Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

About Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Music

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

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

Seeking opinions...

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

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

Didn't realize this would be such an issue...the group meets WP:MUSIC by having four releases on notable labels and having charted three times in Finland. Three other Wikipedias have articles about the band. Their notability was never really an issue; they just had a crappy article. Chubbles 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it still eeds a lot of work (sorry chubbles) but they're definitely notable enough to warrant a page, but arguably a great deal more depth needs to be explored in the page, including a bio, member info and some rewording in the discography. If you'd like, I can help you adopt the article and bring it up to at least B class, which with your references should be easily done. --linca^linca 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to update the bio as much as you like; I was most concerned simply with restoring the stub, which is, I think at this point, quite clearly eligible under WP:MUSIC. Chubbles 05:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I've made some tweaks. TBH, there's more sources, V&N on this article than on many mainspace articles as it is. I reckon make the move. --linca^linca 05:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and  Done it, plus I've expanded the article for their debut album Delirium Veil in an attempt to improve the coverage and therefore, hopefully reduce the chance of the article being removed again. Unfortunately, I'm more versed in the WP:ALBUM guidlines, so I'm more inclined to work and and try to improve an album than a band or musician (plus, they're generally easier). --linca^linca 11:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My Kind of Town (Sinatra song)

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

1964 or 1965 Grammy nominees

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

Sinatra Oscar noms

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

Cover versions

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

Tour Pages

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

navigation boxes

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

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

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

Templates seeking approval

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

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

About WP:PNA/Culture and Arts#Music

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

Sounds good. Λυδαcιτγ 06:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Chord articles nominated for deletion

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

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

Format for discographies

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

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

Mariah Carey FAR

Mariah Carey has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. Gimmetrow 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Need input at Punk rock

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

Of weasels, peacocks and fancruft

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

• Oh hell yes. And I'll tell you another one that gets hideously over-used: virtuoso. To read some of the articles on crap modern bands you'd believe that every two-bit plank-spanker is a "guitar virtuoso". Virtuoso means a performer of such stature that people unfamiliar with the genre are likely to know the name, and usually the surname is enough. Menuhin was a virtuoso, Rostropovich was a virtuoso, Paganini was a virtuoso, Joshua Bell is shit hot but not, I think, a virtuoso yet. Cruftbane 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, though your examples aren't really the ones I'd use. I'd use truly virtuostic players like Mozart or Chopin. But as guitarists, I'd use people like Jimmy Page or Brian May, though they may not be as brilliant as some of the technically superb players, they're considered virtuostic because they're undeniably great players, but also "household names". But again, I agree with you (this may be a first, John). --lincalinca 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Toytronica

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

RfC - Use of line breaks or comma breaks

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

See Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Standardizing genre delimiters, where several arguments in favor of commas were made. Also, the description linked to above is incorrect, as the only other section of the musical artist infobox that prescribes either commas or line breaks prescribes commas (labels). --PEJL 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question - Are there any genres with commas in them? Torc2 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. --PEJL 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All music guide as a genre source

I'd like to call into question the accuracy when it comes to sourcing bands genres. The site lists Green Day and The Offspring as alternative pop and post-grunge.[1] [2], it lists blink-182 and Korn as post grunge[3] [4], Rancid as alternative pop[5]. I and others have spoken out against as a bad source of genre information. (Talk:All Music Guide#Prominent Genre Sourcing) I am seeing this site used for multiple band pages in the genre section of the infobox, can we get an official ruling, or open a wider discussion on whether this source is reliable?Hoponpop69 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some links in your post, hope you're not offended. -- Pepve 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: those bands are listed as "Alternative pop/rock", not "Alternative pop". Either way they're just saying "alternative rock". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm much more offended by the fact that no one has weighed in on this.Hoponpop69 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think AMG is unreliable. Of course there are errors and omissions. When that is the case, other sources have to be found and used. There is plenty of good information on AMG, so we should not 'officially rule' that it is an unreliable website. (Also, I fixed your indentation.) -- Pepve 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is unreliable as a whole, but when it comes to genres it seems it is clearly incompotent. Also how would you prove with other sources that this information is not correct? I don't think any sources explicitly state "band x is not genre x", in most cases they simply do not claim band x to be genre x.Hoponpop69 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources indeed do not state that a certain band is not genre X, but they are likely to state that it is genre Y. I think that two good sources stating genre Y may lead to the conclusion that AMG is incorrect in a certain case. And then these two sources should be used, and the error of AMG should be noted on the talk page. However(!), this is just my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I would believe that we're not the first to run into contradictory sources, but I can't seem to quickly find a policy or guideline about this. (Off-topic: I fixed your indentation again. Could you please read this subsection of the Talk page guidelines and follow it? Thank you very much.) -- Pepve 11:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So AMG sources for genres should to be backed up by a second source? Can we get some more people to weigh in on this, it sounds good to me. --Hoponpop69 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's not precisely what I meant. An AMG ref can be sufficient in a lot of cases. Other sources only have to be found when someone thinks the current source is wrong. We could of course note somewhere that AMG is not a definite source for genres, but that goes for most sources that are referenced in music articles. And seriously, someone else please chime in, I don't feel I'm on common ground here. -- Pepve 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please chime in, this still seems like it's a grey area. -- Hoponpop69 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally avoid genre arguments. Sorry. The big rules of Wikipedia kinda fall by the wayside when it comes to popular culture articles. It's really hard to find a source that meets WP:RS, when you're dealing with a lot of this stuff. All you can really do is try to keep the edit warring to a minimum. I suggest keeping the listed genres as broad as possible. -Freekee 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

No, I disagree, as my latest edit has asserted. Sometimes the genres are head scratchers (INXS as alt-rock? HIM as goth?) but in my experience (and I went through a phase once where I read tons of Allmusic pages just to read bands genre classifications) their categorization of bands is pretty sensible. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm more worried when editors try to reference retail websites or a band's MySpace page for a band's genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AMG as a source should be avoided, if possible. It does get things wrong a lot, at least for the rock sub-genres, and there are always better site than AMG for sources for genres. Personally, I think metal-archives.com is spot on for genres. Oh, and myspace should never be used as a reference for anything.Navnløs (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is there really isn't a more reliable general source for genres. Metal-Archives.com for one does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Not to say that Allmusic should be the final arbiter of a contested genre; rather, if an artist's genre is uncertain, Allmusic is one of the valid sources to at least look at. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree with both of the last speakers. AMG as a source should not be used unless you know for a fact its right, and it does have a record of being wrong. There are much better sources. And I know the encyclopaedia metallum does not fit the criteria, but regardless people use it and I think it works great, it has little info besides basics, but its always right and it usually lists the official band site for w/e band you're looking at. Navnløs (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that both VH1 and MTV (and Billboard, for that matter) use bios from All Music Guide. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well there's nothing wrong with using it as a source for other things in my opinion, it just has been known to fudge up genres and therefore should not be used as a source for genres. Navnløs (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, isn't AMG user submitted information? If so, shouldn't it already be regarded as unreliable? ~Ambrosia- ^talk 19:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Looking for additional comments at Talk:Electronic dance music

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

Notice of List articles

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

• List of basic music topics

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

History of music needs help

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

FAR

Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

New WikiProject

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

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

Backlog at WP:AR1

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

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

Vruk

I recently came across the article Vruk it appears to have re-appeared after being prod-ed, having the prod removed,then being deleted G11. The text does not seem to have changed that much if at all, which leaves me a little suspicious only the link to the official Vruk site is missing. I originally made a merge proposal [[6]] and another editor was of the opinion it was advertising. I hope by posting a note here some experienced music editors will review this article based on its merits.--Matt (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags in band infoboxes, again

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

Indie Music Photos

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

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

50th Grammy Awards

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

Year in Music articles

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

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

Possible Pop music task force?

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

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

Mull Historical Society and/or Colin McIntyre

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

List of pieces that use keys

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

Nah, just delete them. I was curiously pondering it myself the other day thinking "Why the hell is this here? Half of the contemporary songs listed are covered and in most cases, the key is changed". Clear them out. Leave the classical pieces, though. They're appropriate, since the keys don't change, but only keep notable and verifiable ones. --rm 'w avu 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You could try asking this question on one or two of the articles, in case someone with a stake in them thinks they should be kept (and doesn't watch here). They don't seem very useful to me. I could see maybe, where someone could listen to the song to get a feel for what the key sounds like. But that didn't really work for me. And don't most contemporary songs change key a lot? Would published sheet music list the key? If so, I'm not so worried about citations. -Freekee (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did already cite-tag that section in every article, so I would assume people would realize they need to add the citations. Sheet music would list a key signature, but it might not be clear what the actual key is. Plus a lot of rock music uses powerchords that don't include a 3rd, or write parallel chords. I mean, if it the list doesn't fail WP:V, then it's WP:OR. I kind of have a problem with it even for Classical pieces, since there's so much modulation going on. Even something that seems obvious like Terry Riley's In C has a whole middle section that's in G. Torc2 (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Music genres

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

I'm the one who put the inactive tag on the project. Cleaning up the genres has become my new pet project. Currently I'm basically alone in this. My only problem with the merger is this, when I proposed merger of the Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal articles I informed both the genre project and this project. Genre is inactive so that went no where, this project which has an active group totally ignored it. I would rather try to get a task force together and get the genre project not just active but active in the proper direction rather then just merge it here where it will just get lost. Cleaning up the genres is a painful and thankless task. Not only do you run into a mass of editors all editing against policy and pushing POVs but you also end up with patrol editors not active in the conversation reverting edits for no reason. Multiple times I have left notices on talk pages about changes months ahead of time, normally there is little to no activity at all on the talk pages. Heres an example [7] talked about the issue on Dec. 12th., made the change a month later on Jan 10th[8], had the edits reverted by an editor telling me to bring the issue up on the talk page [9]. The genre articles are currently a mess, there needs to be a team of committed people to help clean them up. I really don't have the time to rewrite every article, plus discuss every change for months, just take a look at the last 6 months of conversation at Industrial Rock, basically one editor has taken over the article and is pushing his POV, despite having 5-6 editors point out major problems. Ridernyc (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

List of...

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

Per WP:CLS, lists vs. categories shouldn't be an either-or choice. Lists allow additional information that cannot be included in categories, and may be preferred by some users (like myself). Torc2 (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This question does not fall under this project talk page it would fall under the WP:MUSICIAN talk page. As for your question... in the case of musicians the list can convey more information then the plain category can. For example; nationality - birthdate/death date and genre can be conveyed in the list and not in the straight category. Making the list a much more valuable resource as well. The only thing that needs to be kept clean from these list of musician pages is that they are not full of red link nn vanity entries. It is only when they are strewn with red that the list loses its validity as an encyclopedic resource. I cannot speak for list of classical pianists... but as far as drummers and guitarists (most of the other "stringed instruments", in fact) are all maintained with great scrutiny by a group of dedicated editors who wish to keep the lists as 'resourceful' as possible. And not simply a collection of high school band amateurs. Requirement for inclusion in most of these lists is that a Wiki article must exist for the list subject. And a great deal of these lists are also "pet projects" of several Wikipedia administrators which means the list guidelines are kept intact. Want to look for useless lists to remove from Wikipedia?... Lists that fall under the WP:MUSIC portfolio? Then go after the List of "any genre" band lists. ex: List of doom metal bands. These types of lists are more general in nature and can be easliy replaced with a category. Some have been successfully AfD'd already. While others were AfD'd... and for some unknown 'wiki-stupid' reason... they survived. If a concentrated effort to remove these types of lists were undertaken... Wiki would be greatly improved. Go here: Category:Lists of musicians by genre... and start AfD'ing. Wiki will be the better for it. 156.34.214.181 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing those lists would benefit Wikipedia. Deleting them would not. List of XXXgenre articles are entirely appropriate for Wikipedia if XXXgenre is notable. Torc2 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Lists of [sub-genre] bands" like the doom metal bands list are completely worthless; Wikipedia will be a lot better when they're all deleted. WP:LC describes those lists pretty well: "The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category." Funeral 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You find them worthless, but I prefer them over categories. For that matter, categories are not "self-maintaining" - somebody still has to tag each article. Torc2 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(followup) I didn't mean that reply to sound snotty, though it might. I just do prefer lists over categories. The other issue is that lists can have citations to prove whether a listed name actually belongs. (Most don't, but they should.) Categories don't have that. How do you {{fact}} tag a category entry? Torc2 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Torc2, most music-related lists I've dealt with have been informative and useful, although sometimes time consuming to remove non-notable red link entries. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

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

Flip response is because no one seems to have added them. If the members of this project were to indicate what specific kinds of parameters they might like to see included, particularly parameters for other Projects or groups which don't yet have assessments, I could probably set it up within a week or so at the outside. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be very useful. WikiProjects on more specialized subjects like albums and jazz are more likely to have an assessment scheme, and I doubt adding the additional layer will benefit much. Any theoretical benefit that might seem possible is probably purely theoretical, as it would be mostly the same people reviewing. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)