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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 |
I would like to create an
{{R from}}
category to sort musical band and group names that redirect to an article on an single person (e.g. {{R from band name}}
or {{R from group name}}
). Examples include
Paul Whiteman and His Orchestra,
Duke Ellington and His Orchestra,
Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band,
Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force, and
Puff Daddy and the Family. Please comment
here if you care. —
AjaxSmack 00:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There's an error in the example for the Aria, as noted on its talk page. Since no one will ever read that talk page, I'm mentioning it here. 79.64.184.87 ( talk) 20:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is the result research done and a different conclusion reached after this Wikiproject:Music discussion and a user discussion.
A very large quantity of articles describing major KPOP songs on this wiki are marked as Singles when they are actually only Songs.
For example:
And a lot more...
These songs are just songs that were only released as part of an EP or album, but never a single (a release with 1-3 songs).
This can be seen in the linked references next to each of the songs. These lead to song's Musicbrainz recording page. If you notice, for all of these songs' Release Group Type is only either a EP, album, or Album + Compilation. That means that they were only released on these types of releases. Never a single.
So, you might be wondering, how has this happened?
There are many reasons:
And that final reason leads me into what solution are we going to make. Clearly to deal with this problem, a lot of pages are going to have to be changed from "single". Are we going to just change all of these to songs? Should we create a "title track" song type, add it to Template:Infobox song, and make or combine title track discography lists with singles lists? Or do we have another solution?
Let me know your thoughts, solutions, and questions!
Lectrician1 ( talk) 12:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, then it seems like all of you want to remain with the current mixed definition of single.
I mentioned at the end of the last singles discussion that the Single (music) page should change to accomodate this song-type definition, but that never happened. So, if anyone wants to build off my attempt with good sources, please do. If that's not possible, I'd love to establish some other way such as a Wikiproject documentation page describing that both releases and songs can be "singles" so that others don't run into the same confusion I did.
Secondly, we need to solve the Wikidata problem that original sparked this discussion. My proposed solution is to create a new item named "single (song)" that covers the song-type single definition ( single (Q134556) covers the release type) and is described as "a type of promoted song". Then, this new single item will be used on song items with the has characteristic (P1552) property instead of instance of (P31). @ Paper9oll: does this work for you?
Lectrician1 ( talk) 23:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Cardi B has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 03:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there's an open peer review discussion regarding Phonk; if anyone wanted to comment it would be much appreciated! Nehme 1499 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 05:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been surprised recently, looking at music articles recently, how few include audio files with music samples. With e.g. blues, shouldn't there be a sample of blues music beyond just auto-generated lines? Licensing may be an issue in some areas, but we can at least tag the talk pages with {{ Music requested}}. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to album articles. All comments are welcome. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Infinity (audio). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#Infinity (audio) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 ( talk) 04:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Should his latest album be moved from the collaborative albums sub-section, given other sources are not categorising it that way? The same point could apply to the other albums listed in that section. Where an album is a genuine collaboration I have seen it still listed in the regular studio albums section, but with info in brackets showing the credit. I see the recent Gorillaz album which featured various guests is just listed as a studio album. Regards. Eldumpo ( talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I created the 2nd FA review on heavy metal music. Please your contributions to the article are welcome. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says not to use Discogs, the proposal is to allow for info when there's a photo of the album label or sleeve provided. Input welcome. Herostratus ( talk) 13:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Spiderland/archive1. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Guys, I think we need to talk about TopHit. Since its usage throughout articles is viewed differently depending on a person. Some people see it as a clear single release proof (recent changes or should I say warring on " Off the Table" and " Walking on Air"), and some even doubt the need to include it in release history tables (e.g. " Oh My God"). In my opinion TopHit should not be counted as a single indicator unless its supported by other radio releases or what artist/lable says, so if there is no other release surrounding the song (besides possible earlier release as a promo single already, e.g. " Million Reasons" or " What Makes a Woman") then it should be clasified only as a promotional single. Of course it is only my opinion, so that's why I'm bringing it up here to determine what should we really do about that, since we should stop recent edit wars. infsai ( talkie? UwU) 13:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that this is not the exact place to put this, but this article - currently at FAC - it is not gaining very much attention. It has received two supports and has been open for one month; I don't want it to be closed for lack of participation, and it is part of the Music project of Wikipedia, so I thought I would ask around. I understand the notice placed at the top, and I have bumped this thread twice on the albums WP, but garnered no serious interest or response. dannymusiceditor oops 14:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There are hundreds of articles that now contain the phrase "... was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire" (some use "reportedly destroyed") with a link to the Jody Rosen's New York Times article. However, a quick read of the 2008 Universal fire article shows that Rosen's account has been heavily disputed by Universal and they have only confirmed 19 artists had material destroyed. Some artists named in Rosen's article (like Hole) seem to have dropped lawsuits after Universal confirmed certain material was not destroyed.
My question is this: Given that this report is disputed, how appropriate is it that ~800 articles contain this sentence? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 05:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
According to a 2019 report by The New York Times, X was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire; this was disputed by Universal Music Group.If we can agree on a set wording to use here I'm happy to help adjust this across the affected articles. Popcornfud ( talk) 11:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that’s it’s a short note but it’s on hundreds of articles and it is possibly untrue or an allegation denied by Universal. Most of the artists were only mentioned once in the initial NYT piece. I would be in favour in removing the sentence from most articles as undue but obviously keeping the information for the 20 or so articles where there was further coverages. I need to do a bit more reading to be sure of this and I would like at least a little bit of support from other editors before undertaking something so big. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Remove the unconfirmed The original report added to articles did not qualify "material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire" as potentially affecting only a portion of the artist's catalogue. Artist with long recording careers often change labels; Universal (and through its affiliates) might have only had control over a fraction of an artist's recording catalogue and master tapes. The last wording in the Johnny Winter article (now removed) [5] stated "Johnny Winter was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire". This may give some readers the impression that all or a significant portion of Winter's material was lost, when in fact, he only recorded six albums for Universal affiliates out of total of about 43 albums during his career. Plus the fact that Winter is not among the 19 confirmed makes this wording quite misleading (and I suspect for many of the 700+ other artists). With problems like these, the report should be removed from the unconfirmed artists' articles. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I only saw this discussion (thanks to the Volunteer Response Team) after the mass deletion, which showed up on a couple of pages that I follow. This discussion was helpful - I did not know that much of the reported destruction of artists' master tapes was disputed. (And I am sure that disputes will continue -- nobody will ever be able to catalog with great confidence what was lost in the fire.) I strongly agree that jpgordon should have included a link to this discussion as a comment on in each of the edits; otherwise, some of them will surely be reverted. Also fwiw, my personal inclination on substance: it is a major issue, and certainly worth inclusion in their Wikipedia page, for each of the artists if some of the original master tapes of their work were destroyed. So I would have preferred to say that the allegation is disputed, rather than to delete the allegation. But my view seems to be a minority one. Sullidav ( talk) 02:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ Infobox musical artist}} allows comma-separated lists for lists of three or fewer items, and always allows formal, bullet lists in the infobox. MOS:STYLERET makes an ArbCom decision clear: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." About 24 hours ago an editor changed the style in the infobox. I reverted and pointed to STYLERET, and made other reverts that I felt were stylistic. This started a low-grade edit war. The other editor does not seem to accept STYLERET and wants me to leave him alone and has essentially threatened to escalate in some way. Also, the editor seems to think I am following them, and does not understand how or why some editors patrol changes to their watchlist. Regardless, I would appreciate advice, comments and even support. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Music members. I am hoping that some of you can help us with a situation that first arose at the conflict of interest noticeboard and spawned into sockpuppet investigation. It concerns the use of references written by Colin Larkin, a music writer and author of works such as the Encyclopedia of Popular Music and All Time Top 1000 Albums. While there seems to be consensus that the author is reputable and the books he authored are reliable sources, the behaviour of certain users has raised questions about their use in articles.
The user " Colin Larkin" is the real-life person (confirmed through OTRS 2018100310003528). His edit history began as largely that of a single purpose account. He edited the Colin Larkin article directly until warned by Kleuske in October 2018. Soon after, the user " Muso805" appeared and began editing album and artist articles; frequently mentioning Larkin's book and also using it as a reference. This edit is just one example of hundreds of such similar edits.
Concern over the editing habits of the two accounts was noted in December 2021 at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#User:Muso805. Larkin denied any connection between the two accounts, although he admitted to sharing an account but no action was taken. Soon after this discussion ended, the user " Southwold54" picked up where Muso805 left off, with edits such as this.
Concerns were again raised this month Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The Music Guides Playlists / Colin Larkin. At the time, Southwold's edits hadn't been noticed, but another user's (" The Music Guides Playlists", now renamed to " MelomaneQC") were mentioned. Larkin again indignantly denied any wrongdoing, but a sockpuppet investigation confirmed that Colin Larkin, Muso805 and Southwold54 were the same user. All three accounts have now been blocked.
MelomaneQC was found to be unrelated to the others, but there is still meatpuppetry concerns over that account's edits, as they bear resemblance to the sockpuppet accounts ( example). We're now asking if members here could help comb through the edits of these accounts, and evaluate their merits against their possible promotional motivations. Not only are the number of edits daunting, the subject matter is a bit outside our area of expertise.
Any and all assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 06:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject members, I am MelomaneQC. I renamed myself upon Wiki member’s request because it was mentioned that The Music Guides Playlist was a conflict of interest. I chose a name that should be all good now. Concerning Colin Larkin, I still wonder why it’s an issue because I own his encyclopedias, it’s an editor for which I have respect for years. I add ratings because I want to contribute to Wikipedia’s database in the music category. In the future, I also want to add Penguin’s Jazz ratings, but I only own the 4th edition (now trying to buy the 9th edition) and Rough Guides quotes as they don’t have ratings but is a great music reference. It’s only a labor of love. As mentioned to Drm310 on my talk page, I also did edit for Quebec artists. In the beginning, I used this reference I made myself, see Beauty Stab but I have learned from a Wiki member and as an unexperienced editor that I had to keep the The before Encyclopedia of Popular Music. To respect the reference code, I copied one that was generic, without the page number as I was doing before. I didn’t know that coping a reference code would put me in this situation and being accused of meatpuppetry as I don’t promote anyone, I simply transfer information of books I own into the Wikipedia database. If it can help my situation, I can vary my entries by doing more than a book at the time (The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Rough Guides, Penguin Guides, Gramophone Guides, etc). Let me know. Thanks MelomaneQC ( talk) 13:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Nelisa voice 41.114.199.168 ( talk) 18:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Consistent diminished chord typography if interested. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm a music fan, and I'm trying to clean some genre templates up and put them in the correct pages, but users like Ojorojo, Binksternet, MrOllie, FlightTime, and ILIL keep messing up my edits. Could someone do something about this? 47.36.25.163 ( talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Art pop#Remaining audio samples. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I had noticed that there were a lot of articles which had formerly had a link pointing to Kenzie which is now a disambiguation page but I have changed them to the relevant article as either Kenzie (rapper) or Kenzie (songwriter). I am wondering and hoping I have done this correctly since I don't know much about these two famous people relating to music. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that stylization is not allowed for album titles and band names for the Wikipedia article title, but I am not finding a guideline that clearly states that. I encountered a band article that lists the band in all caps, but no matter how I search, I cannot find that it is based off of an acronym. I was going to leave a message on the talk page suggesting I move the article in a week to non-stylized spelling unless they could justify the all caps as anything more than stylization, but when I was looking for guideline to support my statement, I was not satisfied with any article I found as being strong enough to justify this. To not be mysterious, the band article is TOPS (band), and I cannot find any reason it should not be changed to Tops (band). However, the guidelines I find are not prescriptive enough to allow me to lay down the law, and I would have sworn I have seen something prescriptive about all cap titles.
So, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) deals with the first letter of every word in a title. MOS:TITLECAPS states that most articles should be sentence case except titles which follow title case. MOS:ALLCAPS says to avoid using all caps in articles, but could this be used for article titles or only for within the article? It is possible that MOS:AT could apply, but is it strong enough to sway fans of stylized names? It states "Capitalize the initial letter, but otherwise follow sentence case, not title case, except where title case would be expected were the title to occur in ordinary prose."
Does anyone know of a stronger argument about not using all capital stylization for band titles and album titles? Mburrell ( talk) 04:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"...unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". In the case of TOPS, most reliable sources do use the all caps for the band's name. I don't agree with this, as I also believe it's a stylisation... many artists use all caps for themselves just to look important, in my opinion. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.I'm not seeing that the exception is to apply here and there are plenty of other "tops" articles so, while the name is ambiguous, the ambiguity is not resolved by capitalisation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone suggest some websites that are considered as reliable sources to find information about Japanese boy bands? Resmise ( talk) 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi folks, I wondering if there is template that can cite classical music pieces. It is regarding the The Aesthetics of Resistance article. The German article has a bunch of musical pieces associated with the book and they include things like the usual composer, name but then it has extended details for example, conductor for individual pieces and Music for 32 voices in 4 groups with text projection (ad libitum). Is there any template could cite that sort of thing, or would be done via just writing a block of text. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 11:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Please come share your input! Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Come share your input! Why? I Ask ( talk) 18:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey all! My name is Gen. Quon and I'm currently a Wikipedia editor and PhD student working on a dissertation about information behavior of fan editors on Wikipedia. (Although I'm using "fan" fairly broadly, I intend to focus on media fans, so people who like music, movies, TV shows, books, etc. are all a-go.) Here's more info on my project, if you're curious. As evidenced by my edit history, I've been reaching out to folks who work on pop culture articles and seeing if they'd be interested in chatting with me about their experiences on the site. I was wondering if anyone who is a part of this WikiProject might be interested in chatting with me? If so, reply here, drop me a message on my talk page, or use the WP email function! I'd love to hear what you have to say.-- Gen. Quon [Talk] (I'm studying Wikipedia!) 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:George_Strait#Count_of_number_hits? regarding his tally of number-one singles, which may be of interest to editors here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the infobox of the article lists "New Romantic" as a genre, but I only see that here, the recurring genre on Wikipedia for acts labeled that term seems to be "new wave". Should it be removed? -- 10Trix.Never ( talk) 21:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
There's two sources cited for New Romantic, one I can't access, the other the
AllMusic page for Seona Dancing: "Inspired by the New Romantic sounds of Japan and Ultravox...". The Wikipedia page for New Romantic says Ultravox were "often identified as New Romantics by the press, although they did not exhibit the same visual styles of the movement, despite their link to the band Visage." On the other hand, Adam and the Ants were labelled New Romantic apparently for their dress sense, while forgoing synthesizers in their music.
Has there been a discussion on this before? What was the conclussion? --
10Trix.Never (
talk) 22:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I should just say, that was an observation I made about Adam and the Ants, not AllMusic, but the articles on Spandau Ballet and Visage do mention ties to the "New Romantic movement" in lede but not in the infobox which suggests there is/was some sort of consensus on Wikipedia that New Romantic is not a music genre. AllMusic do say "the New Romantic sounds of Japan and Ultravox", which makes it sound like a music style maybe as well as a fashion style. I think it looks odd only being in the infobox for Ultravox and not the others, so should it be removed? -- 10Trix.Never ( talk) 01:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
There have been recent disagreements over the legitimacy of whether or not the songs listed when you search an artists name on AllAccess are all singles. Some think they are all singles. Some think only the songs with the "single" marker are singles. Some think that there is a difference between being released to radio and impacting radio. There needs to be a consensus about this because people are being bold and people are reverting without talking about it. So let's. Tree Critter ( talk) 06:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've been seeing about AllAccess since I posted this and I've noticed a couple things:
Tree Critter ( talk) 14:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I started the RFC discussion about using non-free samples in song articles. Your input there is welcome. Link: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72#RfC: Using samples to identify songs in song articles -- George Ho ( talk) 08:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion here about the show Can You Duet. While the show lasted for two seasons, it seems to have garnered no coverage as I've dissected in the AFD. I would appreciate more eyes on the AFD to judge the validity of the sources already there and prove or disprove the existence of further sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
In many South Korean artists' discographies columns are blanked using asterisk to denote that a 'record chart' did not exist at that time. But is it right? Because there are multiple instances where songs have charted even on a 'record chart' which started tracking years after the song was released. For example, all Blackpink singles since 2018 have charted on Billboard Global 200 although the chart started tracking in late 2020.
I brought this discussion at WikiProject Korea but there was only one reply. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate further input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marx, as I feel that the sources provided by other editors do not pass muster as significant third-party coverage and would appreciate a greater consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:NoCopyrightSounds#Youtube regarding the question of whether Infobox YouTube as a module is necessary for some, possibly all, record label articles. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Eddie Bayers has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed changes to the infobox of musical artists here: Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Reduction of AKAs, on which consensus needs to be reached. The main points to be discussed are:
I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 03:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
As the title of the section suggests, should navigational templates for bands, such as Template:Megadeth have items that do not have their own dedicated pages or are simply redirects to the respective artists' discography (such as) [[Deathstars#Discography|Decade of Debauchery]]? Obviously redlinks in navboxes are prohibited, but is it okay to include a non-wikilinked item? The subject of this is Template:Eisbrecher, where I have attempted to add a compilation album (best hit album) section for their best hits album Ewiges Eis - 15 Jahre Eisbrecher, but it has been reverted by User:Jax 0677, firstly under the grounds of WTAF, which is not valid since band members who do not have have their respective articles have remained (don't tell me notability reasons, Ewiges Eis charted on German charts) and previous albums that did not have articles (namely Schicksalsmelodien, which I created myself), remained intact. Following a short discussion which Jax has decided to ignore, citing BRD (how is this change even bold??), I have come to here to settle this. He has violated 3RR and I cannot be bothered reporting this to WP:AN/3RR. Interested to hear your thoughts X-750 I've made a mistake, haven't I? 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion on how to handle the lead section in the heavy metal music article and how the lead covers the accusations of misogyny in the sourced section about sexism in the body. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Read here. TLDR: The current situation is mess (examples included), it has been unresolved mess since 2010-2012 with no decisive solution and only occasional "tweaks" to allowed color scheme, bringing only more mess to the issue, the coloring scheme is arbitrary and basically is a legacy thing bearing no worth. I propose to uniformly color all music genre infoboxes gray (taking the color from the electronic genre infoboxes), as the most readable of all currently used color for music genre infoboxes (negotiable). Albums, movies, books in Wikipedia are not "colored" according to genre, and that works just well, so music genre should not be colored either. Wikipedia is not a coloring book for children and music fans. AK 178.121.43.158 ( talk) 17:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding a passage in the Every Breath You Take article regarding the piano part in the song. Feedback is welcome at Talk:Every Breath You Take § Piano part, revisited. isaacl ( talk) 19:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Since the RfC has closed with consensus that nonlinked discographical information should not be included in navboxes, it stands to reason that nonlinked bandmembers should also not be included in navboxes, for all and exactly the same reasons. Does this require a second RfC, or is discussion here sufficient? Chubbles ( talk) 07:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, per this discussion the associated acts parameter in the musical artist infobox has been replaced by several new "members" parameters. -- Vaulter 05:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
A user I have been observing is moving the discographies of Lil Tecca & G Herbo onto their own discography pages (i.e. Lil Tecca discography). I'm just wondering what's the consensus regarding this, and is there any relevant Wikipedia policy dictating this? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel I should alert the project to the mess of an article that is 'hyperpop', a term apparently made up by Spotify to market unrelated music styles and not recognised by the likes of AllMusic. It makes all the mistakes WP:NOTFANPAGE warns against, editors have cherry-picked online sources, a lot of which seem to have used Wikipedia's page on the topic as the basis of their research yet unlike most music genre articles here it doesn't cite a single book source (usually from the likes of Simon Reynolds). I think there's also a certain degree of historical negationism going on (whether intentional or not), PC Music and Sophie's sound can easily be traced to the grime-influenced wonky sound that emerged in the wake of London's post-dubstep sound system scene. Which is why 'bubblegum bass' on their articles links to ' UK bass'. -- 10Trix.Never ( talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
How Hyperpop, a Small Spotify Playlist, Grew Into a Big Deal- New York Times,
Though 100 Gecs’ music rejects classification and formulas, a fungal burst of artists with like-minded approaches has erupted in the past few years, and Spotify has started using a new genre label: hyperpop.- The Atlantic,
So in 2019, to address the quandary of 100 gecs’ unlikely popularity and unwieldy style, Spotify launched a new playlist designed to give their sound a home on the platform. It was called “hyperpop.”- The New Yorker. Further from the New Yorker:
Incoherence is inherent to the genre, and the songs on Spotify’s hyperpop playlist vary widely in style. To me, I personally don't think it's so much of a music genre rather than what, again, the New Yorker says:
the hyperpop playlist serves many functions: it is a corporate branding exercise(among others). X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 00:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of songfacts.com as a source in articles. If you would like to join the discussion, please contribute here. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday I changed the article Traditional music from a redirect to strict traditional folk music, to a concept related to musical traditions, which we have equally mentioned in articles about both traditional folk music and classical and religious music (still missing ritual/ceremonial music for which this concept would also hold true). There is probably no need to cite sources in this case, as you can easily find any of these concepts via "traditional (folk/classical/religious) music" search and the word tradition itself does not make it seem descriptive, but rather refers specifically to non-contemporary/popular form of such music. The next step is to change all inclusions of wikilinks to this disambiguation to traditional folk music, as this was most often used meaning. Before doing so, I would like to discuss it per WP:CON. Solidest ( talk) 15:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Lots of news sources state in interview/upcoming concert articles ( example 1, example 2, example 3) that Perla Batalla was nominated for a Grammy (presumably quoting her press materials). However, I can't find any trace on the Grammys site that she was nominated. Am I missing something? Should this be removed from the article, or just retained supported by one of the sources? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I've seen the above phrase pop up at least a couple times recently in album infoboxes (I imagine it occurs in song and artist/band pages as well though I can't remember seeing a specific instance of it), most recently Come Home the Kids Miss You, and I'm curious how this is generally considered. In this instance, I had earlier added hip hop in the genre parameter (with a source of course), but that was removed and replaced with a hidden notice including that phrase. Personally I don't think that's a healthy way of conducting business here. For one, if the available sources simply refer to an album/song as hip hop without any qualifiers pointing to more specific subgenres, why shouldn't that be included? At least until a more specific source is found. And secondly, it is to my understanding that "a given" is fundamentally opposed to this website's mission. Requiring an assumption be made by readers rather than providing relevant info for them just doesn't sit right with me. And sure, in the instance of Come Home the lead does refer to the artist as "American rapper Jack Harlow", and it's not necessarily wrong to assume that one could reasonably draw the conclusion that an album must be hip hop if the artist is a rapper, but I'm still not sure if that's in the spirit of WP. Am I alone in this? Is this phrase based on a previously established consensus that I'm unaware of? Or should this type of notice be discouraged? QuietHere ( talk) 06:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper place to request this. And I know I'm getting ahead of myself here a bit. But the Country artist Bailey Zimmerman seems to be fast approaching notability. His song "Fall In Love" is currently at #52 on the Hot 100, and his song "Rock And A Hard Place" seems posed to debut in the top 30 of that same chart. That's an unusually strong debut for an up and coming country artist. I'm not sure the exact qualifications for notability, and don't know how to make articles by myself. But I know that it's typical for country songs that do this well on the charts to have Wikipedia articles. I figured maybe somebody here would jump at the opportunity of being the first person to make the article. Nikki Lee 1999 ( talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, updating some track listings for some albums that I like, and if a song is written, for example, by an independent writer and is performed by another person, case in hand: What's Made Milwaukee Famous (Has Made a Loser Out of Me), written by Glenn Sutton and first performed by Jerry Lee Lewis, is it appropriate to consider any other following recordings of the song to be a "cover"? I know this may seem silly, but I just wanted to make sure. Cheers X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear all,
Might I suggest the draft page for William John Titus Bishop as a project that could benefit from your editing? JohnEricHiggs ( talk) 15:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about whether or not album articles should include singles discographies. Please participate in the discussion if so inclined, to help form a consensus. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward question: is there an easier way to find digital chart information? The only method I can think of is opening every country's individual websites (as listed on WP:GOODCHARTS) and searching them all manually, but that's time-consuming and a general hassle. So is there a faster way of accessing all of those sites' information at once, or something along those lines? I'd like to start adding charting info to my album articles but the inconvenience has been a barrier for me. QuietHere ( talk) 15:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Is this WP:OVERCAT?
There elements are specified in different order and this all results into the same categories on lower level but via a bunch of various duplicated categories. I guess this whole tree should be reworked to list only 2 elements at once? Solidest ( talk) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Since it was decided above to remove the colors from the infoboxes of music genres, I propose to replace the information conveyed by the colors with a separate text field. Suggested name is "Direction" (variants are "Branch", "Division"). This field would indicate the closest largest parent genre(s) with the text.
The problems with using the color scheme have been pointed out above:
(a) is solved by allowing the field to be filled with more than one value, and this also coincides with the solution of (c). Problem (b) is also solved by transferring to text.
It is important to say that since infoboxes are designed to summarize information about the article, this field will not give any new information, but rather should convey the essence of the article (since now there is no systematic indication of the parent genre (or genre branch) in the premise of articles). As for genres to be filled in, I suggest to limit the condition in the template documentation specifying it as largest parent genres, aka the closest upper genre in the hierarchy that have 5 or more subgenres. Usually it is easy to select such genre(s) from the existing text of articles or by existing hierarchy of article's categorization. And initially we could focus and be guided by List of music genres and styles and Category:Musical subgenres by genre. Thus, this parameter would reflect the largest 20-25 genres, linking their sub-genres. The same goal was pursued with the colors, but now it will be much looser and at the same time more accurate. It would also not be a problem to replace the color parameter with the direction parameter using bots. Solidest ( talk) 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
An RfC has been started to determine the reliability of the Medium publication Cuepoint. Your participation is welcomed. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This RfC is in response to a recent edit war regarding Supertramp, a band that formed in London and had a mix of English, Scottish, and American members. What default position should we take when a band is formed in one country, but contains members who are from elsewhere?
Some other bands to consider are the Velvet Underground (American, even though John Cale is Welsh), the Monkees (no nationality given), and Fleetwood Mac (British-American). ili ( talk) 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Could we please have some eyes on this ( Silent Running (band)) article? It looks like a potentially inexperienced editor has consolidated content from sources unknown in this article, so there my be some attribution issues and a handful of other style and categorization issues. Dawnseeker2000 03:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Just Sam with List of American Idol finalists. If you are interestexd, you may join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
A recently closed RfC here at WikiProject Music established consensus that navboxes of musician articles should not include discographical entries (albums, songs) that do not have their own articles, as these are not navigable links and so are outside the functional purview of the navbox. It was pointed out in this discussion that many band/ensemble navboxes also include names of bandmembers, even when those bandmembers are not linked to their own independent articles, and WP:EXISTING currently has a single exception for bandmembers. (I was unable to find any discussion on the insertion of this guideline, only this discussion challenging it in 2012.) Should unlinked or redirect bandmembers be included in navboxes (keeping WP:EXISTING as is), or should the consensus on discographical materials be extended to cover bandmembers as well, and WP:EXISTING be updated? Chubbles ( talk) 02:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
anything that is explicitly or implicitly a statement of who the band members are should include all of them. Otherwise such would be making a false statement.This would to a lesser degree apply to other infobox content - unless heading make it clear that the content is 'partial'. Pincrete ( talk) 05:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago, editors began inserting asterisks in chart position cols of various K-pop discography tables and articles to indicate releases did not enter a particular cited region due to the chart not existing at the time, either due to it being long defunct, recently discontinued, or newly created. I thought all this time that the greyed out N/A is what is supposed to be used for entries where something like this might occur, as I've seen in other discogs on WP. Another editor voiced their concern about this back in April on the Music Project talk page, but no one responded and it was archived. I tried on the Discogs talk page a week ago, but no one commented, so I'm asking here now in the hopes that someone can provide insight on whether this is appropriate or not. As an example, see the Scotland col in singer Jungkook's discog section. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
In the music infobox template, what is the difference between sub genre and fusion genre please? 10Trix.Never ( talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This might be better suited to another WP, but Billboard is one of the most commonly used music sources (chart numbers etc.), so I figured here would be alright.
As of the past few months, Billboard's website has deteriorated greatly. Many artists no longer have individual pages (it used to be either billboard.com/artist/NAME or billboard.com/music/NAME, but now it redirects to their homepage). These individual pages are sometimes saved on Archive, but due to Billboard utilizing a half-arsed menu system (which sometimes duplicated entries), very few sections are archived. Also, the Search Charts function no longer works whatsoever. At one point, only Pro members were able to use it, but then it became free for everyone, but now it seems to be broken for everyone. Searching anything at all will give a "No Results Found" page. In addition, as usual, only Pro members can view full charts online, so linking to one of those pages won't suffice either (they recently forced members to pay annually instead of monthly).
I just wanted to give a heads up, since a lot of people may cite Billboard's website on instinct, but now most of those URLs are dead, with no sufficient archive. The only other alternative is to cite or link to the physical component of Billboard (worldradiohistory.com has various issues but it's not complete). Xanarki ( talk) 01:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Howie Weinberg#Clean up of table and removal of unreliably sourced information about a table of Grammy nominations and wins for a mastering engineer. It would be appreciated if others would please stop by and provide their thoughts on this dispute. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 14:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently open at Talk:List of best-selling music artists that would benefit from members of this WikiProject. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, some odd things have been happening with Vocal group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of vocal groups ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this September 2022. First List of vocal groups was blanked to being a dicdef, then that dicdef was cut-and-pasted to vocal group, previously a redirect to the list, and the list at list of vocal groups was then rebuilt without the extensive intro section it had prior to blanking, leaving no intro at all.
So currently, we have a bare list without an intro, and a dicdef article.
IMHO, the dicdef located at vocal group cannot support an article as it is, and should either redirect back to the list again, or some of the content that was deleted from the list that used to be the intro should be pasted into the current dicdef. Though that has the problem of lacking sourcing, as that was the reason provided for blanking the intro into being a sourced dicdef. The dicdef would serve as a start for an intro into the list article, but is still insufficient for a list intro.
As it stands, the dicdef vocal group article is liable to be deleted because it is a dicdef. I previously recommended to the person who blanked the list article that they should just revert and send the list to WP:Articles for deletion, if they didn't like the list, as the dicdef article cannot stand as it is, as a dicdef because it is deletable for that reason.
-- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 04:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia. Please come share your thoughts! Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I started the following discussion earlier this year: Talk:Sex Pistols#FA review needed? George Ho ( talk) 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey everybody, it's my first time creating an article. Here it is: Draft:Goblins_from_Mars. Please feel free to tell me what you think about it. Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Update: looks like Goblins from Mars aren't suitable for Wikipedia, yet. This is sad. I have found no coverage of the topic on independent magazines and websites. Well, guess I'll have to wait... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
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 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 |
I would like to create an
{{R from}}
category to sort musical band and group names that redirect to an article on an single person (e.g. {{R from band name}}
or {{R from group name}}
). Examples include
Paul Whiteman and His Orchestra,
Duke Ellington and His Orchestra,
Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band,
Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force, and
Puff Daddy and the Family. Please comment
here if you care. —
AjaxSmack 00:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There's an error in the example for the Aria, as noted on its talk page. Since no one will ever read that talk page, I'm mentioning it here. 79.64.184.87 ( talk) 20:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is the result research done and a different conclusion reached after this Wikiproject:Music discussion and a user discussion.
A very large quantity of articles describing major KPOP songs on this wiki are marked as Singles when they are actually only Songs.
For example:
And a lot more...
These songs are just songs that were only released as part of an EP or album, but never a single (a release with 1-3 songs).
This can be seen in the linked references next to each of the songs. These lead to song's Musicbrainz recording page. If you notice, for all of these songs' Release Group Type is only either a EP, album, or Album + Compilation. That means that they were only released on these types of releases. Never a single.
So, you might be wondering, how has this happened?
There are many reasons:
And that final reason leads me into what solution are we going to make. Clearly to deal with this problem, a lot of pages are going to have to be changed from "single". Are we going to just change all of these to songs? Should we create a "title track" song type, add it to Template:Infobox song, and make or combine title track discography lists with singles lists? Or do we have another solution?
Let me know your thoughts, solutions, and questions!
Lectrician1 ( talk) 12:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, then it seems like all of you want to remain with the current mixed definition of single.
I mentioned at the end of the last singles discussion that the Single (music) page should change to accomodate this song-type definition, but that never happened. So, if anyone wants to build off my attempt with good sources, please do. If that's not possible, I'd love to establish some other way such as a Wikiproject documentation page describing that both releases and songs can be "singles" so that others don't run into the same confusion I did.
Secondly, we need to solve the Wikidata problem that original sparked this discussion. My proposed solution is to create a new item named "single (song)" that covers the song-type single definition ( single (Q134556) covers the release type) and is described as "a type of promoted song". Then, this new single item will be used on song items with the has characteristic (P1552) property instead of instance of (P31). @ Paper9oll: does this work for you?
Lectrician1 ( talk) 23:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Cardi B has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 03:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there's an open peer review discussion regarding Phonk; if anyone wanted to comment it would be much appreciated! Nehme 1499 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 05:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been surprised recently, looking at music articles recently, how few include audio files with music samples. With e.g. blues, shouldn't there be a sample of blues music beyond just auto-generated lines? Licensing may be an issue in some areas, but we can at least tag the talk pages with {{ Music requested}}. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to album articles. All comments are welcome. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Infinity (audio). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#Infinity (audio) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 ( talk) 04:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Should his latest album be moved from the collaborative albums sub-section, given other sources are not categorising it that way? The same point could apply to the other albums listed in that section. Where an album is a genuine collaboration I have seen it still listed in the regular studio albums section, but with info in brackets showing the credit. I see the recent Gorillaz album which featured various guests is just listed as a studio album. Regards. Eldumpo ( talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I created the 2nd FA review on heavy metal music. Please your contributions to the article are welcome. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says not to use Discogs, the proposal is to allow for info when there's a photo of the album label or sleeve provided. Input welcome. Herostratus ( talk) 13:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Spiderland/archive1. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Guys, I think we need to talk about TopHit. Since its usage throughout articles is viewed differently depending on a person. Some people see it as a clear single release proof (recent changes or should I say warring on " Off the Table" and " Walking on Air"), and some even doubt the need to include it in release history tables (e.g. " Oh My God"). In my opinion TopHit should not be counted as a single indicator unless its supported by other radio releases or what artist/lable says, so if there is no other release surrounding the song (besides possible earlier release as a promo single already, e.g. " Million Reasons" or " What Makes a Woman") then it should be clasified only as a promotional single. Of course it is only my opinion, so that's why I'm bringing it up here to determine what should we really do about that, since we should stop recent edit wars. infsai ( talkie? UwU) 13:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that this is not the exact place to put this, but this article - currently at FAC - it is not gaining very much attention. It has received two supports and has been open for one month; I don't want it to be closed for lack of participation, and it is part of the Music project of Wikipedia, so I thought I would ask around. I understand the notice placed at the top, and I have bumped this thread twice on the albums WP, but garnered no serious interest or response. dannymusiceditor oops 14:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
There are hundreds of articles that now contain the phrase "... was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire" (some use "reportedly destroyed") with a link to the Jody Rosen's New York Times article. However, a quick read of the 2008 Universal fire article shows that Rosen's account has been heavily disputed by Universal and they have only confirmed 19 artists had material destroyed. Some artists named in Rosen's article (like Hole) seem to have dropped lawsuits after Universal confirmed certain material was not destroyed.
My question is this: Given that this report is disputed, how appropriate is it that ~800 articles contain this sentence? Vladimir.copic ( talk) 05:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
According to a 2019 report by The New York Times, X was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire; this was disputed by Universal Music Group.If we can agree on a set wording to use here I'm happy to help adjust this across the affected articles. Popcornfud ( talk) 11:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that’s it’s a short note but it’s on hundreds of articles and it is possibly untrue or an allegation denied by Universal. Most of the artists were only mentioned once in the initial NYT piece. I would be in favour in removing the sentence from most articles as undue but obviously keeping the information for the 20 or so articles where there was further coverages. I need to do a bit more reading to be sure of this and I would like at least a little bit of support from other editors before undertaking something so big. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Remove the unconfirmed The original report added to articles did not qualify "material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire" as potentially affecting only a portion of the artist's catalogue. Artist with long recording careers often change labels; Universal (and through its affiliates) might have only had control over a fraction of an artist's recording catalogue and master tapes. The last wording in the Johnny Winter article (now removed) [5] stated "Johnny Winter was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire". This may give some readers the impression that all or a significant portion of Winter's material was lost, when in fact, he only recorded six albums for Universal affiliates out of total of about 43 albums during his career. Plus the fact that Winter is not among the 19 confirmed makes this wording quite misleading (and I suspect for many of the 700+ other artists). With problems like these, the report should be removed from the unconfirmed artists' articles. — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I only saw this discussion (thanks to the Volunteer Response Team) after the mass deletion, which showed up on a couple of pages that I follow. This discussion was helpful - I did not know that much of the reported destruction of artists' master tapes was disputed. (And I am sure that disputes will continue -- nobody will ever be able to catalog with great confidence what was lost in the fire.) I strongly agree that jpgordon should have included a link to this discussion as a comment on in each of the edits; otherwise, some of them will surely be reverted. Also fwiw, my personal inclination on substance: it is a major issue, and certainly worth inclusion in their Wikipedia page, for each of the artists if some of the original master tapes of their work were destroyed. So I would have preferred to say that the allegation is disputed, rather than to delete the allegation. But my view seems to be a minority one. Sullidav ( talk) 02:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{ Infobox musical artist}} allows comma-separated lists for lists of three or fewer items, and always allows formal, bullet lists in the infobox. MOS:STYLERET makes an ArbCom decision clear: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." About 24 hours ago an editor changed the style in the infobox. I reverted and pointed to STYLERET, and made other reverts that I felt were stylistic. This started a low-grade edit war. The other editor does not seem to accept STYLERET and wants me to leave him alone and has essentially threatened to escalate in some way. Also, the editor seems to think I am following them, and does not understand how or why some editors patrol changes to their watchlist. Regardless, I would appreciate advice, comments and even support. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Music members. I am hoping that some of you can help us with a situation that first arose at the conflict of interest noticeboard and spawned into sockpuppet investigation. It concerns the use of references written by Colin Larkin, a music writer and author of works such as the Encyclopedia of Popular Music and All Time Top 1000 Albums. While there seems to be consensus that the author is reputable and the books he authored are reliable sources, the behaviour of certain users has raised questions about their use in articles.
The user " Colin Larkin" is the real-life person (confirmed through OTRS 2018100310003528). His edit history began as largely that of a single purpose account. He edited the Colin Larkin article directly until warned by Kleuske in October 2018. Soon after, the user " Muso805" appeared and began editing album and artist articles; frequently mentioning Larkin's book and also using it as a reference. This edit is just one example of hundreds of such similar edits.
Concern over the editing habits of the two accounts was noted in December 2021 at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#User:Muso805. Larkin denied any connection between the two accounts, although he admitted to sharing an account but no action was taken. Soon after this discussion ended, the user " Southwold54" picked up where Muso805 left off, with edits such as this.
Concerns were again raised this month Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The Music Guides Playlists / Colin Larkin. At the time, Southwold's edits hadn't been noticed, but another user's (" The Music Guides Playlists", now renamed to " MelomaneQC") were mentioned. Larkin again indignantly denied any wrongdoing, but a sockpuppet investigation confirmed that Colin Larkin, Muso805 and Southwold54 were the same user. All three accounts have now been blocked.
MelomaneQC was found to be unrelated to the others, but there is still meatpuppetry concerns over that account's edits, as they bear resemblance to the sockpuppet accounts ( example). We're now asking if members here could help comb through the edits of these accounts, and evaluate their merits against their possible promotional motivations. Not only are the number of edits daunting, the subject matter is a bit outside our area of expertise.
Any and all assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 06:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject members, I am MelomaneQC. I renamed myself upon Wiki member’s request because it was mentioned that The Music Guides Playlist was a conflict of interest. I chose a name that should be all good now. Concerning Colin Larkin, I still wonder why it’s an issue because I own his encyclopedias, it’s an editor for which I have respect for years. I add ratings because I want to contribute to Wikipedia’s database in the music category. In the future, I also want to add Penguin’s Jazz ratings, but I only own the 4th edition (now trying to buy the 9th edition) and Rough Guides quotes as they don’t have ratings but is a great music reference. It’s only a labor of love. As mentioned to Drm310 on my talk page, I also did edit for Quebec artists. In the beginning, I used this reference I made myself, see Beauty Stab but I have learned from a Wiki member and as an unexperienced editor that I had to keep the The before Encyclopedia of Popular Music. To respect the reference code, I copied one that was generic, without the page number as I was doing before. I didn’t know that coping a reference code would put me in this situation and being accused of meatpuppetry as I don’t promote anyone, I simply transfer information of books I own into the Wikipedia database. If it can help my situation, I can vary my entries by doing more than a book at the time (The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Rough Guides, Penguin Guides, Gramophone Guides, etc). Let me know. Thanks MelomaneQC ( talk) 13:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Nelisa voice 41.114.199.168 ( talk) 18:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Consistent diminished chord typography if interested. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm a music fan, and I'm trying to clean some genre templates up and put them in the correct pages, but users like Ojorojo, Binksternet, MrOllie, FlightTime, and ILIL keep messing up my edits. Could someone do something about this? 47.36.25.163 ( talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Talk:Art pop#Remaining audio samples. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I had noticed that there were a lot of articles which had formerly had a link pointing to Kenzie which is now a disambiguation page but I have changed them to the relevant article as either Kenzie (rapper) or Kenzie (songwriter). I am wondering and hoping I have done this correctly since I don't know much about these two famous people relating to music. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that stylization is not allowed for album titles and band names for the Wikipedia article title, but I am not finding a guideline that clearly states that. I encountered a band article that lists the band in all caps, but no matter how I search, I cannot find that it is based off of an acronym. I was going to leave a message on the talk page suggesting I move the article in a week to non-stylized spelling unless they could justify the all caps as anything more than stylization, but when I was looking for guideline to support my statement, I was not satisfied with any article I found as being strong enough to justify this. To not be mysterious, the band article is TOPS (band), and I cannot find any reason it should not be changed to Tops (band). However, the guidelines I find are not prescriptive enough to allow me to lay down the law, and I would have sworn I have seen something prescriptive about all cap titles.
So, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) deals with the first letter of every word in a title. MOS:TITLECAPS states that most articles should be sentence case except titles which follow title case. MOS:ALLCAPS says to avoid using all caps in articles, but could this be used for article titles or only for within the article? It is possible that MOS:AT could apply, but is it strong enough to sway fans of stylized names? It states "Capitalize the initial letter, but otherwise follow sentence case, not title case, except where title case would be expected were the title to occur in ordinary prose."
Does anyone know of a stronger argument about not using all capital stylization for band titles and album titles? Mburrell ( talk) 04:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"...unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". In the case of TOPS, most reliable sources do use the all caps for the band's name. I don't agree with this, as I also believe it's a stylisation... many artists use all caps for themselves just to look important, in my opinion. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.I'm not seeing that the exception is to apply here and there are plenty of other "tops" articles so, while the name is ambiguous, the ambiguity is not resolved by capitalisation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone suggest some websites that are considered as reliable sources to find information about Japanese boy bands? Resmise ( talk) 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi folks, I wondering if there is template that can cite classical music pieces. It is regarding the The Aesthetics of Resistance article. The German article has a bunch of musical pieces associated with the book and they include things like the usual composer, name but then it has extended details for example, conductor for individual pieces and Music for 32 voices in 4 groups with text projection (ad libitum). Is there any template could cite that sort of thing, or would be done via just writing a block of text. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 11:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Please come share your input! Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Come share your input! Why? I Ask ( talk) 18:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey all! My name is Gen. Quon and I'm currently a Wikipedia editor and PhD student working on a dissertation about information behavior of fan editors on Wikipedia. (Although I'm using "fan" fairly broadly, I intend to focus on media fans, so people who like music, movies, TV shows, books, etc. are all a-go.) Here's more info on my project, if you're curious. As evidenced by my edit history, I've been reaching out to folks who work on pop culture articles and seeing if they'd be interested in chatting with me about their experiences on the site. I was wondering if anyone who is a part of this WikiProject might be interested in chatting with me? If so, reply here, drop me a message on my talk page, or use the WP email function! I'd love to hear what you have to say.-- Gen. Quon [Talk] (I'm studying Wikipedia!) 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:George_Strait#Count_of_number_hits? regarding his tally of number-one singles, which may be of interest to editors here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the infobox of the article lists "New Romantic" as a genre, but I only see that here, the recurring genre on Wikipedia for acts labeled that term seems to be "new wave". Should it be removed? -- 10Trix.Never ( talk) 21:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
There's two sources cited for New Romantic, one I can't access, the other the
AllMusic page for Seona Dancing: "Inspired by the New Romantic sounds of Japan and Ultravox...". The Wikipedia page for New Romantic says Ultravox were "often identified as New Romantics by the press, although they did not exhibit the same visual styles of the movement, despite their link to the band Visage." On the other hand, Adam and the Ants were labelled New Romantic apparently for their dress sense, while forgoing synthesizers in their music.
Has there been a discussion on this before? What was the conclussion? --
10Trix.Never (
talk) 22:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I should just say, that was an observation I made about Adam and the Ants, not AllMusic, but the articles on Spandau Ballet and Visage do mention ties to the "New Romantic movement" in lede but not in the infobox which suggests there is/was some sort of consensus on Wikipedia that New Romantic is not a music genre. AllMusic do say "the New Romantic sounds of Japan and Ultravox", which makes it sound like a music style maybe as well as a fashion style. I think it looks odd only being in the infobox for Ultravox and not the others, so should it be removed? -- 10Trix.Never ( talk) 01:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
There have been recent disagreements over the legitimacy of whether or not the songs listed when you search an artists name on AllAccess are all singles. Some think they are all singles. Some think only the songs with the "single" marker are singles. Some think that there is a difference between being released to radio and impacting radio. There needs to be a consensus about this because people are being bold and people are reverting without talking about it. So let's. Tree Critter ( talk) 06:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've been seeing about AllAccess since I posted this and I've noticed a couple things:
Tree Critter ( talk) 14:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I started the RFC discussion about using non-free samples in song articles. Your input there is welcome. Link: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72#RfC: Using samples to identify songs in song articles -- George Ho ( talk) 08:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion here about the show Can You Duet. While the show lasted for two seasons, it seems to have garnered no coverage as I've dissected in the AFD. I would appreciate more eyes on the AFD to judge the validity of the sources already there and prove or disprove the existence of further sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
In many South Korean artists' discographies columns are blanked using asterisk to denote that a 'record chart' did not exist at that time. But is it right? Because there are multiple instances where songs have charted even on a 'record chart' which started tracking years after the song was released. For example, all Blackpink singles since 2018 have charted on Billboard Global 200 although the chart started tracking in late 2020.
I brought this discussion at WikiProject Korea but there was only one reply. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate further input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marx, as I feel that the sources provided by other editors do not pass muster as significant third-party coverage and would appreciate a greater consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:NoCopyrightSounds#Youtube regarding the question of whether Infobox YouTube as a module is necessary for some, possibly all, record label articles. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Eddie Bayers has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed changes to the infobox of musical artists here: Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Reduction of AKAs, on which consensus needs to be reached. The main points to be discussed are:
I have nominated Roger Waters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 03:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
As the title of the section suggests, should navigational templates for bands, such as Template:Megadeth have items that do not have their own dedicated pages or are simply redirects to the respective artists' discography (such as) [[Deathstars#Discography|Decade of Debauchery]]? Obviously redlinks in navboxes are prohibited, but is it okay to include a non-wikilinked item? The subject of this is Template:Eisbrecher, where I have attempted to add a compilation album (best hit album) section for their best hits album Ewiges Eis - 15 Jahre Eisbrecher, but it has been reverted by User:Jax 0677, firstly under the grounds of WTAF, which is not valid since band members who do not have have their respective articles have remained (don't tell me notability reasons, Ewiges Eis charted on German charts) and previous albums that did not have articles (namely Schicksalsmelodien, which I created myself), remained intact. Following a short discussion which Jax has decided to ignore, citing BRD (how is this change even bold??), I have come to here to settle this. He has violated 3RR and I cannot be bothered reporting this to WP:AN/3RR. Interested to hear your thoughts X-750 I've made a mistake, haven't I? 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion on how to handle the lead section in the heavy metal music article and how the lead covers the accusations of misogyny in the sourced section about sexism in the body. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Read here. TLDR: The current situation is mess (examples included), it has been unresolved mess since 2010-2012 with no decisive solution and only occasional "tweaks" to allowed color scheme, bringing only more mess to the issue, the coloring scheme is arbitrary and basically is a legacy thing bearing no worth. I propose to uniformly color all music genre infoboxes gray (taking the color from the electronic genre infoboxes), as the most readable of all currently used color for music genre infoboxes (negotiable). Albums, movies, books in Wikipedia are not "colored" according to genre, and that works just well, so music genre should not be colored either. Wikipedia is not a coloring book for children and music fans. AK 178.121.43.158 ( talk) 17:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion regarding a passage in the Every Breath You Take article regarding the piano part in the song. Feedback is welcome at Talk:Every Breath You Take § Piano part, revisited. isaacl ( talk) 19:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Since the RfC has closed with consensus that nonlinked discographical information should not be included in navboxes, it stands to reason that nonlinked bandmembers should also not be included in navboxes, for all and exactly the same reasons. Does this require a second RfC, or is discussion here sufficient? Chubbles ( talk) 07:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, per this discussion the associated acts parameter in the musical artist infobox has been replaced by several new "members" parameters. -- Vaulter 05:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
A user I have been observing is moving the discographies of Lil Tecca & G Herbo onto their own discography pages (i.e. Lil Tecca discography). I'm just wondering what's the consensus regarding this, and is there any relevant Wikipedia policy dictating this? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel I should alert the project to the mess of an article that is 'hyperpop', a term apparently made up by Spotify to market unrelated music styles and not recognised by the likes of AllMusic. It makes all the mistakes WP:NOTFANPAGE warns against, editors have cherry-picked online sources, a lot of which seem to have used Wikipedia's page on the topic as the basis of their research yet unlike most music genre articles here it doesn't cite a single book source (usually from the likes of Simon Reynolds). I think there's also a certain degree of historical negationism going on (whether intentional or not), PC Music and Sophie's sound can easily be traced to the grime-influenced wonky sound that emerged in the wake of London's post-dubstep sound system scene. Which is why 'bubblegum bass' on their articles links to ' UK bass'. -- 10Trix.Never ( talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
How Hyperpop, a Small Spotify Playlist, Grew Into a Big Deal- New York Times,
Though 100 Gecs’ music rejects classification and formulas, a fungal burst of artists with like-minded approaches has erupted in the past few years, and Spotify has started using a new genre label: hyperpop.- The Atlantic,
So in 2019, to address the quandary of 100 gecs’ unlikely popularity and unwieldy style, Spotify launched a new playlist designed to give their sound a home on the platform. It was called “hyperpop.”- The New Yorker. Further from the New Yorker:
Incoherence is inherent to the genre, and the songs on Spotify’s hyperpop playlist vary widely in style. To me, I personally don't think it's so much of a music genre rather than what, again, the New Yorker says:
the hyperpop playlist serves many functions: it is a corporate branding exercise(among others). X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 00:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of songfacts.com as a source in articles. If you would like to join the discussion, please contribute here. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday I changed the article Traditional music from a redirect to strict traditional folk music, to a concept related to musical traditions, which we have equally mentioned in articles about both traditional folk music and classical and religious music (still missing ritual/ceremonial music for which this concept would also hold true). There is probably no need to cite sources in this case, as you can easily find any of these concepts via "traditional (folk/classical/religious) music" search and the word tradition itself does not make it seem descriptive, but rather refers specifically to non-contemporary/popular form of such music. The next step is to change all inclusions of wikilinks to this disambiguation to traditional folk music, as this was most often used meaning. Before doing so, I would like to discuss it per WP:CON. Solidest ( talk) 15:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Lots of news sources state in interview/upcoming concert articles ( example 1, example 2, example 3) that Perla Batalla was nominated for a Grammy (presumably quoting her press materials). However, I can't find any trace on the Grammys site that she was nominated. Am I missing something? Should this be removed from the article, or just retained supported by one of the sources? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I've seen the above phrase pop up at least a couple times recently in album infoboxes (I imagine it occurs in song and artist/band pages as well though I can't remember seeing a specific instance of it), most recently Come Home the Kids Miss You, and I'm curious how this is generally considered. In this instance, I had earlier added hip hop in the genre parameter (with a source of course), but that was removed and replaced with a hidden notice including that phrase. Personally I don't think that's a healthy way of conducting business here. For one, if the available sources simply refer to an album/song as hip hop without any qualifiers pointing to more specific subgenres, why shouldn't that be included? At least until a more specific source is found. And secondly, it is to my understanding that "a given" is fundamentally opposed to this website's mission. Requiring an assumption be made by readers rather than providing relevant info for them just doesn't sit right with me. And sure, in the instance of Come Home the lead does refer to the artist as "American rapper Jack Harlow", and it's not necessarily wrong to assume that one could reasonably draw the conclusion that an album must be hip hop if the artist is a rapper, but I'm still not sure if that's in the spirit of WP. Am I alone in this? Is this phrase based on a previously established consensus that I'm unaware of? Or should this type of notice be discouraged? QuietHere ( talk) 06:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the proper place to request this. And I know I'm getting ahead of myself here a bit. But the Country artist Bailey Zimmerman seems to be fast approaching notability. His song "Fall In Love" is currently at #52 on the Hot 100, and his song "Rock And A Hard Place" seems posed to debut in the top 30 of that same chart. That's an unusually strong debut for an up and coming country artist. I'm not sure the exact qualifications for notability, and don't know how to make articles by myself. But I know that it's typical for country songs that do this well on the charts to have Wikipedia articles. I figured maybe somebody here would jump at the opportunity of being the first person to make the article. Nikki Lee 1999 ( talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, updating some track listings for some albums that I like, and if a song is written, for example, by an independent writer and is performed by another person, case in hand: What's Made Milwaukee Famous (Has Made a Loser Out of Me), written by Glenn Sutton and first performed by Jerry Lee Lewis, is it appropriate to consider any other following recordings of the song to be a "cover"? I know this may seem silly, but I just wanted to make sure. Cheers X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear all,
Might I suggest the draft page for William John Titus Bishop as a project that could benefit from your editing? JohnEricHiggs ( talk) 15:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about whether or not album articles should include singles discographies. Please participate in the discussion if so inclined, to help form a consensus. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward question: is there an easier way to find digital chart information? The only method I can think of is opening every country's individual websites (as listed on WP:GOODCHARTS) and searching them all manually, but that's time-consuming and a general hassle. So is there a faster way of accessing all of those sites' information at once, or something along those lines? I'd like to start adding charting info to my album articles but the inconvenience has been a barrier for me. QuietHere ( talk) 15:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Is this WP:OVERCAT?
There elements are specified in different order and this all results into the same categories on lower level but via a bunch of various duplicated categories. I guess this whole tree should be reworked to list only 2 elements at once? Solidest ( talk) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Since it was decided above to remove the colors from the infoboxes of music genres, I propose to replace the information conveyed by the colors with a separate text field. Suggested name is "Direction" (variants are "Branch", "Division"). This field would indicate the closest largest parent genre(s) with the text.
The problems with using the color scheme have been pointed out above:
(a) is solved by allowing the field to be filled with more than one value, and this also coincides with the solution of (c). Problem (b) is also solved by transferring to text.
It is important to say that since infoboxes are designed to summarize information about the article, this field will not give any new information, but rather should convey the essence of the article (since now there is no systematic indication of the parent genre (or genre branch) in the premise of articles). As for genres to be filled in, I suggest to limit the condition in the template documentation specifying it as largest parent genres, aka the closest upper genre in the hierarchy that have 5 or more subgenres. Usually it is easy to select such genre(s) from the existing text of articles or by existing hierarchy of article's categorization. And initially we could focus and be guided by List of music genres and styles and Category:Musical subgenres by genre. Thus, this parameter would reflect the largest 20-25 genres, linking their sub-genres. The same goal was pursued with the colors, but now it will be much looser and at the same time more accurate. It would also not be a problem to replace the color parameter with the direction parameter using bots. Solidest ( talk) 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
An RfC has been started to determine the reliability of the Medium publication Cuepoint. Your participation is welcomed. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This RfC is in response to a recent edit war regarding Supertramp, a band that formed in London and had a mix of English, Scottish, and American members. What default position should we take when a band is formed in one country, but contains members who are from elsewhere?
Some other bands to consider are the Velvet Underground (American, even though John Cale is Welsh), the Monkees (no nationality given), and Fleetwood Mac (British-American). ili ( talk) 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Could we please have some eyes on this ( Silent Running (band)) article? It looks like a potentially inexperienced editor has consolidated content from sources unknown in this article, so there my be some attribution issues and a handful of other style and categorization issues. Dawnseeker2000 03:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Just Sam with List of American Idol finalists. If you are interestexd, you may join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
A recently closed RfC here at WikiProject Music established consensus that navboxes of musician articles should not include discographical entries (albums, songs) that do not have their own articles, as these are not navigable links and so are outside the functional purview of the navbox. It was pointed out in this discussion that many band/ensemble navboxes also include names of bandmembers, even when those bandmembers are not linked to their own independent articles, and WP:EXISTING currently has a single exception for bandmembers. (I was unable to find any discussion on the insertion of this guideline, only this discussion challenging it in 2012.) Should unlinked or redirect bandmembers be included in navboxes (keeping WP:EXISTING as is), or should the consensus on discographical materials be extended to cover bandmembers as well, and WP:EXISTING be updated? Chubbles ( talk) 02:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
anything that is explicitly or implicitly a statement of who the band members are should include all of them. Otherwise such would be making a false statement.This would to a lesser degree apply to other infobox content - unless heading make it clear that the content is 'partial'. Pincrete ( talk) 05:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago, editors began inserting asterisks in chart position cols of various K-pop discography tables and articles to indicate releases did not enter a particular cited region due to the chart not existing at the time, either due to it being long defunct, recently discontinued, or newly created. I thought all this time that the greyed out N/A is what is supposed to be used for entries where something like this might occur, as I've seen in other discogs on WP. Another editor voiced their concern about this back in April on the Music Project talk page, but no one responded and it was archived. I tried on the Discogs talk page a week ago, but no one commented, so I'm asking here now in the hopes that someone can provide insight on whether this is appropriate or not. As an example, see the Scotland col in singer Jungkook's discog section. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
In the music infobox template, what is the difference between sub genre and fusion genre please? 10Trix.Never ( talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This might be better suited to another WP, but Billboard is one of the most commonly used music sources (chart numbers etc.), so I figured here would be alright.
As of the past few months, Billboard's website has deteriorated greatly. Many artists no longer have individual pages (it used to be either billboard.com/artist/NAME or billboard.com/music/NAME, but now it redirects to their homepage). These individual pages are sometimes saved on Archive, but due to Billboard utilizing a half-arsed menu system (which sometimes duplicated entries), very few sections are archived. Also, the Search Charts function no longer works whatsoever. At one point, only Pro members were able to use it, but then it became free for everyone, but now it seems to be broken for everyone. Searching anything at all will give a "No Results Found" page. In addition, as usual, only Pro members can view full charts online, so linking to one of those pages won't suffice either (they recently forced members to pay annually instead of monthly).
I just wanted to give a heads up, since a lot of people may cite Billboard's website on instinct, but now most of those URLs are dead, with no sufficient archive. The only other alternative is to cite or link to the physical component of Billboard (worldradiohistory.com has various issues but it's not complete). Xanarki ( talk) 01:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Howie Weinberg#Clean up of table and removal of unreliably sourced information about a table of Grammy nominations and wins for a mastering engineer. It would be appreciated if others would please stop by and provide their thoughts on this dispute. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 14:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently open at Talk:List of best-selling music artists that would benefit from members of this WikiProject. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, some odd things have been happening with Vocal group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of vocal groups ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this September 2022. First List of vocal groups was blanked to being a dicdef, then that dicdef was cut-and-pasted to vocal group, previously a redirect to the list, and the list at list of vocal groups was then rebuilt without the extensive intro section it had prior to blanking, leaving no intro at all.
So currently, we have a bare list without an intro, and a dicdef article.
IMHO, the dicdef located at vocal group cannot support an article as it is, and should either redirect back to the list again, or some of the content that was deleted from the list that used to be the intro should be pasted into the current dicdef. Though that has the problem of lacking sourcing, as that was the reason provided for blanking the intro into being a sourced dicdef. The dicdef would serve as a start for an intro into the list article, but is still insufficient for a list intro.
As it stands, the dicdef vocal group article is liable to be deleted because it is a dicdef. I previously recommended to the person who blanked the list article that they should just revert and send the list to WP:Articles for deletion, if they didn't like the list, as the dicdef article cannot stand as it is, as a dicdef because it is deletable for that reason.
-- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 04:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Lists of Repertoire/Compositions on Wikipedia. Please come share your thoughts! Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I started the following discussion earlier this year: Talk:Sex Pistols#FA review needed? George Ho ( talk) 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey everybody, it's my first time creating an article. Here it is: Draft:Goblins_from_Mars. Please feel free to tell me what you think about it. Have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Update: looks like Goblins from Mars aren't suitable for Wikipedia, yet. This is sad. I have found no coverage of the topic on independent magazines and websites. Well, guess I'll have to wait... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirk0dex ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)