Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Succession boxes

The use or need of succession boxes for #1 charting songs and albums is being discussed at WT:CHARTS#Succession boxes proposal. Your input is welcome and encouraged. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking items in the lede

I'm not sure if this is a frequent matter of discussion, but is there a reason why links are allowed to be within the lede of an artist's or band's article when, in almost every case, those identical links are already available to the direct right within the infobox? If users need the links to many of the main items (genre, band members, associated acts, etc.), they're already provided to the user through the info box and seem to be a redundancy within the lede. For example, The Beatles article links: rock, Liverpool, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr, pop, Stuart Sutcliffe, and Pete Best. These are already linked within the infobox and, to me, represent overlinking within the lede. Further more, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr are also linked within the image caption in the infobox. This means each Beatles member is linked three times before you even hit the table of contents.

Overall, I'm asking: why aren't these types of links simply assumed to have been addressed within the infobox? And why isn't linking the same items within the lede considered overlinking? Perhaps there is some kind of accessibility issue that I'm missing? DKqwerty (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If I've added this query to the wrong project page, I apologize and please point me in the correct direction.

WikiProject Santana

We have new project within our scope. pls see Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana for more info.Moxy (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Backup band

Hello, my friends: While working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006, I pulled up Backup band. Well, it hasn't had any sources for the past four years, but beyond that, it seems that the lead paragraph is just somebody's opinion (and that is the only part that really needs to be Referenced) and the list of bands is really just a hodge-podge of band names, some of which may have been backups and some of which have not been. Who is to say? I bring this to your attention because some of you might be interested in cleaning up this article (and maybe in finding Sources for the leed paragraph). Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Musical memes

PS The category "Musical Memes" has just been deleted by CfD. In my opinion the reasons given for this go well beyond the remit of that page since they mostly centred around the assertion that the concept is invalid (which is OR, since no authority was given and many pieces have been cited as such) and "musicological and psychological judgment and preference of editor" cannot be found on the page's criteria. Does anybody want to request undeleteion? Redheylin (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Turnover of music projects and the 'padding' of the WikiProject Music navbox/template

There is a rapid turnover of new music projects - particularly for bands. Typically they are created with enthusiasm, attract less than a dozen members and die after about 6 months. Nothing wrong with that - there are probably only a limited number of articles that can be created about some subjects and once they have been written everything comes to a natural end.

Currently a whole range of semi-active, inactive and 'historic' projects (and task forces -some of them not even projects!) are being recycled back onto the Music Project navbox. This gives an arguably misleading impression of the activity on the music projects, and makes it difficult for potential editors to find where the action is really happening. Should we agree to use the Music Project navbox only to indicate those projects where editorial work is ongoing? What do people think? --Kleinzach 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If the project page is still there we should "not orphan" the project page because someone tag the project - in actuality we should try to encourage editors to restart this projects (especially if they have there own assessments) I personally dont believe this "inactive" tags should ever be added - as they give the appearance that the projects were rejected in some form to newbies. The tags also stop people from joining and reinvigorating the projects. Many projects that get tag actual are still alive (in reality people are just afraid to take of the tags because they think its an admin thing, thus resulting in this projects realy dieing off)..The Music of Canada project gets tagged ever 6 months or so..Y because as a project we have decided to use the WP Canada talk to get a wider view on debates and it looks like the project is slow, but in fact is highly active. If we dont link this projects noone will ever find them to restart them. As members of WikiProject Music we should support all the sub projects and not throw out the baby with the bath water.Moxy (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's normal to use the {{semi-active}}, {{inactive}} and {{historical}} tags as part of the general process of organizing (and archiving) Wikipedia. If you don't like the system, go to a central community page like Village pump and discuss it there. (Who knows? WP editors may change their policy and get rid of all the tags!) In the meantime please stop putting dead projects in the navbox as you have just done here. Wait until other project editors have expressed their opinions at the very least! Thank you. --Kleinzach 07:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your bold edit has been reverted we can now talk about the merits of orphaning this pages. Yes your 100% right we should not touch them until people have spoken. This would be y i reverted your blanking of them (nothing was recycled back in - just you deleting them yesterday). My position is simple we should try an encourage them to be re populated, not just forget about them. As for the tags i have not removed any just mentioned i dislike them that is all. It would also be nice if you did not tag projects 5 months after they started, give them a chance to grow.Moxy (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check what words like 'orphaning' and 'blanking' mean before using them. They aren't appropriate here.

Many of these old band projects have already served their purpose of organizing a small group of articles on a narrowly defined subject. There is nothing to be gained from reviving them. This is an encyclopedia providing information for readers, it's not a social network for member entertainment. Playing around with project bells and whistles (see for example Supremes and WikiProject Santana) is not going to contribute a jot to WikiPedia coverage when no-one is participating in those projects. --Kleinzach 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Way off all articles can be improved even FA ones thats what projects are for. What is it your tiring to show people, that we have started projects a few weeks ago. Perhaps you could join the groups instead of criticizing them. We formed this groups to help the articles ...what have you done to help this projects?Moxy (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't publish projects, we publish articles. And now, let's ask other editors to comment. --Kleinzach 07:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects before adding tags all over. As it stats in our guidelines pls do not tag projects before several months of inactivity. This edit is not what i would say is constructive at all - pls do not do things out of spite. Moxy (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the text of the semi-active tag: '"This WikiProject is believed to be semi-active. Activity has slowed down in the last few months." That accurately described WikiProject Latin America/Music task force which has only ever had a total of three messages by one editor, the last one on 28 September, two months ago. You are of course entitled to remove the tag - but only if you are going to start contributing to the project, not for the sake of edit warring.

In many cases years of inactivity are involved. (Bot distributed circulars don't indicate that anything is happening in the projects themselves). --Kleinzach 07:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

{{semi-active}} is the tag(header) to tell people what is going on not our guideline (that are listed on the template). Pls try and follow what the community has set forth. As for Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/Music task force is was made August 28, 2010 and the last posting/update for the project was October 20, 2010 less then a month ago {the projects first GA). Again pls give projects time to grow (that would be a minimum of 7 months not 30 days). Moxy (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to include semi-active and inactive projects in the navigation box

I think its best we leave the projects linked as is now - However not all might think this is ok .... So I have 2 separate proposals one to deal with the template in-question above and then on to deal with the projects since we are here.

First (the template) we could make a sections in the template for just the inactive and semi-active projects - As seen bellow (there are many more then what was removed before). Since this is only a Wikiproject template and not seen in articles, i just dont see the need to abandon the links.

Secondly i propose that we redirect the talk pages of the inactive/historical projects to this talk page or the relevant sub genre project talk page. This would allow question that arise about the project to be seen by many, thus answered (unlike now).

Thank you "all" for taking the time to review this proposals. Moxy (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This is misleading. There are dozens of old inactive music projects. If Moxy is going to suggest putting them all in the navbox, he should list them in full so everyone can see the extent of the problem. --Kleinzach 06:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

--->Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music Do you have anything constructive to say at all?Moxy (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The directory lists 143 music projects of which 57 are supposed to be 'active' (i.e. in a green panel), though if you look at the projects you will find many of them only sporadically active at best. I think we only have about 30 to 35 genuine 'bona fide' ones. So - do we seriously want 100+ inactive/dead projects listed on the main Music project navbox? --Kleinzach 07:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The template above lists about 120 projects ...Not listed is about 7 to 10 that are redirects to other projects so there actually not there. With 7 to 10 more that are just listed in the directory because they are some what affiliated with misc - but are realy part other main projects like TV or Movies etc. So i would realy only need to add around 10 more to what is above.Moxy (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead projects are not necessarily listed in the directory - also many of them have been deleted (e.g. The Flaming Lips, Good Charlotte etc.). Now can we have some opinions from some other editors? --Kleinzach 08:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

3rd party opinions

I can understand you are looking for 3rd party opinions here, so here's my contribution: Moxy, I don't support your proposal of adding groups for semi-active and inactive projects to the navbox. Firstly, we lose the current structure of the grouping of projects into themes, and secondly, one could foresee arguments about whether a given project should be in one group or the other or amongst the active ones. On the other hand I sympathize with your argument about attracting attention to these "dormant" projects from potentially interested editors that might not even suspect their existence otherwise. However couldn't this be achieved otherwise than via the navbox, for example by adding this information to the project main page, which in my opinion is very meager in contents today. This would avoid the "clutter" of the navbox that Kleinzach is worried about. – IbLeo^(talk) 08:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would love to add them to the main page. Thats much better then in the template. Did not think anyone you go for that - it was my first thought on how to bring attention to this projects). I am more then willing to drop the whole template thing if others agree they can be listed on the main page. I simply just want people to be-able to find projects and with any luck reinvigorate them especial those with independent assessments. (We could make the section collapsible so it does not dominate the page)Moxy (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm abivalent about what happens with the navbox, but I have had some experience in the last couple years with revamping/reviving/absorbing seemingly stale Wikiprojects so I thought I'd weigh in on that. My main areas of focus have been WP:PUNK and WP:EMO; I revamped both of those top-to-bottom and overhauled/created the assessment categories & tags for those, so I think of myself as the de facto coordinator of both (since no one else has ever expressed interest in that role). At the same time, I've taken a couple of WikiProjects that were dedicated to individual artists and were long-inactive (Good Charlotte, My Chemical Romance, & Panic at the Disco) & turned them into task forces of the respective genre projects. IMO, and per the WikiProject recommendations, artist-specific collaborations function best as task forces, since they're only likely to encompass a few dozen articles at most and their assessment criteria aren't going to differ from those of their parent projects. Also, once most of the articles related to that artist get advanced, or when fandom for that artist dies down, the task force tends to die a natural death. Whereas with a genre project, new articles tend to keep getting added at a regular rate and their scope is wide enough that there's always work to do, and usually editors interested in doing it. With that in mind, there are a few things I think should be considered in determining whether a project is truly inactive:

• Are the members active in editing articles related to project? — Even if they don't discuss much on the project talk page, if the members are working on articles in the respective topic area then the project is serving its basic function.
• Is the project attracting new members? — If so, then it's fulfilling another essential project role: brining editors together for collaborative editing.
• Is the project continually assessing new articles, and reassessing old articles as they're improved? — Answering this generally requires looking at the WP:1.0 automated log page for the project (which I keep on my watchlist). It'd be even easier if Article Alerts was still working, but that seems to have died (pity, I thought it was a great tool).

Anyway, if a project is really dead (like a lot of these artist-specific ones seem to be), then I think the best course of action is to either transform it into a task force, which has much less overhead, or simply nominate it for deletion. Of the 3 projects I've converted into task forces, all seem to have still been completely inactive. I certainly wouldn't care if they were deleted, and it likely wouldn't make any difference as far as article improvement's concerned (the genre projects would still have the articles in their scope, after all).

So as far as dealing with the projects, that's my advice/opinion: Look at the activity of the membership and the assessment logs before marking anything as inactive. For the artist-specific projects, if they're dead in the water, discuss whether they'd function better as task forces—if so, convert 'em, if not, delete 'em. Doing a cleanup like this would probably help cut down on your navbox clutter problem. Sorry if all this isn't 100% germaine to the conversation, but I care more about how these projects are dealt with than I do about the navbox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla: It's good to look at the big picture. I agree about absorbing artist-specific projects into task forces of genre projects. If there's a way of making this into a proposal for an actionable project guideline, I'd support it. That would obviate the redundancy problem in the navbox. (P.S. I don't agree entirely about project activity. IMO a project is only active if there is evidence of collaborative work on project pages, not just individual article pages, though I guess that's not the central issue.) --Kleinzach 09:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG went about doing just about exactly this a while ago (see WP:VG/IPC), and in fact turned many high-number-of-articles VG projects into task forces, such as Nintendo. It also went about cleaning up some of the the task forces as well. It might be worth considering merging even the [inactive] genre level wikiprojects to this one or a set of task forces. As for the artist-specific projects, those are definitely fodder for this type of thing, whether as deletions, merges to genre level projects or this project or in becoming task forces at some level.

Be careful. It is easy to step on peoples' toes when doing this. If anyone is a little too protective, you can usually drop the issue and come back to look at it again in the future.

A recommendation if you decide to pursue this course of action: MfD project and project talk pages which have seen anywhere from 1-10 edits, or if they have only been edited by 1 or 2 people (rough numbers). Otherwise, you should consider redirecting the main project pages and redirecting or archiving the talk pages (we wouldn't want to lose the history of the once-active projects, and some people at MfD don't understand cleanup efforts like this :^)!).

You can approach Anomie when you need to have the relevant talk page banners removed or merged. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok i have reverted my revert of the Historical links (projects) in the template :-( ..LOL So about the projects I guess i will make up a proposal based on what was done for the Wikipedia:VG/IPC. This may take me some time (or not we will see). I realy like the fact that people seem so willing to go way beyond what i had proposed of simply redirecting the talk pages. There are lost and lost of projects that will have to be contacted after i make the proposal (I take it theres a bot that can handle this). I will have to make a nice intro for this talk opages about the proposal i guess. Does anyone have anymore suggestions before i start? (Will post user/test/page here soon).Moxy (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Task forces in the navigation box

Regarding the present Music Project navbox, can we agree that this is for projects and not task forces? At the moment several 'projects' listed are really the latter which is confusing for everybody. --Kleinzach 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the ones that are tasks forces of sub music projects could go. However the country ones are joint task forces of the countries and the project.Moxy (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Music Project doesn't have any taskforces - as you can see from checking the project page. You aren't just making this up, are you? --Kleinzach 09:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

All the country ones are joint task forces-- pls read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Its own subpage you will see that 2 projects can be involved with one project We are joint projects for all the country task forces. In fact you do know that some countries have all sub projects as task forces. Anywas we are here to help this project pls try and do positive things.Moxy (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which task forces were set up jointly with this project? Where are the links? --Kleinzach 00:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

They are called music task forces what more do you need. We are here to help facilitate music projects and/or task forces within our scope (we dont pick and chose them - we just help). This country task forces are music related and not a sub project of any-other music project. They are listed because they are relevant and the ONLY means of prospective music editors to find this specific task forces in the music field. Again we should be trying to help this task forces not hide the fact they are there. As per our main goal that is to--> "WikiProject Music aims to encourage the collaborative addition of accurate information to a wide variety of musical topics." My question would be Y do you want to remove this active music task forces for the WikiProject Music template. We should be making all effort to make task forces be aware that they are just as valuable as projects. You will see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Parent Project Infrastructure that in fact we should be helping with the administrative and bureaucratic structure if need be. If you want this task forces to follow our guidelines on music, we better make them feel wanted and relevant, dont you think? Moxy (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The question was simple: Which task forces were set up jointly with this project? Maybe the answer is obvious? None of them. --Kleinzach 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Its implied as we are the main Music Project - the one that people look to for Music guidelines and help in regards to style in various related fields - such as Manual of Style (music)  • Manual of Style (music samples)  • Manual of Style (record charts)  • Manual of Style (discographies). I not sure what more i can say - y are you not trying to help this task forces that are clearly with-in the scope of this parent project. Lets give you an example of what we should be dong for this task forces --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America/Music task force#portal (we dont kick them to the wind, but help them). Moxy (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The navbox above has "The Eagle" instead of "The Eagles". Redheylin (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No big deal the proposal to used the version above was rejected.Moxy (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Xander Rawlins

I've just created a very short stub on Xander Rawlins, a soldier turned musician (ala James Blunt) whose song "1000 Miles Apart" is the subject of a campaign to become Xmas number one. I would appreciate editors' help in expanding both the artist and song pages (it shouldn't be a problem as there are multiple Google hits for him). He certainly passes our notability guidelines with more than trivial mention in multiple reliable sources. 03md 06:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Project for someone

The Wikipedia article on the Christmas comedy song Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer is an embarrassment, especially with the COI tag at the top. I don't have time right now to fix the article myself but would be nice to see it improved somewhat and the tag removed. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

For the christmas break - I am in the process of resurrecting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pipe_Bands - any advice warnings or assistance in resurrecting the project appreciated - thanks - and have a safe christmas! SatuSuro 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding use of succession boxes in song and album articles

There is an RFC taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Project look / Relevance of general Wikipedia information on project pages

I was bold...I have made us some tabs to help us navigate the project better..i have also moved the tipes section to its own page with more info..For tabs see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tab header . For new help page see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Help.Moxy (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the tabs that you have added to the project. Thanks. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The tabs are fine, but what other changes have recently been made to the project pages etc? It seems to have been radically altered, not just in appearance but also in content. No doubt many changes will be worthwhile, but I think we should know what exactly they are. --Kleinzach 11:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing changed, just tabs added and tips, resources and tools section moved to its own page. See changes here Moxy (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain? There seem to be a few music-related materials mixed in with a whole lot of general Wikipedia stuff. Someone's personal selection? How are we supposed to locate relevant pages? --Kleinzach 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but i am not sure what your talking about. You talking about the help page or main page? I take it you mean the help page...what is the problem? Is the page not helpful as it was intended to be?Moxy (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry not to have followed this up earlier. I'd like to suggest that we remove general wikipedia information from the project pages. It's obviously OK to have links to key, relevant pages, but not to pad out these pages with generic stuff just to make them aesthetically more pleasing. Project pages should have project information. Reasonable, no? --Kleinzach 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no further comments in the last two weeks, I am starting to cut some of the surplus fat from these pages. If anyone wants to help I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks. --Kleinzach 07:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous albums: Studio vs Compilation

A dispute has arisen over whether Michael Jackson's upcoming posthumous album, Michael should be considered a studio or a compilation album. Aside from this particular album, we've noticed that some similar posthumous albums are considered "studio":

• Jimi Hendrix's Valleys of Neptune
• The Notorious B.I.G.'s Born Again (The Notorious B.I.G. album)
• John Lennon's Milk and Honey (album) and Menlove Ave.
• 2Pac's Still I Rise (album) and Still I Rise (album)

While others are considered "compilation":

• Lisa Lopez's Eye Legacy
• Frank Zappa's Have I Offended Someone?
• Selena's Dreaming of You (album)
• Mick Ronson's Just Like This

We would appriciate some fresh voices in our discussion on the article talk page. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Proposal

Notices of this talk have been posted at: WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Record Charts and of course Template talk:Infobox album...Moxy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I proposed the creation of a new infobox: POSTHUMOUS ALBUM in order to solve this, and it has thus far gained support from a few other editors. There is much inconsistency even among a single artist's discography. Case in point is 2PAC whose posthumous albums are categorised by the STUDIO ALBUM infobox, while Beginnings: The Lost Tapes 1988–1991, which, like the aforementioned albums, was also previously unreleased material (ie. ORIGINAL material), is classed as a COMPILATION ALBUM infobox. This will also end the edit warring and otherwise never-ending debate with albums such as Michael, and who knows how many more of albums the Jackson estate is going to release.

A problem highlighted is that Greatest Hits compilations often released posthumously would also fall into this category. However, I came across Best of 2Pac, which appears to be its own category. Either way, Greatest Hits could be explicitly excluded from the new Posthumous Album category, and simply remain in the COMPILATION ALBUM infobox category. Otherwise, if an artist releases a Live album posthumously, there would be conflict there as well as live albums are mostly made out of greatest hits albeit performed live. POSTHUMOUS album would cover:

1. compilations of previously unreleased ORIGINAL material (EP and LP) eg. Michael
2. compilations with previously released material mixed with original material (EP and LP) eg. I Care 4 U
3. compilations of new/unreleased REMIXES (EP and LP) eg Nu-Mixx Klazzics
4. compilations/whole LIVE concerts/albums (EP and LP) eg. Live at Monterey

By creating the POSTHUMOUS INFOBOX, it resolves the debate between studio/compilation which heavily hinges on the artist's mortality and inability to confirm that the work released is exactly as they had wanted it. Tracks may have been finished within a physical studio space, but it is the mortality of the aforementioned point which underscores the credibility of a release being the 100% accurate final finished product that the artist had intended as THEIR studio album. 46.64.21.150 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this can be resolved on a case-by-case basis rather than necessitating the creation of an entirely new infobox. Retaining a singular infobox for all album articles, with supported values for different album "types", is surely preferrable to creating a whole separate infobox that would have to be separately monitored & maintained. Seems to be making a mountain of a molehill, IMO. Michael appears to be a compilation album to my eye, as it is compiled from unreleased material spanning various recordings sessions going back several decades. Judging by a brief skim of the talk page, the sources seem to back this up. I say when in doubt, consult the sources. An separate infobox definitely isn't necessary to resolve this. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The case-by-case approach also increases the chances for case-by-case debate/edit warring. Furthermore, this move of creating one new infobox will standardise releases for artists (and let's face it, all of them are headed towards the posthumous direction one way or another). For example, Selena has had a greatest hits compilation released every single year since her death, yet some are labelled as 'Greatest Hits', others as 'Compilation'. 2Pac's posthumous discography also shows inconsistency, with some albums released as far back as 1999/98, sources may not be available.46.64.21.150 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why this necessitates a whole new infobox. We have a perfectly good album infobox, and if there's some problem with its application across a significant area of the project then you can propose improvements to it at Template talk:Infobox album. Creating an entirely new infobox just to cover posthumous releases is entirely unnecessary; the current infobox either covers it or can be adapted to cover it. We don't usually create entirely new infoboxes & processes just to quell edit-wars in small corners of the project. As to the Selina comparison, "Greatest Hits" is a sub-type of compilation album; it is compiled from previously-released material, but focuses on the highest-charting or most well-known tracks (as opposed to b-sides, demos, etc.). Which compilation albums are "Greatest Hits" is usually self-evident: they are composed of "hit" songs. As for 2Pac, if sources aren't available then you've got a more fundamental problem than what type to put in the infobox (as in, should there be an article at all if there aren't sources to support it?). 1998/99 wasn't that long ago; there should be ample sources available for an artist as prominent as 2Pac (the internet being well-established by the mid-'90s, not to mention the more prominent print sources ie. Rolling Stone, Spin, etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Like i said in the Michael talk page, to create a new type called posthumous is a good idea, but the problem is that the definition of posthumous album is too generic. Posthumous albums can be compilation albums, live albums, etc. SJ (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The creation of a new field for "posthumous" albums would be a good idea as it ends the need to try and endlessly define whether an album is a studio or compilation album. E.g. with Michael there are sources claiming both. Yet the compromise of calling the album both Studio/Compilation is daft because the idea is we classify it as one or the other. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support new parameters This has been an on going problem for a long time - adding parameters to Template:Infobox album for a posthumous album sound like the best idea to solve this. As a community we dont want to have to address this for ever album that comes out after someone is dead. This proposal sound like it would solve the overall problem. However we must keep in mind that this may effect many pages and layouts for things like charts and discographies etc... As they would now have new category of posthumous albums to deal with in there pages (if this was to be done all over).Moxy (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how this will improve things. A live album released posthumously is first and foremost a live album, and similar can be said of a studio album. A separate infobox seems OTT and a 'posthumous' Type value would simply muddle even further the Type parameter which already muddles the type of content and the release format and now this would just add whether or not an album was released prior to death into the mix. Can we not just err towards compilation unless we're sure the album was recorded as an album? If need be, can't we just add an additional yes/no 'Posthumous' field in the album infobox? If sources conflict between studio and compilation, reach consensus on the talk page. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be better to define what type of albums posthumous albums are. Rather than this change, why not have a discussion as to whether PH albums are studio or compilations? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above & Michig's rationale. Albums are first and foremost either studio, live, or compilation albums (or demo, I guess). Whether they were released before or after the artist's death does not affect this. If an artist recorded a studio album but died before it was released, it's still a studio album. If they died and a posthumous album was later compiled from previously-released &/or unreleased recordings, it's still a compilation album. If a posthumous album of live recordings is released, it's stil a live album first & foremost. We most certainly don't need a whole new infobox to account for whether something was released before or after the artist's death. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Exactly. Albums are categorised on how they are recorded (well, except the studio/EP difference), not when they are released. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the logic of this discussion. The propsal is hereby dropped.46.64.21.150 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose At first, I stated that I supported the addition of a posthumous template, but I started thinking about it, and realized that there are problems with having a posthumous template. As stated before, posthumous albums are studio albums or live albums or etc. first and foremost, and it being posthumous does not affect that. An addition of a posthumous template on league with a studio, live, EP, and so on template is that it is more vague than the previously mentioned sorts. I like Michig's idea of having a yes/no Posthumous field put in the infoboxes, because that would be specified while the infobox would maintain that the albums are studio (or whatever ones they are) albums. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There's absolutely no need for a posthumous album infobox in my view. Albums are either studio, live or comilation. Whether they are issued after the artist has died is irrelevant in my view. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  The proposal was already dropped at 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)46.64.21.150 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Michig's idea as well as making specification by studio/compilation etc optional Already, the difference between compilation and the other two is not based on how they are recorded; that is a different reason for separating itself, one which is hard to tell at times. So I don't see why another parameter of separation can't be added. It is, as stated above, not entirely clear whether Michael should be counted as a compilation or as a studio album. So why not just not say it? And adding 'posthumous' helps resolve confusion. Munci (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  But what if there were a video album made of previously unreleased footage. Is that a posthumous album? No, it is a video album. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  Exactly. The material on the album (live/studio recording/video footage/audio tracks compiled from previously-recorded material) takes precedence over whether it was released during the artist's lifetime or not. A big part of the problem with Michael is that there's very litte in the article about how the album was actually made: Who compiled it? When were the recordings made? Who finished them up? There are only notes on a few of the tracks, but what is sais is that they span recording sessions going back at least 28 years. That the recordings on the album are compiled from so many different sessions spanning most of Jackson's career makes this a clear-cut compilation album IMO. If it walks like a duck... --IllaZilla (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  As you can see here there is a problem in defining a studio vs compilation (regardless if some think it cut and dry - as per the talk on that page its clear it not). Live albums and videos do not apply here in this debate (as they have there own parameter), but its seem to be much harder to do it with after death studio or compilation albums. The term "posthumous" implies its new unreleased material and not a Greatest hits type thing. If the new Michael album was made up of old material we would all agree its a "compilation", but it not old material to the public. So what do we have here a studio album or a compilation? If we had a posthumous parameter it would indicate both this facts - 1 = its new previously unreleased studio material and 2 its not a proper studio album because it was released after he died (meaning he did not have a say it what was released and the finally sound of songs that would be released). We have Category:Posthumous albums because its a real category of album out in the real world -->Posthumous Meaning and Definition: Meaning, definition, usage ... As the page is now Michael (album) with the "other" parameter being used to say "posthumous" i believe all can agree on...... so y not actually make a parameter for this and add all our Posthumous albums to it (can be done with a bot in a few hours)......... Moxy (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  I already looked over that discussion when this proposal first popped up, and then as now I see a rather overwhelming consensus (minus the very vocal Chelo61 who always seems to come off as yelling and/or whining), supported by a number of sources, that Michael is obviously a compilation album. Like I said earlier, it's making a mountain out of a molehill. When an artist is dead (or a band has broken up), and someone goes back through mountains of their unreleased recordings from their career and compiles them into an album—as, according to the article, is the case with Michael—it's a compilation album. I don't see what makes Michael so different from, say, With the Lights Out, All Systems Go 3, or Second-hand Smoke, all of which were compiled from rare or unreleased recordings after the respective artists had either died or broken up. By contrast, Don't Worry About Me, From a Basement on the Hill, and Streetcore are studio albums, as their tracks were recorded in specific blocks of sessions with the intention of being released as a single body of work. Michael is compiled from almost 30 years of unearthed, unreleased recordings, some as recent as 2009 and others going as far back as 1982. There is no evidence that Jackson intended, at the time of his death, for an album named Michael, with these tracks, to be released as a single body of work as his next studio album. Yes, he may have had plans for a new album, and a couple of the tracks presented on Michael may have been intended for it (as they'd been recorded in the last few years), but common sense says that new studio albums generally don't include unreleased b-sides reaching back 28 years. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  By the way, I'm the one who changed the Michael article's infobox to read "Posthumous album by Michael Jackson", solely because I thought "Other by Michael Jackson" looked incredibly stupid. As an afterthought, "posthumous" refers more to the state of the artist than it does to the nature of the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  I like your points, well put!...I see that this realy will all amount to nothing anyways though...I think your idea of the infobox to read "Posthumous album by Michael Jackson" is a great one. I would like to word the intro like at Everything Is Healing Nicely this way we say off the bat its by sony and not MJ. But thats just the way i word thingsMoxy (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  I'd much rather the infobox say "compilation album" because, well, that's what it is. I only put "posthumous album" as a temporary band-aid to the ongoing dispute, and because "other" looked ridiculous. The place to mention that it's a posthumous release, and to explain how it was put together, is in the article's lead. The Everything Is Healing Nicely example is a good one. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  It was a stupid and useless proposal which has already been dropped.46.64.21.150 (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It's really simple. An album filled with new material is a studio album. An album filled with previously released material is a compilation album or greatest hits. An album filled with remixes is a remix album. An album filled with live recordings is a live album. An album filled with music from a television show or a movie is a soundtrack or film score. Chelo61 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  Chelo61, the problems you've run into at Michael (album) demonstrate that you are confusing "new" with "previously unreleased". Songs recorded in 1982 are not new, they are 28 years old. That they were not previously available to the public does not magically make them new recordings. If I were a famous artist, and I decided to put out a book of my childhood doodles so that my fans might get a sense of where I came from artistically, these would not be new drawings; they would be old drawings that have been compiled into a collection so that they may be seen by the public for the first time. Please let go of this stubborn insistence that "previously unreleased"="new", because they do not mean the same thing. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  It's a new song whether or not the singer made the song 1 or 10 years ago. Chelo61 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  New to the public, yes. But chronologically, it's not be as simple as that. If they're working on certain songs for ten years and then release it and try to pass the album it's on off as a studio album, then it would be appropriate to call it a studio album. However, if an album was not meant to be created per se, and it is a collection of music done over the years, then it is most likely to be called a compilation album. Can you please back up your thoughts of "new songs"? I thought that IllaZilla backed up his stance pretty well about what new songs are and are not. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  New songs are songs never before released. If a singer creates a song years ago but decides to put it on his new studio album, it will still be new, even though it's old to him. Chelo61 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  "New to you" ≠ "new material". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  I'll explain this again. New songs are songs never before released. The singer or producer may have heard the song countless of times, but that does not mean its old. Chelo61 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Of course it is new to being released. You stated something about "if a singer creates a song years ago but decides to put it on his new studio album", and went on to consider such music "new". While that can be true in some instances, what if the possibility is true that Michael Jackson did not purposely make this album? Such an argument does not address the current situation. There is nowhere on the album's article which states that Michael Jackson purposely made this album. As a matter of fact, Will.I.Am stated that it was "disrespectful" to release the unfinished material because Jackson was not able to give it his blessing. Whether or not this album should have been released is a totally different issue, but new to the public does not make the material new per se, as Illazilla has pointed out. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, I see now. You and other people (the ones who falsely call Michael a compilation album) are just like Will.i.am, thinking this new studio album is "disrespectful" and Michael Jackson would have never released a new studio album. But just in case you and everybody else didn't know, Michael Jackson was working on new studio albums to be released. Unfortunately, Michael Jackson died, but that does not mean that every single new studio albums released will be compilation albums. It does not disrespect Michael Jackson. All of the songs on Michael are new. Chelo61 (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  I personally never stated that I thought the assemblage and release of this album was disrespectful. Whether or not I think it is a disrespectful deed to release the album does not factor in my thoughts of it as a compilation album; that would be a wrong motivation to consider it a compilation album. Also, if Jackson was working on new studio albums, does that mean that he was working on this studio album with this specific track listing? However, I will admit that it wasn't essential of me to point out that Will.I.Am thought of the album as disrespectul. While it explains what Will.I.Am was getting across leading up to his statement of Michael Jackson's blessing, the bold part is of far greater importance to my argument than the part beforehand. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  Chelo, when you are the only one still railing for one side of an argument, and everyone you engage with has the opposite opinion, you may want to consider the possibility that you may be wrong and simply get over it. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  You guys should consider the possibility that you may be wrong and simply get over it. If Michael was a compilation album then it would be filled with previously released tracks. Chelo61 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  (outdent) Again you confuse "new" with "previously unreleased". That they are new to the ears of the public does not make them new recordings. That is the entire reason that we have the phrase "previously unreleased" in musical jargon. Consensus is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that Michael is a compilation album, as it is a compilation of previously unreleased B-sides, outtakes, and unfinished recordings recorded over an almost 30-year period and compiled postmortem by the artist's estate. Jackson's estate has flat-out said that this is the first of many such compilations of "from the vault" odds-and-ends that they plan to release. These are not all *new* Michael Jackson studio albums, they are compilations, because they are compiled from various studio tapes recorded over many years. Dropping this incessant and pointless "it's a new studio album!" nonsense would be wise, as that horse is long dead. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with IllaZilla. Since the majority consensus is for compilation, it doesn't seem wirthwhile to crusade for that opinion anymore. Previously unreleased is definitely not synonymous with new recordings. What if a recording rests in a computer and/or a recording studio for 1000 years and then becomes released to the public? It certainly doesn't become a "new" recording, just newly released. I want to finish defending this sstance, because of what has been established. Sometimes, you can't or don't get what you desire in life, and that will have to be accepted. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  You might as well change every studio album to "compilation album of unreleased tracks" if you think Michael is a compilation album. By the way, the album is already released so now its a "compilation album of tracks", according to you guys. Chelo61 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  The studio albums had conscious input from the musicians, and don't have to be labeled as compilation albums. The musicians decide the track listing, title, and plenty other elements of the album. If others decide to make an album while the musician hasn't and decide those elements of the album, then it may not be a studio album. We won't do that to other studio albums. With that said, I really want to be done here. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 07:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  I think I've made my point quite clearly a number of times. You may enjoy running in circles, Chelo, but I'm done, and pretty soon you'll be doing it alone. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  You people act like if Michael Jackson had nothing at all to do with the album. You people act like if Jason Malachi recorded the songs and Sony just labeled the album as a "Michael Jackson album". Maybe thats the real reason why you want to label the album as a "compilation album" so peole won't bother to buy the album. But the album is a Michael Jackson studio album and not a fake compilation album. I guess you people won't care if I or someone else correctly change Michael from compilation album to studio album since you people are "done" here. Chelo61 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Yet again, this has nothing to do with Jackson or the "legitimacy" of the album and everything to do with how the album itself was put together. Keep edit-warring on the issue in the face of overwhelming consensus, and you'll soon find yourself blocked (again) and probably banned not soon after. Peace out. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Why would I be blocked for correctly changing the album type? I recommend you to check out studio album and compilation album. Chelo61 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  It would be going against consensus to change it. It's not so much the opinion you're expressing, but the way you're expressing it that is disruptive. I don't like reading the repetitive arguments and the straw man thoughts and the incessant nature thereof. We really need to move on from this. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  You peoples' opinion is also disruptive. But I do agree with you that we need to move one from this, so just change Michael back to studio album and keep it like that. Chelo61 (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  (outdent) Clearly we're not going to do that, so it's ridiculous of you to keep demanding it. Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Well you want this to end, don't you? Just change it back to studio album, its correct album type. Chelo61 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  No. This feeding trough is now closed. Good day. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the creation of a new infobox. When in the artist's life (or afterlife if you believe in that sort of thing) an album was recorded has no bearing on what type of album it is. Would all of the albums that the Grateful Dead released after the death of Jerry Garcia be posthumous? Dick's Picks Volume 2 was released 5 months before he died so it is a live album but Dick's Picks Volume 3 was released 3 months after he died so it is posthumous. J04n(talk page) 01:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFD

Could I have some more eyes here? An editor thinks I'm "poking holes" in a discography, and no one is commenting on the notability of the individual album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor, it seems this debate was closed rather quickly. --Kleinzach 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews it was done in a normal time frame, but it was a holiday and a few more days could have been given. That said i see that there was no clear consensus either way so no big deal - wow thats a bad article.Moxy (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

== RfC at Talk:Weezer ==There is an RfC at Talk:Weezer in order to reach consensus regarding whether the Weezer album Death to False Metal is considered a studio album, if anyone would like to contribute. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Punch cards

Punched card has been nominated for renaming, see Talk:punched card. As punch cards are used in some player pianos and music boxes, I though I'd let you know. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Song notability

User:Kww has recently nominated the article for the song Suga Mama for deletion (AfD), despite being a good article, stating that it fails notability guidelines. The user says that because it has not been on a chart, won an award, or been covered by another artist, the article should be deleted. No where in the guidelines does it say that a song must have done any of those. It is well-cited and it is a good article as well. This user needs to be informed that songs like this are notable and deserve to have articles here. The user plans to nominate Slug (song) as well as many other articles in the future all for the same reason. I have been having a conversation on my own back-and-fourth this evening but it does not seem to be getting anywhere. I would appreciate some more input. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polar Music Prize

Template:Polar Music Prize has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheet music

Opinions would be appreciated at a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Using sheet music sources. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I Need A Dollar

This song by Aloe Blacc, featured on the album Good Things, has had some success in continental Europe, but I'm struggling to find whether it did actually chart (and so be notable enough for an article). Can anyone help me? Thanks in advance. —Half Price 20:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, see [1]. Adabow (talk · contribs) 11:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah fantastic. Thank you very much. —Half Price 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mfd: Project Theme songs and Project Computer music

Two long-inactive projects are at Mfd: see here and here. Perhaps someone here can help resolve the question of what to do with them? --Kleinzach 06:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Category sort keys

I'm finding dozens of portal and category sort keys for artists with names are not being sorted alphabetically. I was beginning to change a bunch of them before wondering if maybe this was on purpose? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

'Maestro' Alex Gregory/notability

Questionable content in Alex Gregory (and the related Seven-string guitar) has been an issue, but there are also doubts about notability. Most of the references are to fringe publications, the article lacks reviews in established, independent newspapers and magazines. Would someone familiar with metal/guitar like to have a look? Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a general FYI - this article is now at AFD. Manning (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)