US AC US Digital
2005 "Bless the Broken Road" 50 — — — —

"—" denotes releases that did not chart.

Year Single Peak chart positions
US Country US Hot 100 US Pop 100 US AC US Digital
2005 "Bless the Broken Road" 50

"blank" denotes releases that did not chart.

There are a lot of arguement on this one. Please see Talk:Carrie Underwood discography#Voting

Album positions

Year Single Album
2007 "Just a Dream" Carnival Ride
"Do You Hear What I Hear" Hear Something Country Christmas 2007
Year Single Album
2007 "Just a Dream" Carnival Ride
"Do You Hear What I Hear" Hear Something Country Christmas 2007

In most country discographies, we use the right one.

Featured Sound Nomination and participation

Hey all. Whilst trawling through wikipedia i cam across the Featured sound page. I noticed that there was a significant lack of regular participation in this process. At the moment there are only 15 audio rerecording that have reached featured Status and I was wondering whether it would be possible to get more involvementfrom people interested in music and also generally audio recordings so that the best audio on wikipedia can be truly appreciated. I hope to you participating on the page more often and that a greater community consensus can be formed here. Seddon69 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

assist?

For the purposes of {{infobox song}}, is a song's "style" the same as its "genre"? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Precisely. Couldn't put it better myself. --rm 'w avu 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)