Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Template:WikiProject Musicians

The template {{WikiProject Musicians}} has been created recently by SportsOlympic (talk · contribs), without being proposed or approved either here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. This WikiProject's main page shows (in three places: Adding articles; Articles in need of attention; and Project banner) the use of {{WikiProject Biography}} with |musician-work-group=yes and does not mention any other WikiProject banner, let alone {{WikiProject Musicians}}.

This WikiProject has existed since March 2006; early on, its own WikiProject banner was created, but following this discussion it was merged into {{WikiProject Biography}} in September 2006. The resulting redirect was deleted three years later, following this RfD (admins may view the history at Special:Undelete/Template:Musician). The most recent discussion on this talk page seems to be this one in April 2009, so I think that if this WikiProject had once again wanted a banner that was independent of Biography, it would have been discussed since the deletion in September 2009.

WP:TLDR: Should we send {{WikiProject Musicians}} to WP:TFD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oww, whoops.. I thought it was a missing template. But the WikiProjects about Music are unclear. There is

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, also including bands
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, but the template {{WikiProject Music}} does not exist.

So I think there are two options

• as Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians includes bands (=not a bio), it should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, and not of WP Bio
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Music, so it is part of the WP (like with sportspeople Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games) and bands should be removed from this project.

And so:

• {{WikiProject Musicians}} can be redirected/created for {{WikiProject Music}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsOlympic (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Music}} has also been deleted (twice), see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 27#Template:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Template:WikiProject Music) so should also gain consensus before recreation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Musicians

Template:WikiProject Musicians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help with my article - Atif Afzal (composer)

Hi,

I am Atif Afzal, a music composer for films. Originally from India, I am now based in New York. I would like my page to be created. I did some research and found out that I qualify for Wikipedia inclusion under WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER.

• I have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, notable published works with references that comply WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS –

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/music/shreyas-welcomes-bajis-return/articleshow/45777452.cms – The Times of India

2. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2fglyx - Dailymotion

3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/atif-afzal-felt-bad-when-my-movie-with-salman-khan-got-shelved/articleshow/49581450.cms - – The Times of India

4. https://www.thestatesman.com/tag/atif-afzal - The Statesman (India)

5. https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/composing-music-for-global-films-is-exciting-atif-afzal-117080200117_1.html – Business Standard

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OdgUpLmtyM – Adgully.com

7. https://urbanasian.com/featured/2015/02/abhijeet-sawant-joins-hands-with-bollywood-music-director-atif-afzal-for-baji/ - Urban Asian

8. https://in.news.yahoo.com/prague-music-review-093313942.html – Yahoo! News

9. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/shalmali-kholgade-is-music-director-atif-afzals-lucky-mascot/articleshow/46041513.cms – The Times of India

10. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/music/atif-afzal-sings-for-shreyas/articleshow/45533555.cms - – The Times of India

11. https://www.radioandmusic.com/entertainment/editorial/news/atif-afzal-lends-his-vocals-first-marathi-track-141215# - Radio and Music

12. https://www.glamsham.com/bollywood/news/atif-afzal-ready-to-fire-with-monsoon-shootout/amp/ - Glamsham.com

• I have had my albums on national music charts – https://open.spotify.com/search/atif%20afzal; https://www.jiosaavn.com/artist/atif-afzal-songs/IpND0zhNQgE_; https://music.apple.com/in/artist/atif-afzal/678929809; https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Atif_Afzal?id=Abs4elwrrcqez5gt4neql6anacy&hl=en; https://gaana.com/artist/atif-afzal

• I have my albums released on a major record label – My movies Prague (2013 film) released on Universal Music Group and Times Music, Baji (film) released on Zee Music Company, Monsoon Shootout released on Saregama

• I has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style - World Music with notable work in Europe, India and the USA – https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5065411/; https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/composing-music-for-global-films-is-exciting-atif-afzal-117080200117_1.html

• I have been nominated for a major music award – Mirchi Music Awards (Marathi) - https://www.radiomirchi.com/mma2013/marathi/nomination.html

• I have been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment on a national radio – Radio Mirchi - https://soundcloud.com/atif-afzal/radio-mirchi-21-sep-atif-afzal

• I have multiple credits for writing music for notable compositions – https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5065411/

You can find print newspaper/music magazines articles on my website - http://www.atifafzal.com/press/?mode=list. My name appears on multiple Wikipedia pages -

• Pune 52
• Prague (2013 film)
• Baji (film)
• Monsoon Shootout
• Abhijeet Sawant
• List of songs recorded by Shalmali Kholgade
• List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar
• Bela Shende
• Chinmayi discography

I would be glad if someone can help me create an article for me. I have also posted a request here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Composer&nbsp

AAComposer (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

First, @AAComposer: welcome to Wikipedia!

Second, WP:COI suggests that you not edit in areas that you have a conflict of interest.

Finally, there are areas where you can make requests for creation of new articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There are responses to this query at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Need help with my article which may be of interest. Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I was the one who suggested at WP:THQ#Need help with an article that AAComposer might want to try asking about this on some relevant WikiProject talk pages. My apologies if I pointed him in the wrong direction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions. Taking some advice, I have created an article as per WP:AFC and have submitted here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atif_Afzal_(music_composer). Could someone please review it and expand/edit the article. I have kept it neutral, but please correct if something is wrong. --AAComposer (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SoundCloud

Hello, everyone, I would like to pose a question: how's SoundCloud considered on Wikipedia? I'm pretty sure it doesn't count to determine WP:Notability, but what happens to the songs published there? If a singer releases a new song or mixtape on SoundCloud, should it be included in his/her discography, or written somewhere? Or is it ignored? Thank you. --ChoHyeri (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a primary source. It is a distribution channel like a record label, or any other music reseller. It does not count toward WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain/Archive 1#Requested move 27 July 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the Yellow Bee band notable? Low key but recently made some news due to a controversy

See [1], [2]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure Asian Junkie is a reliable source, it seems to be just a group blog/news aggregator. But even so, there doesn't appear to be anything to say about this group apart from this WP:BLP1E, just that they started in 2017 with five original members, and in 2019 the whole group was changed to five different members. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Infact, they are not notable for their music. --ChoHyeri (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Help at Peter Bence

Peter Bence is a young Hungarian pianist, who has uploaded many videos to YouTube. (He also is responsible for creating the article, under his own username.) I blanked the section of YT videos because it was entirely unsourced, but now I wonder if that was the right way forward. I'm not used to editing in music topics; could someone have a look? (Notability is not at issue; he clearly passes that bar.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Production music libraries

I hope that this is an appropriate place for this question. I'd like to create a page called Production music libraries, redirecting to the existing page Production music. That page is full of mentions of "libraries" (23 matches) and "library" (28 matches), so such a redirect would seem to be helpful. Note that the page Music library refers to page Production music using the text "Production music libraries" (see Music library#Other uses). Any comments? Misha Wolf (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

On reflection, an even better option would be to move page Production music to Production music libraries, leaving Production music as a redirect to Production music libraries. After all, the page is about production music libraries. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You'd probably need to suggest this as a potential requested move on the talk page of the article, following the procedure at WP:RM#CM. That will probably generate more discussion, and in the right place. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I should have thought of that in the first place! Now done. Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Cleveland's photo

Can someone help out on the issue reported at Talk:Jimmy Cleveland#INCORRECT PHOTOGRAPH? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of interest

Members of this WikiProject and anybody who works on music-related articles might be interested in a proposal I've started. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kanye West/1

The above reassessment has been initiated. Anybody who reads it is free to leave input. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rick Beato

I seem to have hit a problem keeping Rick Beato clean. An editor seems to have a problem with me applying manuals of style, formatting and tagging of the content. I don't feel like getting blocked because of the editor (who insists on dmy date formatting on American subjects for some reason!) so a second pair of eyes would be helpful. You'll also see that I found a clear copy-paste copyvio and the editor complained even about me mentioning that I cleaned it up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The editor has been tediously harassing me with reverts and he found no copyvio, he is harassing me as I improve the article. Even removing my in use template etc. Time wasting. Have a look at his block log before buying his nonsense.

Links for Walter Görlitz: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. @Lightburst: you reverted a clearly explained correction of MOS:PUNCT. I have asked you to explain why, but you failed to do so. Similarly, the correct changes of the references, reverted. Is this a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OWN? As for the copy-paste copyvio, it's detailed on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, could we please have a member or two from the project look at the article in question? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me introduce myself....

Hi, my name is Kamani. I am a singer, a songwriter, and a record producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theofficialkvmvni 25 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Keef Trouble

A template notification of non-notability has been placed on this article. First let me say that I was a very major (80 percent) contributor to this page almost twelve years ago from 2007, when I began Wikipedia editing, to 2009. I am therefore declaring a COI. My overriding concern is for the reliability of the Wikipedia project rather than individual articles, so I hope here I am being neutral. There are three undoubted sourced attributes this subject adds up to: he was a member of a Wikipedia-notable band; he co-wrote the lyrics to one song by a Wikipedia-notable person; and he self-produced a personal single under a pseudonym. I understand that the rest might well be considered unreliable unsourced original research, particularly a problem with BLPs. The three sourced aspects may or may not be enough to show notability under WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I would be grateful if members of this project look at the page. Whether or not this article is PROD-ed for deletion or merging, I leave to others. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Brett Marvin and the Thunderbolts

Further to the above (Keef Trouble) issue, I have cleaned up Brett Marvin and the Thunderbolts, created by me in 2007, leaving only text which is referenced in reliable independent sources. To avoid a COI, I have left a multiple issues temp for more cites and OR on the page. Could one of the members of the project take a look at the article to see if the template could be removed. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Associated acts/genres of Charli XCX

I've begun a conversation about the associated acts and genres for Charli XCX at this link. While this specifically relates to her, I believe the conversation is relevant to musicians in general and could benefit from extended discussion about what defines an "associated act" and a "subgenre". Sock (tock talk) 00:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Musicians & Bands

Hello, I asked these questions in the Teahouse and they directed me here. I skimmed the wikiproject page but didn't see any answers so I'm asking here in the talk page.

I was curious what the standard formatting conventions for articles on musicians and bands was. I've made a few articles for smaller artists, but I've come across a few different formats.

The most common format I've seen is:

   Introduction + Infobox
   Early life
   Career
   Personal life
   Discography
       Studio albums
       Mixtapes
       Extended plays
       Singles
       Guest appearances
       Compilation appearances
   Concerts, tours, festivals, and other live performances
       Headlining
       Co-headlining
       Supporting
   See also
   References
   Further reading
   External links
       Official Website
       ArtistName discography at Discogs

I'm mostly curious about the outliers though and whether it's okay to do them or how to do them. For instance, I've seen sections dedicated to a list of music videos. If I want to include a list of music videos should it be under a header or should it be included in the External links list at the end of the article (or should it not be done at all)?

I've also seen people use AllMusic instead of Discogs. I'm curious which one is the recommended choice or whether including both is appropriate. I'm also curious about the formatting for the external link to the website if their music is distributed on BandCamp; should it be "Official Website at BandCamp", "Official BandCamp Account", or just "Official Website"?

Is there a standard location for including "Awards", "Achievements", "Honors", etc. and is there a standard wording for the header of the Awards section or the Concerts section because the two seem to be the most inconsistent naming-wise? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Touring musicians on band member timeline

I think touring musicians should not be on a timeline if a band has a touring guitarist who plays live while the band's official guitarists records all the studio parts, but what if a band has an instrumental vacancy? Paramore didn't have an official drummer for many years, and they currently don't have an official bassist. Chicago didn't have an official guitarist from Chicago XIV to Chicago 16. Might it be appropriate to include touring musicians on a timeline for situations like Paramore and Chicago? Kart2401real (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This is why there is no perfect solution for keeping touring musicians in or out of the timeline - it would have to be on an individual discussion basis, and that's not consistent. Personally I do not like the idea of making this change and would opt to keep it the way it is. The situations make timelines look unfortunately awkward, but I favor consistency. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it odd that Korn lists the touring guitarists when Munky played all the studio parts himself when Head was absent. Korn didn't have a guitarist vacancy, just one guitarist at the time. Paramore doesn't have an official bassist right now, but Joey Howard isn't on the timeline. What do we do with Chicago when there wasn't an official guitarist for XIV and 16? Chicago and Paramore had vacancies, unlike Korn with guitarists. How should we make these all consistent? Kart2401real (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Korn only went through six members in its history. I don't feel it's appropriate for Korn to have a subpage. Subpages also list what each member played on. Paramore went through eight official members and many touring musicians. The Offspring went through eight as well (eleven if you count their history as Manic Subsidal). Is it appropriate to include EPs and live albums on timelines? Some members might have only played on an EP, single, or live album. I have never found a consensus on all of these articles together. I would like to get a consensus vote for each of these three bands. Kart2401real (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

EPs and live albums on band timelines

Is it appropriate to include them? A band member might have played on an EP, but not a full album. This happened with drummer Hayden Scott when he was with Fenix TX. Kart2401real (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox background parameter

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Background parameter. Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

MiniWikiProject

I have MiniWikiProject dedicated to Basshunter. Can I somehow attach him to WikiProject Musicians, task force or somewhere else? Eurohunter (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I created it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How many members and lineup changes in a band's history merits a member page?

The Offspring (excluding Manic Subsidal) went through eight different members in its history. It's lineup changed four times. The Offspring has a member page. Paramore also went through eight members in its history, but doesn't have a member page. Paramore's lineup changes ten times (sometimes even changing during an album's recording). Is there any reason the Offspring merits one while Paramore doesn't? Kart2401real (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with merit – simply that somebody bothered to do one for the Offspring, but nobody has bothered to do one for Paramore. Richard3120 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I bothered to do one with Paramore, but it got deleted as being unnecessary. Why would it be deemed unnecessary if the band went through more lineup changes and the same number of members as the Offspring? I find that hypocritical for bands that notable. Kart2401real (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I don't know how many sources your list has; maybe you could make a polite enquiry on the talk page of the editor who deleted your list as to what would make it notable enough, and pointing out that the Offspring and other bands have such a list. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My list had 21 sources. I don't know why that wouldn't merit one, unless the band was some obscure band that wasn't notable enough. Kart2401real (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Album or EP?

What's the difference? Is there a minimum or tracks/minutes? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends, and in the past different countries have had different definitions of what constitutes an album or an EP, so it's not the same from one country to another. We usually go by what the majority of reliable sources describe the record as. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not our call. We go based on what reliable sources call it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

In the good old days, EPs were always 7 inches in diameter and usually played at 45 rpm, albums were either ten or twelve inches and played at 33+1⁄3 rpm. With the advent of the CD where pretty much all are 120 mm diameter (the 80 mm format being vanishingly rare now) the distinction between singles, EPs and albums is much more smudged. Oasis "Cigarettes & Alcohol" (CRESCD 190) clocked in at 23:55 for its four tracks yet was classed as a single, whereas the same band's Stop the Clocks EP (RKIDSCD 37) was only 19:44, also for four tracks. Contrast Ritchie Valens, an album whose twelve tracks totalled only 25:15. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Instrument legend colors on timelines

Why is is it the standard to use green for guitar, orange for drums, red for lead vocals, purple for keyboards, and blue for bass? Kart2401real (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? Consistency between articles is good. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Consistency is good. What is the origin of that color scheme for each instrument? The original timeline for Conjunto Primavera had blue for guitar, yellow for bass, and green for keyboards before I changed it. Did that warrant the change I made for consistency? Kart2401real (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Muse RM notification

An editor has requested for Muse (disambiguation) to be moved to Muse. Since you had some involvement with Muse (disambiguation), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Whether or not to move depends mostly on the question if a) Muses (the ancient Greek goddesses) is the primary topic, or b) Muses and Muse (band) are comparably significant, and there is no primary topic. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Juice Wrld GAN

I got a reviewer for this last month, but they abandoned it due to IRL complications, and while I admit I have not been on much and made only one other edit in the last week, I was wondering if anyone was interested in helping me finish this review before the year is over. (I had exams to do for school)

I also have a question on a bunch of the original reviewer's comments - does MOS:QWQ really apply to ref titles? I thought those were to be added literally how the publication put it. I don't see anything saying that is a necessary part of being a GA. Maybe FA, but I think that's an excessive request for the green marker.

Also crossposting on WP:HIPHOP for help. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ordering of band members in Navboxes

Hello! I seem to remember some documentation that (as with the Infobox) band members should be listed first by order joining, second by alphabetical order. Does anyone know if this has been previously discussed with consensus? A lot of reverting happening over at Template:Van Halen with users saying that it's instrument based, not alphabetical. DLManiac (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how it can be "instrument-based", surely its a matter of personal opinion which is the most important instrument in a band? All I can say is that even the example for Led Zeppelin at {{Navbox musical artist}} places the four members in neither alphabetical nor instrument order, and it doesn't seem to be worth fighting over. Richard3120 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, the current Led Zepellin navbox is actually in alphabetical order lol. I agree it's not worth fighting over, but if the precedent exists, it's nice to be consistent.DLManiac (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Many musicians play two or more instruments, on top of being a vocalist. Which instrument should they be sorted by? So ordering as "instrument based" is a magnet for edit-warring. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought seniority was usually the standard, unless the band's lineup never changed. Kart2401real (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kart2401real: how do you define "seniority"... by the length of time spent in the band, or by the date a member joined the band? Currently the {{Van Halen}} navbox is ordered by the latter method, which means Mark Stone, who never recorded a note with the band and who left before the group were even called Van Halen, is listed ahead of singers David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar, and Michael Anthony,who was the band's bassist for most of their career. Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Mark Stone was not in "Van Halen" under that name. I would consider Stone to have been in a different band, not Van Halen. For Van Halen, I would list the order of the time they joined under that name only. I would not include Stone in the order the members joined. I do not consider Carl Lockstedt to have been a member of Fenix TX because he left the band when it was still Riverfenix. Kart2401real (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Mark Stone isn’t the one causing the problem right now, it’s Eddie VS Alex. If you read the literature, it was the same band, they just changed the name. It’s not a new band. So I wouldn’t say there’s an argument about Mark Stone not being a Van Halen member. DLManiac (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

To get us back on track here - I think it’s clear that any type of “seniority” or “importance” is bound to cause troubles as it’s not objective or encyclopedic. It’s paid our very clear for Template: Infobox musical artist and I think it would be reasonable to have those same rules apply here - preferably in documentation, for the navbox. Or seeing if there is precedence. DLManiac (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some explicit statement in the guidelines. And I can't see any order that's not subjective apart from alphabetical. Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Since Mark Stone was only in the Van Halen brothers' previous band, should Stone be at the bottom of the navbox, or not on the navbox at all (included in the band's article but not the navbox)? 47.154.6.121 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

When bands change their names, where should pre-name change members go in the navbox?

This happened with Van Halen. Mark Stone was never with the band under the name Van Halen. The same thing is true with Manic Subsidal members who never played with The Offspring. Order of joining is the usual standard, but what should be done with Mark Stone, for example? One could argue he was never a Van Halen member (just a Genesis/Mammoth member). Kart2401real (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Similar to U2 it seems. The consensus there was to add the two members who left before the name change to the former members section. Use common sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about singles and EPs

Francis ("No Friend of Mine" / "Dazed") and Carter ("Think of You" / "You Take Time") by Bleached are 7" 45 RPM records. The article lists them as EPs despite not being extended playing. They seem to be singles with an unusual title format. Kart2401real (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

They look like singles to me – one song on each side, an A-side and a B-side. Francis only has a total running time of four minutes, both sides combined... I doubt anyone could seriously claim that's an EP. Richard3120 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Francis and Carter are titles of singles, but aren't the titles of songs on them. That is an unusual practice for naming singles. What other singles (other than Francis and Carter by Bleached) have a title that isn't the name of a featured song? Kart2401real (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, "Francis" and "Carter" are the middle names of the two sisters in the band. And you're right, I'm struggling to think of a single where the title was not the title of one of the songs... common for EPs, but not for singles. Richard3120 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Carter and Francis are singles. Potty Mouth has a live single called The Wild Honeypie Buzzsession, which isn't the title of a song. Why is it rare to name a single something different than the title of a featured song? Kart2401real (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumably because if you wanted someone to buy your single, you'd want the name on the sleeve to be the same as the name of the song you'd heard on the radio, so that the buyer could find the record easily in the store. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would a single be given a name different from the title of a song on it? Is it to treat the A-side and B-Side as equal, without making the B-side appear as if it was rejected from an album? Kart2401real (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, they just wanted to name their first two singles after themselves. There's nothing to stop anyone doing that. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Instruments to include on Stone Temple Pilots member timeline

For Stone Temple Pilots, I feel that bassist Robert DeLeo should have guitar and keyboards listed on the timeline. My edits keep being reverted. Robert DeLeo plays guitar and keyboards on the majority of albums, especially guitar. Is it fine to list them on the timeline? Kart2401real (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Manith Jupiter

I’m not sure what’s going on here, but Manith Jupiter appears to have been directly created in the mainspace by a new editor who might have a WP:COI. I’m not sure whether this person meets WP:BIO or any other WP:SNG, but it’s so poorly written and formatted, and filled with potential copyright violating images that it might need to be completely rewritten from scratch even if the subject is Wikipedia notable. The creator probably means well but English doesn’t appear to be their first language and they simply might have the language skills to write the article. Anyway, I’d like to get some feedback from others just in case I’m being too pessimistic here and also to see if there are any alternatives to deletion. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor has been creating several articles relating to Cambodian pop/rock artists. If the Cambodian Music Awards, which they also created, are the notable music awards for Cambodia, then I would say that Manith Jupiter does pass WP:MUSICBIO as a double nominee for these awards. It looks to me more like a case of a good faith new editor not being familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and in need of some help with copyediting from a native English speaker. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think your assessment of this editor's motives is probably correct; I don't think they're trying to be disruptive or anything like that. I'm not sure about the notability of the awards though, but I'm happy to defer to whatever consensus is reached regarding that. The "problem" (if that's a good word in this case) is that the editor does seem to be having difficulties with English and perhaps this has made it hard for them to understand some of the warnings and advice they've been receiving. So, they simply continue to try and reinstate their edits even though others are saying that they are problematic. For some reason, they also seem to think that some of the editors disagreeing with them are in some way "communists", which is kind of weird. This could be a language problem or simply a result of where the editor seems to be from. It's not only here on Wikipedia, but also on Commons (where I think this editor might also be uploading files under a different username) that they've dropped the term "communist". If they keep heading down the path towards WP:IDHT and WP:CIR, they eventually are going to end up at ANI or AN3 which is probably not going to end well for them; hopefully, things won't get that far, but whether they do is kind of up to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Musicians who committed suicide categories at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for music

Can someone with Nigeria Entertainment Awards to his name with verifiable source be qualified for a music criteria? BadEdithor (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Chopin and sexuality

Please participate at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Teodora Bojović

How is this signer notable per WP:MUSICBIO? I don't get it. Please fix the issues tagged if you think she is notable. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Walter Parazaider still a member of Chicago?

Some believe he retired, but is still considered a member. Others believe he left the band. Is he still considered a member while in retirement, or did he leave the band? I haven't found a clear answer. Kart2401real (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Was Mike Portnoy actually a member of Twisted Sister?

List of Twisted Sister members lists him as a band member. Was he one, or just a touring musician? Kart2401real (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Location of band members in navboxes for bands that changed their name

With bands like The Offspring, Marcus Parrish was only a member of Manic Subsidal, not the Offspring. Mark Stone was a member of Mammoth, not Van Halen. Order of joining is the standard, but what should be done with members only with the band under the previous name? Should the standard be the same? Kart2401real (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Touring musicians on band timelines

Is it fine to include touring musicians on band timelines with a touring musician legend color? I have received different answers. I always thought it was fine. Kart2401real (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as there is a clear, undisputed, and reliable source that states that the musicians are actually members and not simply hired performers, it is acceptable. However, most touring musicians are not members and to include them in a timeline for members is entirely incorrect and misleading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you're arguing about the edits you've made to the Offspring. No, those musicians should not be listed. They have no sources to support their inclusion in the tours, and there are many other problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to make such edits. Others previously did the same with Smash Mouth. I wouldn't include touring substitutes, just sidemen. What's wrong with adding a legend color to clearly distinguish them from official members, with a section that clearly separates band members from sidemen? Kart2401real (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

They're not members and do not belong on a member's timeline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do bands' articles usually have at least a list of touring musicians, even if they aren't on the timeline? I would like to get more opinions on this. Kart2401real (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Good question. They really should not. Most are added without sources. Most do not comply with any guidelines and go against many others. I have even seen performers who were guests on one album be listed in member sections. Entirely inappropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Walter, they shouldn't be on there... the whole point us that the article is about the band, not anybody who has played with them. Touring members and session musicians often play with several bands across their career, so they aren't part of any one act. Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What about permanent, not freelance, touring musicians like Hugh McDonald with Bon Jovi before he became a member in 2016? Why do many articles like Chevelle (band) include touring musicians in their history? That seems to be a standard practice. Kart2401real (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But MacDonald was a freelance session musician before Bon Jovi, with many bands - he's only been an official member since 2016, and he should only be listed as one from that date. And as for Chevelle, that's just because other editors have added them, it doesn't mean it's correct to do so. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Was Hugh McDonald not a permanent touring musician with Bon Jovi for many years? What about Chris Pinnick with Chicago? Pinnick first played on Chicago XIV as a touring musician. He became a member for Chicago 17. Should Pinnick's tenure on the timeline only include Chicago 17? Kart2401real (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But he wasn't a member of Bon Jovi, that's the point. And yes, only Chicago 17. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You'll also notice that most of these touring musicians and session players are entirely unsourced.

Because there is a requirement for associated acts listed in the infobox have more than "one member in common", I have seen touring musicians used to bolster this field. Without sources, it's impossible to verify the roles of the participants.

To address your question, yes, many, many articles are poorly written and poorly sourced, and this extends to the members section. Articles ignore WP:NOTNEWS and list that bands are writing new songs for an upcoming album; have started to work with a producer in pre-production; plan to enter the studio shortly; have entered the studio to record work; have completed recording; have sent a recording to mixing or mastering; have completed artwork for a cover; have sent the work to be pressed; or worst yet, have opened a crowdfunding campaign for the new work. Just because you find WP:FANCRUFT like this, does not mean it should be added to other articles nor that it should be left in existing articles, even when sourced using WP:SECONDARY sources. We are attempting to write about lasting, notable and encyclopedic events and content, not every thing that happens to a band or performer, not is in some way associated with the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea to include sidemen? They're different from studio musicians or live guests. While not band members, bands still personally consider sidemen to be part of the band in some capacity, as opposed to studio musicians or live guests. Kart2401real (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Many bands consider members of their road crew in the same way. Either way, we generally do not list them nor does it make sense to without reliable, secondary sources to support their importance to the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Road crew is slightly different because is is not a performing role. I thought it would be fine to include sidemen with a footnote legend color that distinguishes them from the band members. Kart2401real (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Some roadies do perform, or write songs - for example, Bob Young (musician) who co-wrote (with Francis Rossi) several of Status Quo's songs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and on the other hand Pete Sinfield was a full member of King Crimson despite not playing an instrument or singing – his contribution was as their lyricist... I'm not sure what "band member" that would count as. Richard3120 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A non-performing band member would still be on the timeline. Non-performing members are rare. Kart2401real (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey has an RFC

Lana Del Rey has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

How many members in a band's history merits a separate article?

The Bloodhound Gang went through 20 members in its history. Smash Mouth went through 16. That many members in a band's history clutters up the members section. How many members in a band's entire history merit a separate member page? Kart2401real (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works. A band member may be notable enough for their own article if there is clear evidence that they have separate notability outside the band, e.g. they have a notable solo career or have been a member of another notable band. The number of members a band has had throughout their career is irrelevant in determining whether individual members merit their own page. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean an article for each individual member. I mean a member list article like List of Chicago band members that lists the history of members on a separate page to prevent cluttering of the band's article. Chicago has such a page because the band has gone though 25 different members in its history. What warrants that? Kart2401real (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry. I think the answer is "if someone can be bothered to make such a page, and if there are enough reliable sources for it". Richard3120 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

How many members in a band's history would be enough? I was thinking 15. Kart2401real (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

For the number of members in a list or, more pertinently, whether particular members should be in a list, we should be guided by WP:LISTPEOPLE. The List of Chicago band members you refer to is populated with members who have their own articles, with just a handful of non-articled members to complete the list who are cite-referenced as being part of the band. I think the general view is all band members in a list should have articles or, if not, have multiple reliable references to show they deserve articles. An example of non-notables bloat is The Members, a two-hit minor punk band between 1976 and 1983, who reformed 25 years later in 2008 as a band which in no way continued its limited notability. Band articles seem to invite the addition of non-notable members, often with the merest association, either in stand alone lists or in article infobox's 'Members' and 'Past members'. A separate line-up page should include notable (in their own right) members, and should only be created if that list would overwhelm the parent article, as you indicate. For your specific List of Bloodhound Gang band members and Smash Mouth examples, I would say these fall foul of non-notabilty bloat. Acabashi (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What Richard3120 said. We're not going to have a cut-off based on the number of members. The question is whether a separate article is appropriate, depending on how big the main article is (if it's very big, then there's a reason to split out content) and whether there is enough notability/sources for a separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it fine to include EPs and live albums on band timelines?

Including EPs and live albums on timelines highlights a band's history. Is it fine to include them on timelines? Kart2401real (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(Assuming that you're referring to graphical timelines like this one.) I've seen EPs included in timelines plenty of times, though they're usually color-coded (I believe as a light grey) to distinguish from full album releases. Unless there was a change in policy at some point, I'm sure it's fine to include them so long as it doesn't get excessive. QuietHere (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen both—with and without EPs, live, compilations—because we have no actual rules.

The bigger question is, are timelines needed or not, and I've seen too many articles with them that don't need them (like Chevelle (band)#Band members that has had five members over its life).

To answer your question, if it provides useful information and it does not clutter the image, feel free to add it. If someone objects, open a discussion as to why. There is not requirement to add timelines or to add any type of work to them so don't assume they should be there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP musician review

Could we have a reviewer of a recreated article please? Klank was deleted via AfD by an editor who takes liberties with content, often adding references that support statements but not the notability of the subject. Since I have had run-ins with both this editor and the subject of the article (and his friends and fans) I would like an impartial reviewer to please take a look. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• You could try requesting (with a disinterested rationale), a review by the Guild of Copyeditors for a start, where a number of independent editors could well have a look, and could lead to further input. The Guild might tidy-up the grammar, syntax and style, although I have found is less likely to address anything less than the blatantly contentious, or address the primary, self-referencing, or perhaps not particular notable sources that flourish in this article. Acabashi (talk)

Perhaps one of the problems is that we've never addressed whether the sources used in articles for this genre of music are reliable or not. ReGen is widely used across Wikipedia on many articles related to industrial/darkwave/synthwave bands... I'm sympathetic to the fact that these genres have few other outlets for their music and reliable sources aren't widely available, but I've never been convinced that ReGen is anything more than a group blog, there's no evidence of editorial control. V13 is a new one on me, I'd have to look into it more. If we could establish whether these sources meet WP:RS or not that might go a long way to establishing the notability of the subject. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. We should review the sources separately. For now, could someone review that article more closely? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Youngblood Brass Band

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Youngblood Brass Band and assessing it? It's not clear how the band meets WP:NBAND, but maybe this is a case of WP:NEXIST. The article was created in 2006 and over the years it might have been primarily edited by band members or fans. Its talk page had no WikiProject banners or formatting until I tried to clean things up a bit; so, the article never seems to have been properly assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Found some notable source coverage in the first two pages of this Google search (LA Times, NPR, PopMatters, etc.) which certainly counts for something. Concern is understandable given that additional citations tag has been sitting there since 2008, but neglected doesn't mean non-notable. Haven't read the articles myself, but hopefully there's enough info in them to build out the article and save it. QuietHere (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this QuietHere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloating of infobox with "associated" non-notable acts

Brunswicknic, an editor with just a few dozen edits on music-related articles, bloats up the infobox with "associated" acts that aren't notable or even really associated--and with a striking lack of collegiality warns me: "Please take care in any future steps". As far as I can tell, we don't put non-notables in the infobox, and if acts are associated, they need to be provably relevant; Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts says as much. Binksternet, am I wrong? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't like bullying. I don't like lying. 1. I have added nothing to the infobox at Generation X. 2. you deleted material on the page that had been there for some time, doing so from a mobile with no edit summary, no explanation. I reverted your edit, you reverted my revert, posting an arrogant edit summary. You now publicly attack me, belittle me, tell untruths and accuse me of a lack of collegiality. I am warning you, this behaviour is unacceptable. Please take care in any future steps. Brunswicknic (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. I think I explained my revert pretty well, and as it turns out, correctly. "Please take care in any future steps"--pfff. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct all 'round, Drmies. Associated acts must be notable and very closely interconnected. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks--it might be a good idea to add this to the set of guidelines--though I'm sure I've seen that written out somewhere. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: the guidelines are at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. Unfortunately, it's very common that editors add (a) singers or bands that the artist has collaborated with once, (b) other bands that members have previously or subsequently been in. In the case of this band, Generation X, I don't believe ANY of the acts listed should be here in the infobox, as they are all bands that members of Generation X were in before or after their time in the band, but that doesn't make them associated with this band at all. I have also pointed out that the infobox for Elton John includes acts that have sung with him on one song, but doesn't include any of the members of his backing band for 30+ years, who have a far stronger claim to be associated with Elton. This parameter is badly misused across Wikipedia, but I don't know how we can stop this, short of removing the parameter altogether. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard3120, I fully agree with you, and I've been editing in that way for years; in this case I just removed the unlinked ones without even looking for the others. Infoboxes are abused in many ways (just think about how many articles have unlinked, unverified, unimportant spouses and children), and in general they should not be treated as a substitute for article text. Removing it will be an uphill battle, on a hill that I don't want to die on, but we do what we can. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I support sticking to the guidelines at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. Editors often add much more than those guidelines allow and we should trim back to follow those guidelines. I don't see anything in the guidelines saying that we only include notable acts, although that's the usual case. I'm not against including non-notable acts on occasion. Generally, however, the infobox is a summary of the article. It is not intended to be somewhere for a comprehensive list of every act that meets the criteria: it should be a space for the main acts that meet the criteria and that are mentioned in the article text. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing that we have yet another abuse of the field, we should once again consider deprecating the field. Associations will be made clear in a well-written article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Floating Action ---> Seth Kauffman

I feel like the page for Floating Action should be changed to an overall page for Seth Kauffman that mentions his solo "band" Floating Action. Kauffman has been in a few other projects, and has worked with a variety of other artists, not under a stage/band name. WhatsImportantToMe (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems here. One is that three of the sources are not independent – they are either the band's own social media or the record label's website. The other problem is that the other two sources, which aren't exctly the best, both talk about Floating Action rather than Kauffman. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the article - I'll come back to this talk page once I improve it and find better sources WhatsImportantToMe (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhatsImportantToMe: that's a good idea. If you haven't read them already, check WP:RS and WP:NMUSICIAN – in short, the sources should be reliable (so no blogs or anything which is one person writing what they like without any editorial control) and independent (so not affiliated with the artist or their record label or management, and nothing from their social media unless it's stating a fact like who produced the record, because obviously they all have an interest in promoting the artist and aren't impartial). It should be established newspapers or magazines, either in print or online, with no affiliation to the artist. I said the two other sources weren't great, because they are both local papers, and one is an interview with Kauffman (that fails WP:PRIMARY) and the other is basically promoting a forthcoming concert... ideally you would want a features on Kauffman/the band from music magazines and/or record reviews, but they could be hard to find. Richard3120 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'm currently having a bit of a hard time finding good sources, but I'll keep looking. WhatsImportantToMe (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gene Vincent - infobox

I am trying to improve the article about early rocker Gene Vincent. I've made a new infobox using Elvis Presley () as example. (Infobox: person, module: musical artist, module two: military person.) A senior editor reverted my edit immediately. Our discussion is here. A third opinion would be welcome. Leisad (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Leisad: According to Template:Infobox military person#Embedding, there's no reason why one wouldn't include said infobox in an article about someone who isn't primarily known for their military service. The one you built for Vincent even looks basically identical to the ones in the examples the doc uses (James Stewart and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.). The one thing I could think of that might be a point against it in Vincent's case is that he never served overseas/in combat, but his is a similar story to that of Adam Driver and Driver's infobox has his military career listed. Unless there are any other objections to it (I invite Nikkimaria to comment in case they want to elaborate on their prior objection), I can't say I see a problem with your edit. QuietHere (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposed version is very lengthy, and de-emphasizes the key facts about the subject that are relevant to his notability. I feel the previous version was more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

John Congleton Discography

Do you think John Congleton needs a separate page for his discography? It is massive, after all. I could work on it - presumably it would be formatted similarly to other record producer discography pages, like Steve Albini discography

WhatsImportantToMe (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Definite yes on the reformatting, in its current state it's just a messy list that apparently isn't even entirely verified. Four citation needed tags, and that's just what's already been tagged. And one of the sources that is there is Discogs, which is WP:USERG and thusly unreliable (Don't even know if that AllMusic page is reliable or not), so there's potentially a lot more that needs to be sourced. I'd say prioritise the sourcing and reformatting, then see how long it is after and we'll decide then. Of course if we do wanna make the move, then we have the problem that the "Selected production work" and "Selected engineering work" sections seem to constitute the majority of the article, and there wouldn't be much left after the split. I imagine there's gotta be enough stuff in that 33-item External links list to build out a proper biography (Though some of those are potentially also unreliable), so that should also be prioritised so that something of substance is left behind after the split. QuietHere (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is always a problem with production discographies, a lack of reliable sources. Look at the Steve Albini discography... just five sources, and three of them are definitely not RS. The best sources might be just to cite the album credits, but I don't know what other editors think about that. Richard3120 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I know Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Appropriate uses says "no citations are necessary because the film itself is implied to be the primary source." Is that logic transferable to album liner notes that come with a CD/vinyl copy? Or digital releases on streaming services like Apple Music, Tidal, or Bandcamp? I've seen a number of articles use them as a source for credits, I've done it myself before a few times. I know it's generally best practice to avoid primary/commercial sources in most cases, but I'm not familiar enough with the specifics on the policy to know when such a source might be acceptable.

Also, which of the Albini discog sources are unreliable? I figure the Blogspot ('cause WP:SELFPUB) and presumably Gezan (WP:PRIMARY?) links must be, but nothing about the other three stand out to me as instantly spottably bad (Admitting that I'm not clicking through to explore them further).QuietHere (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@QuietHere: sorry, you are right, the Glencoe one is a local newspaper and valid as well. Still, the point is that there are only three sources for the whole discography... and this is for an unquestionably major producer of alternative/indie music of the last 35 years or so. This is why I don't like list articles on Wikipedia very much – 90% of them are undersourced or completely unsourced, and it's because unless the list is based on some kind of definitive ranking (list of the tallest/biggest/best-selling/highest-grossing, etc.), it's almost impossible to find enough independent reliable sources for them, and they end up being sourced to unreliable sources or to themselves, which is probably what WhatsImportantToMe is going to have to do here with the John Congleton discography (and that's not a criticism of you at all, WhatsImportantToMe, it's simply that you have little choice). Richard3120 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You all make good points. You do raise a good point, though, that the non-discography sections of John Congleton article should be expanded. I can work on that for now WhatsImportantToMe (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming releases

I think we may have discussed this before, but I would like to add a section to the project guidelines stating that we should not be writing about possible upcoming releases just because they've been announced. There is a lot of precident for avoiding this:

• We do not create articles on speculation (both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER).
• It could be construed as promotional (WP:NOTADVERTISING) and it's particularly most notable with links to ongoing crowdfunding campaigns.
• Not everything that a notable group or performer does is immediately notable (WP:NOTNEWS).

In short, I'm tired of seeing "...announced via [insert social media feed, that is usually OVERLINKed] that [insert name of upcoming album, or worse, TBA, either of which is invariably linked] would be released on [insert date].[insert link to a press release published on some dodgy website that markets on two- or three-sentence announcements of upcoming recordings or tours]" added to articles. It's even worse when the date is pushed back and the only thing that changes is the date.

Am I making too much of this or is there enough consensus to add something about that here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Haruka Kudō

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Haruka Kudō (singer)#Requested move 3 March 2021 over renaming the article. Your input is appreciated. lullabying (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we be writing "hit single" or "song" in articles

Simple question. I thought that per WP:NPOV we would use the latter, but I have an editor reverting and calling it a "factual statement". It is being used in the lead and before the section of the article where the song is discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I can definitely see both sides here. Maybe unusually for me - I generally lean towards a very literal style on Wikipedia, avoiding jargon, idiom or metaphor - I think "hit" is such a ubiquitous, widely understood and basically clean term it doesn't really bother me.

... Having said that, perhaps I only feel this way because it's so readily attached to "single" that it's deadened my sensitivity to it (a kind of cliche) - not sure I'd feel as comfortable with "hit novel" etc... Popcornfud (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

... And having said that, perhaps this is so true it's why we have an entire article about the subject of a hit song, which alone may indicate that the concept is so notable that it's OK to use. Maybe. Popcornfud (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I became leery of the term when I saw it used to describe "hit singles" by Southern gospel acts. Even the supplied reference was unhelpful as they did not state that the single was released only to "Southern gospel radio" and it was specific to that demographic. The term here is entirely misleading. I would sooner see "she released "My New Song" as single that peaked at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100, and stayed on the chart for a total of seven weeks" along with a reference, or even, "they released "My Metal Nightmare" as a single that peaked at number 1 on the Finnish Dance chart and remained in the chart for 33 weeks, after it was selected for as a Eurovision song entrant for Finland". It's more clear than simply calling it a "hit single" which can mean anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I would definitely shy away from using the term in favour of simply just stating its sales or chart placement and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. Saying something was a "hit single" or even just a "successful single" is fine in shorthand when sources support that kind of wording and don't require us to do a bit of WP:SYNTH on the side to make it work... but I prefer to let the cold hard facts do the talking where possible. Popcornfud (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "hit" is highly subjective. The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles try to make it objective, and define a hit as a record which spent at least one week on the New Musical Express chart (prior to March 1960) or the Record Retailer/Music Week chart (since March 1960) which means that by that definition, the single "Sweet Danger" by Angelwitch (which entered the Music Week chart on 7 June 1980 at no. 75 and dropped out again the following week) was a hit. Neither the song nor the band ever troubled the UK chart compilers again.

Elsewhere, the album Buckingham Nicks (btw, whatever happened to them?) was a hit in Birmingham, Ala., but nowhere else. It could have become a world-wide hit some five years after release, if the record company hadn't ignored what they were sitting on and, you know, bothered to put out an advert or two in the music press. Such is the crapshoot of the recording industry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: even the British Hit Singles definition of a hit is not longer valid, because the Official Charts Company in the UK has now decided retrospectively that "the next 25" chart that was used in the era when Gallup was compiling the chart (1983–1994) are now valid chart positions, even though at the time they were only ever meant to be the equivalent of a "bubbling under" chart. That means that any song that peaked between 76 and 100 during these 11 years are now considered hits on the OCC's chart archives, but don't appear in the Guinness books. So these songs were not considered hits when they were originally released but are now considered "hits" in 2021. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember that "next 25" thing; it showed only records that had increased their sales since the previous week, so excluded anything that dropped out of the top 75. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly... so anything below those records that had been excluded were artificially moved up a place or two. That's why Gallup always said at the time that they were not to be considered official chart positions, and they were never included in British Hit Singles. But now the OCC have decided that they ARE official, and have included them on their chart archives. So if the definition of a "hit" is going to be changed retroactively, it makes the definition even more arbitrary. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Painstake

Hi. Could someone take a look at this AfD, the subject of which is within the scope of this project? It has been relisted twice now with due to lack of response. Thanks in advance! Lennart97 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD with possible canvassing

{{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me if replying off my talk page. Thank you. 05:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Navbox musical artist and associated acts

I started Template talk:Navbox musical artist#Should we spell-out BIDIRECTIONAL more clearly. Project members may have an interest in that discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A proposed bot to tag people as supported by this WikiProject

Hello all. I would like any thoughts on using my bot (User:Dreamy Jazz Bot) to tag people who are musicians as supported by this WikiProject. This would mean that my bot which is already adding Template:WikiProject Biography to talk pages of people, would also find people who are in a musician category. If they are, then they are in the scope of this WikiProject (as they are a person who is a musician). The bot to mark someone as supported by this WikiProject would add "musician-work-group=yes" as a parameter to the Template:WikiProject Biography used. If there is no Template:WikiProject Biography, the bot will add it and then add the work group parameter. The bot would respect {{nobots}} and would only add this "supported by" information once (so if reverted would not edit war). I will iron out details (such as which categories should be used for defining a musician) if no one has any major concerns about this. If I receive no concerns I cannot address with updating what the bot will do, I will file a BRFA. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I support that idea! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dreamy Jazz Bot 7. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The bot has been approved and is now running. Around 29,000 articles should be tagged as supported by this WikiProject. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RFC

Hi, I would like to notify the wikiproject that there's currently an RFC underway at Talk:Justin Bieber#RFC: Describing Bieber as to how to describe the talents of Justin Bieber. Your participation is welcome.--NØ 10:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

classical composers and musicians

Hi! Recently a number of classical composers were added to this project, (Meyerbeer, Rossini, Brahms, Busoni, Cikker, doubtless others) by User:Dreamy Jazz Bot but it looks to me as if they might be out of place - can someone confirm please whether you cover classical composers and musicians in your project as well as modern popular musicians? There could be duplication here as the former are also covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music.--Smerus (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, hi. These additions are because the composers are also categorised as musicians. My bot does not go out to tag composers, but musicians (as the categories my bot uses to determine who is a musician are specifically for musicians and do not include composer categories). Composers themselves are musicians and a composer can perform music separately, and if someone has categorised them as a musician I don't see why they can't both be on the talk page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the scope of this project defined on the WikiProject page includes Musicians which says that composers are included as musicians, so I would say that the scope of this project covers what the composer project covers. However, I'm still not going to allow my bot to auto tag composers who are not tagged as musicians. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Each WikiProject is free to determine its own scope, and it is not a crime for two WikiProjects to overlap - moreover, it is simply unfeasible to create lines of demarcation between any two WikiProjects, let alone three; and it is also impractical to check the scope of other WikiProjects before this WikiProject adds its own banner to a talk page that it considers to be within its own scope. Project scope is one of the few areas where WP:OWN does not apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's fine, of course, no problem. It wasn't clear whether or not you drew a line on this project, and you might want to clarify that in the project definition. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Musician vs Person infobox

Eric Clapton has a person infobox, with a musician infobox embedded. Lou Reed just has the musician infobox. The latter does not have a section for spouses, for example. Does anyone know if there is a standard we should follow or which would you prefer? Dhalamh (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue of no spouse parameter in {{Infobox musical artist}} has come up many, many times before... see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 15#Spouse section missing and Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 14#Spouse, for example. The arguments against the parameter have been that the template is also used for bands as well, who obviously don't have spouses, and that the spouse is rarely notable or relevant to the artist's musical career. In Eric Clapton's case, the {{Infobox person}} template seems to have been used solely to add the names of his partners to the infobox, as all the rest of the information could just as easily be conveyed using just {{Infobox musical artist}}. You could argue for Clapton that not only was his first wife independently notable herself, she was also the inspiration for arguably the most famous song of his whole career, so she deserves to be mentioned there. Lou Reed also married an independently notable musician. But in most cases, the spouse and children are not notable, so I think many editors would prefer the {{Infobox musical artist}} to be used, as it gives you all the relevant information about the artist. Bear in mind that the infobox is meant to be as concise as possible and convey just the key information about a person – any sourced information about a spouse and children can be described in a "Personal life" section in the text of the article. Richard3120 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give a very detailed answer. Dhalamh (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"Collaborations", IP conduct continues

About this edit history [3], discussion [4], and block [5], the conduct continues. Also at this IP. Pinging some of the editors who are familiar with this @Drmies and Binksternet:. Bammesk (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. All of this activity is the same person. Drmies just blocked them for a good long time. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This looks a lot like user:WildChild666 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/93.44.188.218. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Equipment - including a musician's instrument/strings/etc - is there a standard?

Hello! I just had my first article creation approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nash_(musician)

Some long-time Wiki editors removed some details, including the entire "Equipment" section. I had included info from Wired, Acoustic Guitar, and Guitar Player magazines about Nash's primary guitar, amplification, strings. The editor explained such information was "trivia" and "sounded like an ad." Looking at other guitarist pages, many of them include minute details about the guitarist's instruments and equipment, while other guitarist pages do not.

Is there a standard for this? Is it desirable to include information about a musician's primary instruments and other equipment, or is this inappropriate content?

Thanks for educating me. I'm new to Wiki --TGannett (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources. Blogs, fan zines, etc., do not qualify. The magazines you list would qualify, but only if all the gear is sourced. The problem is, the content was not sourced to those publications. I do disagree with Possibly (talk · contribs) and do not think it is "trivia, promotion of guitar company" and musicians would find this important. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there is maybe a middle ground there, but the fact that he uses ".013-.056 phosphor bronze acoustic and .010-.046 nickel wound electric" strings is very much trivia.--- Possibly (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to a guitarist. It says a lot to us. They are fairly heavy strings (most players would have a .009 or .010 for the high string), so it is encyclopedic in that sense, but if it's not well sourced, I would not include it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this relates to intended audience? Details about instruments and pickups and strings, etc. are expected information in most all guitar magazine interviews/features. That's where I'm sourcing the information. I agree with Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs): as a guitarist, I appreciate this information. Then again, I'm sure Possibly (talk · contribs) is right it comes across as meaningless trivia to music listeners who don't play the instrument themselves. Maybe WP Musicians needs a stated policy on this? For purposes of my article, I'll try rewording the "Equipment" section with Possibly (talk · contribs)'s comments in mind, will post here and we can discuss? Thanks to you both. --TGannett (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Possibly that the variety of string a guitarist uses is trivia in 99% of cases. (And I'm a guitarist - sorry Walter.) If the string gauge is especially notable or relevant to the artist in some way (per sources), then it can be included, but that's hardly ever the case. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, we leave the really nerdy stuff to equipboard.com and fansites.

Generally, I regard lists of equipment with suspicion; they can quickly devolve into indiscriminate lists of data. I'd cite Jimi_Hendrix#Equipment and Ed_O'Brien#Musicianship as examples of articles who integrate notable information about gear into prose into a way that's encyclopaedic. Popcornfud (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Popcornfud (talk · contribs). That seems like a wise standard to me: mention equipment only if notable or relevant to the artist in some way. Many articles do NOT meet that standard, for instance this one I was using as a reference. But your standard seems wise to me. I was listing (sourced) all of Nash's primary gear, but maybe only two elements are really notable and relevant to artist: his primary guitar (used for 20+ years, with a cool repair history described in Wired and others), and his laptop processing rig (profiled in Acoustic Guitar and Guitar Player). I'll try rewriting the section with only those two.--TGannett (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In-article discography

Could someone (or multiple editors really) please take a look at Steve Terreberry? There's a section on singles that I think looks rather odd. First, they're really only videos that the subject has released. Second, they have not charted so how do any of the videos constitute being a single? Finally, they're in a table. Discography style indicates that charting singles be in a table with various charts across the top and the singles down the left side and the chart position, if any, at the intersection of the two. The album is also listed. MOS:ACCESS aside issues, if songs do not chart and they're all non-album singles, why would a table make any sense?

If we're in agreement, perhaps we could add lists to a our layout suggestions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Please how do I indicate which criteria the an article meet in WP:NMUSIC ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

The category is musician

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MUSICIAN&redirect=no Rubiesar (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Rubiesar I think what you're asking is why was the article rejected. It was rejected because you don't use reliable sources. See WP:SOURCES. You are relying on ephemeral sources like blog posts. Instead, try to use reliable and well-known newspapers or other printed material. The person who rejected the article also says that BJ Sam doesn't yet merit an article because his work is not notable. Read WP:N to get a better understanding of what you (and BJ Sam) needs. - kosboot (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The article use reliable source and well-known newspapers Including Yahoo News, Broadway News, The Nations Newspaper. I don't know which other source could be more reliable. Rubiesar (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo news is just an aggregator. Broadway News, while an indicator of theater industry, is more of a niche online publication and is on a lower level of priority. I see that The Nations Newspaper prides itself as being " the best source for Nigeria news and current events" which, although a self-description (which always raises issues of self-promotion) so I suppose that is one reliable source. Otherwise, the subject does not have much biographical information. I don't really want to take a stand, but I see the justification for rejecting the article based on the lack of notability. - kosboot (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

All songs released to media like Spotify are now singles?

I am running into a cabal of editors on Steve Terreberry who are suggesting that every song the subject has ever listed 1) needs to be listed as a single because it was released to Spotify at some point and 2) that they're all non-album singles. The problems are 1) musicians have started to only songs rather than albums or EPs and 2) they have not charted anywhere. So are all songs singles now? What is the defining criteria?

Also, if we were to list all of the subject's songs, is a table required or can we just place them in a list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a confusing situation where the standard categories of the past do not fit modern technology and practice! Thank you for raising this question, and I am curious what other editors think. There are two situations that I see where a digital song gets referred to by reliable sources as a "single". First, a band has an album out and there is an early digital release of a song on it, associated with some media push. That song gets referred to as a "single". Second, a band releases a song on its own to digital channels. That is, it is listed on Spotify on its own, not as part of an album. That gets referred to as a "single" too.

This does produce a larger number of singles than in the past, but I think we have to follow the language of reliable sources.

Charting is irrelevant. Plenty of old 7" singles never charted! Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

But at least those 45s were released to radio. Now, musicians don't have label support so they record a song, and release it to some digital media (Spotify, Tidal, Pandora, Apple Music, Bandcamp, etc.) and we are to consider it a single? Some only release songs these days. So should we list those songs in the subject's discography article? WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies at that point.

Also, table (with no charts, only song title, year, and "non-album singe") or a list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We must follow what reliable sources do. If reliable sources call things singles, then so do we. How we choose to display information is more up to us. I agree that a list is often more sensible than a table, especially than a table with lots of empty cells. Bondegezou (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, because none of the songs charted, and they were all non-album singles, it was year (often row-spanned), title, a full table span of "non-album singles". Easier to change the heading to "non-album single" and have bullets next to each title and the year of release wither separated by an en-dash or in parenthesis. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Video question

Hi there folks, I asked a question at Talk:Thumbs (song)#Gal Gadot appearance? that perhaps someone from this WP might be able to answer. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)