Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Singular or plural verb form?

I know that in American English a band name usually takes the singular form of a verb ("Nirvana was an American rock band...") and that in British English the band name usually takes the plural form of a verb ("The Cure are an English rock band..."). I also thought that in American English a band name that was plural in form would take the plural form of a verb ("Pixies are an American rock band..."). However, an anonymous IP is changing plural American band names to use "is" instead of "are". I reverted these changes, but the IP has changed them back stating it is correct and that it is policy. The American and British English differences article backs up my assertion in the Formal and notional agreement section where it says: "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE". I pointed this out to the IP[1], who has disagreed[2]. Pixies, an FA-class article, uses the plural verb form but Nine Inch Nails uses the singular.

I am trying to find any Wikipedia guidelines or reliable source which would clarify which of us is taking the correct stance, but WP:ENGVAR doesn't seem to help (I've also asked at WT:MUSICIANS, but it seems a bit quite there). --JD554 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not an established policy that plural band names are singular. I remember we discussed this a long time ago in regards to The Smashing Pumpkins. In those cases, the band name should be plural, as the name refers to a group of objects/individuals (the comparison I offered was that you wouldn't say "The New York Yankees is . . ."). WesleyDodds (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, not to judge or anything, but I always find it amusing when anonymous IP who've only started editing try to claim something is policy. Not to mention it's annoying when people argue plural vs. singular but only change the first sentence but not the rest of the article (as has occured in every instance here). WesleyDodds (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing topics about music

I recently expanded my page about missing topics related to music to include terminology and many composers and the like. I wonder if anyone could have a look at that page - which, unfortunately, is rater long -? Some of the titles - many of the opera names, for example, may qualify mainly as redirects - Skysmith (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have a properly checked list of missing operas at The opera corpus. I'd suggest using that one and scrapping the lists of operas at 'my page about missing topics related to music' which in many cases seem to be mistitled and may result in article duplication. (We have to be careful about these titles because many composers set the same libretti, particularly in the early period. The opera corpus missing titles are already disambiguated. ) --Kleinzach 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Operas are not the only thing. There is also musical terminology and I am not sure where to redirect them, if there's no need for articles - Skysmith (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the titles in section 2 (musical terminology) are basically glossary items – not article material. --Kleinzach 10:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Anybody willing to help in any other section of the page? - Skysmith (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opera portal at Featured portal candidates

Portal:Opera is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Opera. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Romanticism

I'm involved in an edit war at this article, and would appreciate advice on how to best move forwards. The issue revolves around whether certain bands, identified by some sources as being New Romantic, should be mentioned in the article. Please review the talk page and help out by expressing views and/or asking questions, as the page is currently protected. Hiding T 10:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Links

Algoriddim has been adding multiple links to www.rootsknottyroots.com to music articles. I asked him to stop pending consensus and they have done so. I took a quick look and didn't think the site satisfied WP:EL. What do others think? --John (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In general, it is difficult to judge whether a particular user is a spammer, or whether particular links are WP:LINKSPAM. However, we can say that user Algoriddim appears to be a WP:SPA, and the links appear to be spam: they don't appear to offer much encyclopedic value, they have ads, and the user seems to want to put the new link first. Of course Algoriddim might have no intention of spamming; I am talking about the effect, not the motivation.

The links have been reported at project spam and I have put a {{uw-spam1}} warning on the user's talk page (it's necessary to formally warn a user in case the matter needs to be escalated).

I recommend that all the new link additions be reverted. It's brutal, but it's the only way to defend against link spammers (it happens many times a day on the project spam page mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To explain my actions... For a certain era of reggae music, I consider roots-archives.com to be the best discography site for albums and rootsknottyroots.com the best discography site for singles. Both of these sites do their research themselves and enter their data based on items they have in their hands. Since both of these sites have discography data that doesn't exist on the artists wikipedia pages, I figured links to them would be useful for users trying to find out about the musical output of these musicians. The prominence of these sites in the reggae discography world is what led me to put them towards the top of the External links sections, but I didn't put links to them above links to official websites or things actually run by the artist if they existed as links already. I am new to editing here at wikipedia, so if these links are out of scope, I'll respect that. Algoriddim (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The better course of action might be, rather than adding multiple external links, to add the information to the articles and use the site(s) as a reference. This would of course be more work but would result in far greater improvement to the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, if done with the correct motivation ("I want to improve this article and adding a reference would help"). However, an editor is a spammer if they come to an article thinking "My intention is to add a link to my favorite site, so I am going to look for a hook where I can insert it as a reference". Here is a linksearch showing an example where this has been done by professionals wanting to promote a particular web site.

Another test is to look at an editor's record. If someone inserts references to their favorite site in most articles they edit, we should regard them as a spammer and should revert the edits. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the rootsknotty links coming in a week or so ago, and checked a couple of them out - thinking to delete. On my brief visit, however, I had to conclude that it's a pretty good resource, perhaps second to none as a database of reggae recordings. If someone was seriously researching an artist there would definitely be valuable info there. It appears to be a non-commercial labor of love. If AMG is valid for EL's I don't see why this shouldn't be. Take a look, for instance, at the entry for Gregory Isaacs - there's over a 1000 listings of singles, some duplicates no doubt, but practically all mentioning producer / label and uk vs ja. Read the FAQ and you'll see that it's well curated, with an authoritative panel of experts. The site is a good compliment to Wikipedia. I say, let Algoriddim go ahead and add. It's possible that a template might be in order. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to add the information to the articles and use rootsknottyroots as a reference, but that would be quite a lot of work and I don't see a problem with rootsknottyroots being added as an external link. I don't see this as spamming. These links should not be placed above official websites, but their inclusion seems quite reasonable.--Michig (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So, what's the concensus? I was asked to stop adding any links until a concensus was reached. Seems like there are severl people in favor of links to rootsknottyroots.com, others oppose. Who makes the call? Algoriddim (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice type

The Template:Infobox Musical artist has a line for voice type. This line, in my opinion, is intended for classical vocalists. I believe that my opinion is supported by Voice type and Voice classification in non-classical music. Recently there have been unsourced additions to this field for rock singers; some examples include Ozzy Osbourne, Gene Simmons, Paul Stanley, Nikki Sixx, and Vince Neil. I would like to see some sort of a consensus reached one way or the other to support reverting the changes or leaving them there. I posted this on WikiProject Rock music a few days ago but no one commented, not sure if I should have transcluded my comments to here. J04n(talk page) 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before in relation to categories. I would agree that very few non-classical vocalists sing in range, or have any reason to. It would be better if the line for voice type were removed completely. Perhaps this would be best discussed at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist? --Kleinzach 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Until "raspy", "grating" or "nasal" become approved types, that field should not be used for heavy metal artists. :-p -Freekee (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this category was intended exclusively for classical singers: it displays as "Voice types", and it is rare for a classical singer to belong to more than one voice classification even if they do have an extensive vocal range. Classical singers are generally expected to be able to project the voice without amplification, so will normally specialise within their true tessitura, whereas pop/ rock singers accustomed to the luxury of a microphone will often employ a much wider vocal range which can make their true voice type difficult to identify.

In a few cases I think it's legitimate to put a singer in 2 or in extreme cases even 3 different voice type categories. Was Elvis Presley a baritone or tenor? His article says baritone, and I've also come across a reliable source contending that he was a tenor. I say both. Morten Harket? Both, but I'd struggle to find citable sources. Axl Rose? Tricky. I read somewhere that he claims to be a tenor: his speaking voice suggests a natural bass, and his range covers 4 octaves. Is Mariah Carey a soprano, mezzo-soprano or contralto? Um, yes. How about Vitas or Cem Adrian? Possible contenders for 4 voice classifications? Which brings us to another point: it's generally acceptable to refer to a pop tenor etc, but the use of the term countertenor outwith classical music is still controversial, and some purists insist it should not be applied to non-classical singers.

Michael Jackson's "Voice type" has been changed so many times it's dizzying.

Maybe this infobox category could carry a hidden note something like <!-- Please reference reliable sources if possible. Unsourced voice type classifications may be contentious and likely to be removed. -->? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contains Mild Peril (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Help w/ COI issue

I'm having a conflict of interest issue over at the Nekromantix article. Comments & help would be appreciated. Discussion can be viewed on the article's talk page, and a similar past discussion in the archive. Basically the band's frontman Kim Nekroman (or at least someone claiming to be him) has been editing the article and leaving me some pretty upset messages. He objects because I've reverted several of his changes, which I've done because they remove referenced info without any explanation. He insists that the best and most reliable source for information on his band is the band's Myspace profile, even though it doesn't have nearly enough info to support an encyclopedia article (and we really want secondary sources per WP:V anyway). He's found fault with pretty much every secondary source I've been able to find that gives details on the band's history, and blames Wikipedia (and sometimes me) for those sources getting things wrong (claiming that they're getting their bad info from WP to begin with). I've tried explaining that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and also pointed out WP:COI, but I'm not having much luck. I don't think there's anything in there that violates WP:BLP, but I could still use some help. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Artist's POV

The scenario I am about to discuss is very unlikely and will probably never happen, and I realize that. So if someone should comment on this, I don't want the whole thing to detail how unlikely a situation it will be. Having said that, I'll begin. Suppose a famous musician happens to have a Wikipedia account. For the sake of argument, let's say Robert Plant. He looks at the page for Stairway to Heaven, which, after many a long and fruitless debate, has led to the genre being kept at simply Rock. If he were to change it to what he considered it to be (progressive rock, hard rock, folk rock, etc. (whatever he thinks)) would he be in trouble for changing it? Since he wrote the song (with Jimmy Page), does this make him the ultimate authority on what genre it is? Krobertj (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In your hypothetical, Mr Plant would not be able to edit Stairway to Heaven because that would be original research, you cannot cite yourself. J04n(talk page) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You actually ca cite yourself if your opinion was published by a reliable source, or you are considered to be a notable scientist in the corresponding field of interest and you have your work published. Netrat (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a conflict of interest. Remember the standard is always verifiability, not truth, so the secondary sources are the ultimate authority. Korn could swear left, right, up, down, and center that they're not a nu metal band, but numerous secondary sources beg to differ, and ultimately it's the journalists & critics who determine genre classifications. Besides, Wikipedia works by consensus, and "rock" is clearly accurate no matter what subgenre anyone else may also think it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you both for answering. If anyone else has ideas they want to put in, feel free. Krobertj (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Robert Plant does not need to have WP account for this situation to happen (anyway, it is not easy to confirm the identity of any WP user, so if one is saying he's Robert Plant it does not mean he realy is). The more realistic case would be "there's an interview with Plant published by a notable magazine where Plant says he considers this particular work to belong to a particular genre." I would agree that we should pay more attention to what secondary independent sources (like critics and biography authors) say, but should also mention author's opinion (but probably not in the infobox). Korn is a good example. Not to mention the facts that a more than few bands really like to invent new "genres" (which are not actually genres) to classify themselves. Netrat (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Krobertj, I just want to kick in that your scenario is actually not that unlikely.

1. According to this note, Roger McGuinn is a wikipedian although his account Mcguinn713 has been unactive for more than a year. All his contributions were to articles about himself and his work. I didn't check if he did any updates about the genre of his music...
2. About a month ago, I watched Alex Kapranos on the French music show Taratata stating that one of his favorite pastimes is to deliberately sneak in errors on Wikipedia about himself and his band!

– IbLeo (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's really interesting. If I was a famous musician I would keep my Wiki account and work on the pages relating to my band and music. I guess then it's really easy to make sure your online biography is right if you help write it! But then there's always the problem of having to cite a source, even though you are the source. This brings me to another question about the Artist's POV. Suppose Roger McGuinn, for the sake of argument, decided to add an interesting fact about the band that had never been revealed to anyone before. Since it seems that you can't cite yourself, how else would you cite it? I guess the only other way would be to have another bandmate talk about it, or talk to the press about it. But still, if you're a famous musician and you can prove on Wikipedia that you are who you say you are, you should be able to put down what you know is right, since no one would know better about you or your band than you or your bandmates. Krobertj (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that encyclopedias are not primary sources of information. Mr McGuinn wouldn't call up Encylopedia Britanica and tell them of his exploits while in the Byrds, and if he didn't then wouldn't publish it because they aren't biographers. In this day and age there are a nearly limitless number of venues for him to tell his story. J04n(talk page) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See also the David Knopfler affair, where in an interview he had stated that he considered himself to be English and as an IP editor kept changing the info and removing the cite (then the only cite in the article :)) It later became clear it was him and he explained it by saying the interview was light-hearted and not to be taken seriously, he said he would likely have said it because he thought more feamles thought being English was a better catch than being Scottish.--Alf ^melmac 14:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To the above OR issue. It would actually WP:AUTO which can be used if (again) cited and not in conflict with other sources. So the artist would need to link to his blog where he states that x song is y genre. And then it can at least be quoted as "The author classifies x as y while many music critics think it is more a z". (if there is a cite for those critics/journalists/researchers)/whatever. -- Agathoclea (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

O^0 Thanks for that, that is the sort of encyclopedia article, I'd prefer reading :D --Alf ^melmac 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that fact to light. I guess now this makes genre considerations slightly more democratic, giving equal influence/respect to both artist and critic. Krobertj (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger McGuinn is back, editing his own article. Check out his articles talk page and the article history. It would be great if someone could give him some guidance which he is strongly in need of (he even managed to get himself blocked for 24h). I can't attend to it myself right now as I am leaving WP for the real life in 5 minutes and I won't be back until Monday. Thank you – IbLeo (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Irish Music

This WikiProject about Irish artists and musicians is listed as inactive and is under threat. New users would be greatly welcomed to revive it.--FF3000 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Yoshi (band) ?

I've come across Yoshi (band) whilst tagging for the Scotland project; I've prodded it as the notability is looking pretty tenuous right now from my perspective as someone not involved in band articles, but I thought I'd turn it over to you guys. I also suspect there's a WP:COI of some kind. FlagSteward (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Order

If a song has been covered by multiple artists, what is the preferred method of article structure? I prefer an intro that summarizes all versions, followed by a section for each individual version; see this diff. However, User:Journalist has told me otherwise. Which is preferred? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree on starting with an intro that summarizes all versions. The original version shouldn't need a separate section, it should be the focus of the first few paragraphs (and the top-level infobox). Subsequent cover versions should be mentioned, and any that are notable enough should have their own sections, arranged chronologically. I used that approach in Monster Mash and Forever Young (Alphaville song) (admittedly not great articles, but I cleaned them up a bit). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What if the second or third version of a song turns up being more notable, or both versions are very close in notability (e.g., both were Number Ones on the same chart)? I think that would be a case to move the infoboxen further down. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tough call, but I still think the original belongs up top, if indeed it was a single and has enough info to warrant an infobox in the first place. The original is the basis for all later cover versions, so it really should be the focus. Another example that I've worked on is Die, Die My Darling; even though the Metallica version is more notable (by virtue of having charted and of the band being more well-known), it makes sense to have the Misfits info at the top. My rationale is usually that the article is about the song, not a particular version of the song, so it almost always makes sense to lead off with discussion of the original version and go chronologically from there, and therefore the main infobox (ie. the one at the top) should be the one about the original. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music

This project has been dead for ages now. Can I PLEASE get some more help in reviving it? A couple editors are finally helping me along, but they're barely drops in the bucket. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

♪ "I lost my dog, I lost my truck, I lost my woman, and I lost my WikiProject" ♫ — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lame stereotypes are lame. I'm serious, here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If inactivity persists, you can modify it to be a task force of WP Music. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Help

Many of the articles linked from Candlelight Records and the articles linked from them are, it seems to me, not notable. The bands, their members, their albums and their songs. Can someone please help me go through these, tagging them for speedy, PROD or AFD? لennavecia 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're proposing we bin the entire roster on what, a hunch? Many of these bands are clearly notable - some less so than others, sure, and none of them are likely much known outside metal circles, but I'm sure if we had access to old issues of Terrorizer magazine there'd be plenty of material to go on. I'd suggest the fact these bands are signed to this august label means we should extend them the benefit of the doubt, and we should at least look for references before trying to pull them down. Flowerparty^☀ 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact that they are signed to a notable indie record label makes them ineligible for CSD. Some of them them may be AFD candidates but they are beyond the reach of CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't ask that anyone blindly tag them for deletion. I could do that alone. I asked for help going through them. They'd need to actually be read and evaluated to determine whether CSD, PROD or AFD would be appropriate. Also, I don't believe it's clear that Candlelight is a notable indie label. Their article, as I noted, appears to be full of non-notable bands. So it doesn't meet the criteria. The label's article is a treasure chest of non-notable links spanning out from these bands. Clicking through the articles reveals an abundance of unreferenced, non-notable works. But, by all means, just leave them. لennavecia 14:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Crowbar (American band), Emperor (band), Obituary (band), Opeth, all notable all have release albums on Candlelight. They have a large roster and have been around for more then a few years. Seems to more than satisfy the criteria for a notable indie label. Ridernyc (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think notability is inherited from the label. There are plenty of artists on the undeniably significant Factory, for instance, who aren't noteworthy for any reason other than that they've got a record with a FAC number. We shouldn't forget that wp:music is a dumb algorithm, and it doesn't supersede wp:n, which only calls for significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Looking through these Candlelight bands - the dozen or so I've looked at - they all seem to be over the bar or there or thereabouts. If you can't be bothered to look for refs - as I can't, by and large - then yes it's probably best to just ignore them: wp:fuck is a liberating philosophy. Flowerparty^☀ 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

tagging them and then coming here asking for help would have been a nice first step, before sending articles to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd much rather see a couple of failed afds than a wave of pointless tagging. {{unreferenced}} is not a magic fix and we shouldn't treat it as one, we have enough articles perma-tagged with this message and its purposeless brethren. Jennavecia's heart is in the right place, please let's not stage a bun fight over this. Flowerparty^☀ 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By and large, tagging articles results in no action. Tagging, in my opinion, only serves the purpose of later being able to say in an AFD "tagged for [x] since [y]". Sorry I bothered anyone. I'll just go through and look for any possible BLPs and take care of them myself. لennavecia 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)