Talk:2010 in music

Census

Was the moving and re-organizing worth it? What are the opinions of the move? I'm hoping I didn't forget anything. Although from the original oage, there weren't enough artists to create a page [it would've been deleted due to not enough information on them]. Hopefully someone else will come and fill in the gaps that I missed with by creating new pages for East asian nations, Australia, and other nations. I did the best I could. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Personally dislike the move. The previous format, as used with 2009, was a really simple way to determine what was coming up in music you knew without having to visit a bunch of different pages for each and every section of the world different bands may come from. While this format might be better organized, it's not more helpful than it used to be. That said, both formats could easily coexist and some obviously prefer the new one, so I'm not completely against it either...really would like to keep an international, all-inclusive reference though. 96.20.230.92 (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I personally disagree with the move. I liked the all inclusive page because now musicians from the same genre but different countries are on different pages. If more is done to create the genre pages it would be a good move, but I see that as being difficult to manage because in some cases genres can be subjective labels. I vote for going back to the old standard.--The222 (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is a Canadian album being released in American not considered an American event? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this page should be as it was before. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, this change is awful. Please fix it back to the way it was before. ASAP 70.156.87.217 (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I also dislike the change. It splits things up that shouldn't be split, likes bands that disbanded. One has to go to various articles to see what albums were released on a given day. It's a pretty useless change, and I believe it would be much better if these articles were merged into this one, like it was before and like it is with the rest of the albums Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, god please, put everything back together. Zazaban (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one, like a number of musicians hailing from various different nations, and having to open different pages for American, Canadian, British, and European music in 2010 is inconvenient and ridiculous. Please return it back to the original format.64.136.112.118 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Like many others, I dislike the change. As a point of note I'm British and found the American centric view useful as I discovered music that I didn't know about. Bands may not be of note in Britain in the charts but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about them. The previous page was too long but regionalisation wasn't the correct move. I'd rather see the sub categories on the previous format split into new pages than this. --86.156.231.209 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What was once one of the most useful pages on Wikipedia has become cumbersome to the point of near uselessness. 72.150.63.230 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Put the articles all together

It is clear that consensus is strongly opposed to keeping the countries split, so they should be all moved here immediately. I don't understand the lag. Zazaban (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the article before the split was that it was too long, disorganized, and too "American". Wikipedia is a global community and there are regulations and rules in keeping with the standards that not all nations of the world are not the United States. With all nationalism aside, I am curious to see how many of those who support re-merging the pages together are American. This page is being closely watched by members of WikiProject Music as well, so any radical changes will be reverted on the basis of vandilism. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Obviously if most of the editors are American, the page will have a bias toward American music. Dividing this into multiple articles is not a solution to the issue of the percentage of editors from a given country. It's not like Americans were removing or withholding any information regarding international music. Before you implemented this change, you stated that you wanted to model this page after 2010 in television. Television is a much more regional form of entertainment than music. There are only a handful of international programs, whereas albums are generally released worldwide, bands tour internationally and singles get radio play internationally. It would seem to me that in dividing the articles, 2010 in music actually becomes less "global" which seems to be your aim. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the information is still here. However, I doubt that a British wikipedian would be interested in the American Music Awards or other events taking place in America or Canada, or wherever. There are numerous bands that release globally, true, but if they are American/British/whatever they will be much more popular in their native countries hence why the regionalization makes sense. Many British/Irish/Asian/European bands get little to no exposure in the United States. If a person living in Australia browses 2010 in music in the old format, he/she'd get slammed with SPAM bands that aren't even notable in their homelands. There are ways of getting around the regionalization as well such as the Top hits on record section, which lists the Billboard charts on 2010 in American music - Non-native artists are included on that list (assuming they reached a high enough position). I would like to compromise, but I would still like to keep the page as it is now - it is much cleaner, more readable, not too long, easy to access, encylopedic, simplistic, and it is not too difficult to switch between nations either. (Tigerghost (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Again though, you're sacrificing usefulness for organization. Region-based organization is a poor system as far as music is concerned because people tend to listen to music from all over the world regardless of a band's popularity in their home country. Whether or not a band is "notable" in a country is both an arbitrary limitation and an irrelevant one. The page was useful specifically because of its international, all-encompassing focus which allowed for quick, easy reference about current and upcoming music. There are many, many different ways to shorten the article's length, and you just about picked the most awful one possible. A more functional one would be to give each section its own page, for example "Albums Released in 2010", "Hit Songs of 2010", "Musical Events of 2010", "Musicians Dead in 2010", etc. That would fix both the length issue and the need for organization, allowing users to visit exactly the type of information they want, without sacrificing the usefulness of the page. I'm not necessarily asking you to put it back the way it was, but try to be open to other ideas instead of stubbornly holding on to the region-based classification for which the consensus is quite strongly opposed. I'm Canadian by the way, so in my case your "American editors only" point is invalid.96.20.230.92 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. But it seems you're (Tigerghost) making a very strong stance against the public opinion. But I don't think your defense is going to help either. I think the articles should be reunited. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to the specific genre articles then. They are not limited to region. (Tigerghost (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

• Also, notice the lag and load time it takes to even scroll through 2009 in music. The previous format was just too long to keep. (Tigerghost (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

I see this comment has been ignored completely. Many edits have been made to the new pages; The Canadian music page has been added to WikiProject Canada (any efforts to delete it will be difficult), the US-page has been edited numerous times (it would be hard to keep up with a transfer), and the British page has been closely patrolled by editors as well (mostly for the splitting of Ireland into a separate article). A lot of Wikipedians see this as a positive change. It seems that only a minority of people have taken this change as offensive - but that is to be expected I guess. Why not help me work on the specific genre section; it is in need of completion. Your requests to have an international page can be met in the specific genre articles that have not been further developed. I am a scapegoat, any editor looking at the music year pages knew that something needed to be done. I was bold, I did it. And now I am being thanked and criticized. The most vocal opposition is being stated here, yet the silent majority (the editors to further add to 2010 in American music, 2010 in Canadian music, 2010 in British music, and 2010 in European music are helping me by contributing.

I absolutely agree that a change needed to take place. And while I would like to thank you for being bold, I still feel that nationality is not the best method. Perhaps if you could bring in some editors into this debate that agree with your stance and provided some new points into this argument I could be persuaded better. I don't think consensus is defined as a group of people that hold one belief, and one person holding the opposing belief with the promise that other people agree. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could aid me in creating the specific genre articles; they are not limited to regions (2010 in alternative music, 2010 in electro pop music, 2010 in country music, 2010 in heavy metal music).

Not ignored. I addressed it along with your other point just above at 03:29. I'd like to hear your say on it, too. About edits on the new pages, they mean nothing with regards to their opinion on the matter. Some of them may dislike them but keep on helping among other possibilities...we don't know how sizable your so-called silent majority is until they decide to stand up and make a statement. But generally when said majority exists, some in favor will be vocal. That hasn't happened yet in this case. As for the genre articles, the same problem as with country pages arises: any user with a relatively open mind has to visit several pages to see the music they want/need to see. It's no longer as useful as it was. 96.20.230.92 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 in music article helped me a lot the previous year, and I also think this is an unnecessary move. I couldn't be less interested where the music comes from. --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Me either. But it looks like a decision's been made, apparently. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope not. I don't like this format either! Change it back already!12.70.66.185 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is awful! I just saw this today and I don't know why anyone would want to change it. It's too much hassle to open all the separate pages. Change it back please. It was great how it used to be. This way completely sacrifices usefulness just so it looks nicer.--24.76.110.10 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please please please put it back!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.169.63 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Need I remind all of you that there have been pages that existed for specific nations before this page was changed. 2009 in British music, 2008 in British music as examples. 2010 in music, as a global page is too broad, the load times are too long, and a lot of artists were included that aren't popular anywhere else other than their origin nations - this is quite common with European bands as many of them get little to no exposure outside of Europe. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm only really interested in 2010 in British music and I don't have a problem with the section "Albums set to be released in 2010" being meged here, since that section isn't included in other xxxx in British music pages, but the rest should stay within the existing article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep the separate pages if you want, but this should be one article, not several. No offense, and I hate to be blunt, but the current way it's organized really sucks and is more division then necessary. 76.95.20.2 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

After reviewing Wikipedia:Negotiation guidelines, I wish to incorporate a compromise. Clearly there is a need for regionalized pages as seen with the previous music pages in British and Irish music (e.g. 2003 in Irish music and on, 1999 in British music and on, ect...). If a set indice were kept, would any of you see a problem in creating a new page entitled, "2010 in music (global)" which would dump all of the information into one while respecting the regionalized pages? Of course, Wikipedia administrators, whom have sided with me on this issue in splitting the page into a set indice would not like this as it would be seen as being redundant. I will not involve myself in changing it back, if any ediotr wishes to pursue that task then by all means change it back, but I must warn you that British, Irish, and Canadian editors may not like giving their regionalized pages up. I do not wish to further engage in conflict, I have seen that many editors dislike the set indice style, but when the television articles were put into the same format it recieved little debate. My only goal in the change was to organize 2010 in music in a way that the problems of 2009 and 2008 in music would have been solved. 2009 in music is one of Wikipedia's longest articles; there are hefty load times, scrolling is clunky, there existed redundant information in the Album, Events, and Top hits on records. There is a problem with the length of these articles, and I wish to address it. How can we keep these articles shorter? How can we keep all of the information present? How do we respect widely-known and unknown artists from around the globe? And ultimately how do we know what information is relevant, and what information is trivial? My actions were of good faith to make this page better, and it is better, although much work still needs to be done to please everyone. (Tigerghost (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia administrators have NOT sided with this user. They have expressed no opinion either way. It is misleading for him to suggest otherwise. The only solution, Tigerghost, is for you to change it back yourself. You were the one who disrupted it without engaging in ANY discussion beforehand. 70.156.75.218 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the rules of Template:Globalize; they do. They make the rules, and I am seeing fit that Wikipedia maintains its status as a global page and not a page that is run by US-bias towards music or any other page. Regionalizing the articles are the only way to obey their rules; by keeping the Americans to themselves and the rest of the world on theirs. Not all music is American and that was what the former page was; A place filled with American music with the Region 1 release dates, American bands, American news, and not global music like it is supposed to be. This article needed change, and I believe that it is easy to scapegoat me with the blame, but that doesn't change the fact that the former page was flawed, trashy, and did not follow Wikipedia standards. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

And I quote myself about other solutions to make the page shorter and quicker to load: "A more functional one would be to give each section its own page, for example "Albums Released in 2010", "Hit Songs of 2010", "Musical Events of 2010", "Musicians Dead in 2010", etc. That would fix both the length issue and the need for organization, allowing users to visit exactly the type of information they want, without sacrificing the usefulness of the page." 96.20.230.92 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I had left a split article notice a week prior to the changes. I had several editors support the measure as long as the material be left unchanged. It has been unchanged - the material is still here. And to mention I tagged merge notices towards all coresponding articles to match your arguments. And there is still a US-bias notice and split for 2009 in music, which is my next project. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

First, where is this discussion that took place that had so much support? I am just not seeing it anywhere. Second, Template:Globalize is a template, not a policy or guideline and cannot be enforced as such. In terms of size, it's okay for large articles to exist. The suggested maximum is about 32k, but there are numerous that go over this. September 11 attacks is about 138k, over three times the suggested max. Something else to keep in mind is that most of the size of 2009 in music is from the sources. In most cases, the citation is actually longer than what is being sourced. The actual content and prose is very short. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed someone has proposed merging 2010 in Irish music with 2010 in music. The years in Irish music format has existed for several years. I don't think much of the information in it would feature on a global years in music format [apart from U2, probably Westlife, maybe The Script ): ] so I don't see how it would need to be merged into the global one as 99 per cent of cited information would be seen as too "local", unnecessary on a global scale and discarded after the work of editors to include it. The years in Irish music articles are updated regularly as events happen: it doesn't go out of date and there has existed for several years an entire WikiProject on the subject. 2010 in Irish music is relatively small but it is only January 13 after all so of course hasn't anywhere near fulfilled its potential yet in the same way as 2009, 2008, 2007, etc. Music in this region is probably too insignificant for most editors and readers but the information is important to some editors and readers, it is valuable, notable, verifiable and citations are in regular use. While ideas for improvement are great I would oppose anything that reduces this information on such a massive scale; it would be a backward step for coverage of Ireland's music industry on Wikipedia. --candle•wicke 00:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me. It was I who tagged 2010 in Irish music for the merge because it is what the majority seems to want. If you wish to argue their points, by all means join the debate. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

What debate? Who are the majority who requested this? --candle•wicke 03:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Candlewicke, read all of this discussion page is a debate. All of these people want to merge Irish music back into the one single global page. It is really counterproductive if you ask me. (Tigerghost (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes but back? It never existed as this page. It has always been separate. --candle•wicke 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What a ridiculous argument. If the individual pages have been present for earlier years, then what is the problem with creating another global page this year, as has been the norm for years? You think that there is going to be so much more music released in 2010 than in 2009 that suddenly a merged page is unfeasible? Ridiculous. Also, has anyone cared about load times since the days of dial up? This idea of single country-specific pages is atrocious - when I want to find out about bands who have disbanded, do I REALLY have to go to each country's individual entry?

Creating new page for Albums

This new page called "List of Albums released in 2010" will be an international list and incorporate all genres. After reviewing the above information, I belive that it is what everyone seems to want. An international albums page. I will create a link here as well. The page will include album titles, singles for that album, origin, Artist, and some other information that will be discussed later. It will be set up like 2010 in film. I've talked with several editors and not IPs about this and this seems to be the conflicting issue - that the albums must be given their own page as well. However, the specific genre pages, and regional pages will stay. Give me a few days to recollect all of the album data to create the new list article and create the new page. (Tigerghost (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Well, is the new Albums page acceptable? (Tigerghost (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Sounds like a reasonable compromise, keeping both topical and regional options available. 96.20.230.92 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. My only concern at the moment is that these articles are heavily edited by IPs who are usually unfamiliar with how to edit wikitables. But let's just see how this goes and play it by ear. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove the merge notice?

Now that we have a set indice, regionalized articles, specific genre articles, and a globalized list for albums, would it be reasonable to remove the merge tag since everyone seems to be happy at this point? (Tigerghost (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC))