Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

How many genres is too many for an infobox

For instance, I count nine at Kayzo and only one is sourced, and the sourced does not support any of the genres there. Even if it did match one explicitly, it doesn't seems like much of a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

One question at a time. Whether the listings are sourced or not is an entirely separate issue and honestly I don't think anything but some simple dance or EDM label should be there until we have reliable sources. To answer the question posed in the section, personally, I think nine is too many, but I do not have any particularly strong way of explaining why. It just feels wrong; I don't know a single act which puts sufficient focus on nine different genres (barring maybe Deftones, so let me be more specific: that sufficient focus being ones they are consistently recognized as producing over time) by most publications. Like I said, I have my doubts over my clarity in that explanation so if that doesn't make sense just ping me on it with your question. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

years of unexplained edits

Does anyone else find the work of ChristianJosephAllbee (talk · contribs) problematic, or am I making too much of the editor's lack of edit summaries and occasional addition of WP:OR? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I seem to remember occasionally seeing something I didn't like from them but if I recall correctly they've never resisted one of my reverts if I've ever done it. To say they completely lack edit summaries is not true, though they are on the rare side. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"

Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. 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. BawinV (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the reliability of Business Insider

Hello! I have started an RfC about the reliability of Business Insider for sourcing in music related articles. This would have some impact (albeit most likely minor) on all music related articles. Feel free to comment at the RfC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sa Chen

The article Sa Chen is in poor shape. It cas lots of unsubstantiated and sometimes laudatory text, but only one reference, and that's to a dead link. And that's to a video, and only the landing page (which has little content), but not the media, is archived on the Wayback Machine.

Most of what I can find looks like it's derived from Wikipedia. There are a couple performance notes-type pages, but I fear they likely relied on Wikipedia as well:

• "Sa Chen". Leeds International Piano Competition. Medici TV. 2018. Retrieved July 29, 2021.
• "Chen, Sa". San Francisco Symphony. April 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2021.

There's tons of unsourced WP:BLP stuff.

It's been tagged for poor sourcing for almost seven years, without improvement. I'm probably going to cut back on the article to what can actually be verified in reliable sources, but if there are any good sources anyone can recommend (or edit the article to use), please have at it. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@TJRC: You might want to ask at WP:CLASSICAL – it tends to be one of the more widely-watched music WikiProjects. Richard3120 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

last.fm as external link

Is there a general consensus on whether to include external links to last.fm profiles? A lot (as in, thousands) of musician articles have one, even though last.fm is deprecated. Now deprecation in principle only means it should not be used as a source, but the reason why discogs wasn't deprecated in the same RfC is that editors argued it's useful as an external link. This implies last.fm is not considered to be useful as an external link, but I'm not entirely sure. Lennart97 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't it just deprecated as a source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "deprecated as an external link"? All I know is that in the RFC in which Last.fm was deprecated, Discogs wasn't, not because it's a reliable source, but because it's a useful external link. So does that imply that deprecated sources are not considered suitable as external links? I think it does.

But there could be a consensus that last.fm, despite its deprecated status, is fine for external links, I really don't know. That's why I brought it up. Lennart97 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources and external links have different purposes, hence there are separate lists at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Of these, last.fm is in the first (at WP:RSPSOURCES#Last.fm) but not in the second, so its use in the external links section of an article is governed by WP:LINKSTOAVOID. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know about WP:ELP. I suppose that as unreliable as it is, last.fm, like Discogs, does provide a unique resource beyond what the article could contain, and is therefore allowed as an external link. Lennart97 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

External links should be to official sites or to sites that go into greater depth on the topic than the WP article does. This is why discogs is a valid EL and last.fm is not. --Michig (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with either site. It looks like they both have pretty extensive artist discographies, though Discogs is more detailed and organised. In any case, from these few replies it seems to me that there is currently no agreement on whether to use last.fm as an EL, even though, as I said before, it's used on thousands of articles. Maybe it would be good to have a proper discussion about it and reach some kind of consensus? Lennart97 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi,
I was reading Isle of Wight Festival 1970, and the artist Kathy Smith have just a link to last.fm. I don't know if an article on wikipedia is allowed and where to ask for its creation?
92.152.226.82 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request re: when or if to use the WP:Biography template/tag

Hi: I have seen examples of articles (mostly about bands) that use the WP:Biography tag on their talk pages, but have also seen the use of a blp=yes paramater and no biography tag on the talk page for other bands. Is there a policy statement about this? In my opinion, since WP:Musicians is a subproject of WP:Biography and bands are composed of people, use of the WP:Biography tag on a band's talk page is justified. Thank you for any help--FeanorStar7 (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No policy that I know of, but bands containing living people are technically BLPs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because many band members are not individually notable, so don't get an article of their own - thus any verifiable biographical information for these members goes on the band article. Redirects may be created for those members, and these redirs may have categories that apply to the member and not to the band as a whole. Two examples: Honey Lantree and Victoria De Angelis. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I note that both groups which the redirects are members of have bio tags on the talk pages. For The Honeycombs, several members of the band are living (presumably) and so the living parameter probably should be set to yes (in my opinion). To reiterate, I think that the articles for the bands should have talk pages with WP Biography tags because it a) is consistent with other bands that have the tags on their talk pages (The Beatles, for example) and b) even the BLP tag with no parameters generates a WP Biography tag (per the template documentation; if I'm reading it correctly) and c) use of the WP Biography tag provides more information and the use of a subproject (WikiProject Musicians). I hope this makes sense. Thank you. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about this. WikiProject Musicians includes within its scope bands and ensembles, but WikiProject Biography states in its scope, "It includes only articles about individual persons, not about an organization or group or association, unless a substantial section of the article is a biography of a person related to that organization or group." An article like London Philharmonic Orchestra thus falls within the scope of WP Musicians, but should not be under WP Biography. But both shared the same WikiProject banner, and this causes a conflict in the use of the banner. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the article discuss individual members or conductors? If so, it's a BLP. if not, then it's not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Underoath

Underoath, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed "R from band name" rcat template

I would like to create an {{R from}} category to sort musical band and group names that redirect to an article on an single person (e.g. {{R from band name}} or {{R from group name}}). Examples include Paul Whiteman and His Orchestra, Duke Ellington and His Orchestra, Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, Afrika Bambaataa & the Soul Sonic Force, and Puff Daddy and the Family. Please comment here if you care. —  AjaxSmack  00:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Cardi B has an RFC

Cardi B 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. shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Artists by record label has been nominated for discussion

Category:Artists by record label has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. This can have an impact on a lot of other categories and lists. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for John Frusciante

I have nominated John Frusciante for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it safe to say that Vimic is not an active band?

The band's producer for their debut album died during production in April 2018, and it seems like the band members decided to focus on other projects after that. Their most known member and founder, Joey Jordison, died this past July. We haven't had any real updates since then as far as I can tell. Should we change this to past tense to say they are inactive? dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Deducing a band is no more because there haven't been updates seems logical, but it could violate WP:OR. I have a hard time dealing with this, like, several projects just stop communicating, not to mention bands which take months, sometimes years to officially announce a line-up change. I think it's better to present information that is possibly outdated than information that is simply inferred. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree... it can be a nightmare trying to find definitive information on whether a band is still active or not. The Blue Nile is a perfect example: they haven't made a record in 17 years, and one of the three members left around that time, but none of the band members will say that the group is definitely over, and they still harbour hopes of making another record again in the future (the two remaining members still play concerts together, but refuse to use the name "the Blue Nile" out of deference to the third ex-member). So their article still uses the present tense to say that they are still active, despite not recording a single song since 2004. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment: Remove "associated acts" parameter from musician infobox?

All editors are welcome to comment at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts_confusion where a WP:Request for comment is underway regarding proposed removal of the infobox parameter "associated acts". Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Bradley Joseph

I have nominated Bradley Joseph for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Micachu → Mica Levi RM

Talk:Micachu#Requested move 5 November 2021 could use input from this project's participants. Nardog (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Farewell Sonata Redirect

I'm not an expert on redirects and disambiguation pages, but I don't think "Farewell Sonata" should redirect to I Tell a Fly, an album by Benjamin Clementine. A quick google would confirm that Beethoven's 26th sonata is at least as high profile. The song Farewell Sonata, the first on the album, doesn't warrant it's own page, so can't be too notable. I propose removing the redirect and adding a disambiguation page. Anyone agree and willing to advise? Dhalamh (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Classical music is not my area, not by a long way, but I think you might be right here – Piano Sonata No. 26 (Beethoven) seems to be a much more likely redirect target based on Google searches. You might want to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and ask them if "Farewell Sonata" is a common name for the Beethoven work... I personally have no idea if this is widely used in classical circles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Joey Pecoraro

I recently created an article for Joey Pecoraro. He produced the track "All Night Parking" on the Adele album 30. I am struggling to find sourcing for him. Seems like he doesn’t do media? Any help with the article would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Influences/Influenced on Infoboxes

WikiProject Philosophy has a collapsible section in the infobox for most of their philosophers which details anyone that influenced that philosopher and anyone they influenced--William James is a good example. It mostly stays in the realm of philosophy, but can branch out from that as well. It is a very helpful tool that provides readers a chance to trace some of the big-picture threads throughout the topic.

Is there any chance for WikiProject Musicians to start doing the same thing, and listing bands/artists that have influenced that musician, as well as any bands/artists they have in turn influenced? It doesn't seem to difficult and could help navigating between pages. Maybe a good place to start if this happened would be changing the infobox template?

DynaGuy00 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It could be a huge list, and clutter up the infobox, though... can you imagine listing everyone who says they've been influenced by the Beatles or James Brown? Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this used to be present, but was removed six or seven years back. The problem is twofold: (i) length; and (ii) verifiability. You could truthfully say, for instance, that Arnold Schoenberg heavily influenced Alban Berg and Anton Webern, because they worked closely together; but I'll bet that many other composers were influenced, directly or indirectly, by Schoenberg and his pupils. How many should be listed in Schoenberg's infobox? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a huge issue of choosing who to pick; Beethoven influenced everyone, but he influenced Schubert, Brahms and Mahler way more than Tchaikovsky, Chopin or Stravinsky, for example, so he would only need to the in the former group's influences. The philosophy project already does things like "Influenced virtually all subsequent Western philosophy", which could apply for Western art music in Beethoven, Mozart etc. However, infoboxes are contentious enough in the classical music project so I seriously doubt there would be any chance for consensus there. Even infobox supporters would probably be weary to "anger" infobox opposers by adding the function. In non Western-classical musician articles there may be more of a chance, but it would probably require a huge discussion. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A collapsible list would violate MOS:DONTHIDE.

This would be an almost impossible parameter to monitor and its use would likely be used incorrectly. I would strongly advise against its use whether only for art music or anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree with Walter Görlitz - it is too subjective and determining when and when not to include it - and then you realize exactly why it was eliminated in the first place. - kosboot (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems like consensus is that these would be too difficult to implement, which I completely understand. To clarify, I did know about (and respect) classical music Wikipedian's decisions to forgo infoboxes, and was referring more to modern bands like The Beatles, such as Richard3120 referred to. I was just looking to put the idea out there, glad to get feedback even if it is tabled.

DynaGuy00 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you have that backward. Implementing would be simple. Ensuring its correct use would be virtually impossible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Baby Queen article

The article on Baby Queen has been expanded by more than 2000 words in the last few weeks, would anyone be able to give feedback / update it from stub class? Lornaliq (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Florence Price discography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Florence Price § Discography. Peaceray (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Peaceray (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD proposal June Preston

Discussion here. --Smerus (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tell All Your Friends/archive1

I understand that this is not the exact place to put this, but this article - currently at FAC - it is not gaining very much attention. It has received two supports and has been open for one month; I don't want it to be closed for lack of participation, and it is part of the Music project of Wikipedia, so I thought I would ask around. dannymusiceditor ^oops 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GAR

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Quaffel (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Deaths listed in members section

A former drummer of Christian band Casting Crowns died in July, 2021. Anonymous editors were adding the simple fact to the members list at the time, and without a source. It was my understanding that we 1) needed a source, and 2) do not list deaths in the members section, instead, if it is notable, we add it with a source to the prose only. It is now in the prose and sourced. In a recent edit, an established editor added it back and I removed it. The editor opened a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Casting Crowns. Additional discussion there (or here) would be appreciated for clarity or correction. In other words, do we want the following to appear in the members section?

• Andy Williams – drums (2001–2009, died 2021)
• Hector Cervantes – lead guitar and background vocals (1999–2013)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: I am neither for nor against adding such a fact. I simply see it on so many band articles that I had come to believe it was standard. All I want is a standard I can clearly adhere to. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I had also assumed it was just the standard. It appears so frequently it seems pointless to object to so long as it's sourced. Besides, I couldn't think of any other reason to object to it. QuietHere (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Timelines

It seems some bands, usually metal and hard rock bands, have timelines. Are edits like this needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevelle_(band)&diff=1061528067&oldid=1061523810 five members, with only the bass guitarist changing over time? It's clearly described in the prose. Then there's the question of predicting the future. This timeline assumes to know what the membership will be in May 2022. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And it rears its head again. Are limelines, like this or this a necessity or just decoration? Many articles have them. Many do not. When should they? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the examples you cited are excessive and I wouldn't oppose their removal, but I'm not sure where to draw a line between excessive and allowable. Perhaps at a certain threshold of lineup changes, or maybe require those lineup changes to be proven notable in prose. Would help to have some sort of guideline to point to when making these removals so we can back up the edit. QuietHere (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And that's the problem. I would not expect to see one at the Beatles, U2, or Stone Temple Pilots—each had six members over the course of the "band" and no real variation—or even Depeche Mode, but would at the Rolling Stones (although there were some long-term members), E Street Band, Kraftwerk, List of Twisted Sister members or many others that had rotating doors. Even The Beach Boys may be overkill and Could you even imagine one for Air Supply?

One of the keys here is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. How significant and relevant in the topic's context is the timeline. Is it primarily decorative?

A separate problem is sourcing. A great many timelines are based on when a musician appeared on an album and so it assumed that the musician joined before that time, but usually no sources can be found. This is particularly the case with metal bands, and particularly those with very small followings.

The general rule of thumb I have seen applied and have used myself is that if there are fewer than six members over the life of the band, it's probably not necessary. If the instruments played are straightforward, it's probably not necessary. A lot of variation or many members, it's probably useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No secondary source

Not every single, album, music video or just announcement of new album/single has meda attention so as I understand it is impossible to add music video directors from official YouTube channel, new album announcement from official Facebook profile and release date of very first single which was self-released in artist store like Bandcamp or it's just old CD album? CD album for credits is also a primary source? On the other hand we are allowed to use Apple Music or Spotify etc. release pages as reliable sources for release date. Eurohunter (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover

Contemporary classical composer

Please, looking to find help refining Katherine Hoover's article. Thankyou, AjAirFlex (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The Pinkprint has an RFC

The Pinkprint 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. shanghai.^{talk to me} 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC

There is a discussion at Talk:Jim Henson#RFC on Jim Henson Infobox that members might be interested in. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

K-Pop Groups | Attending Music Shows

Hello, I think that K-Pop groups that have attended Major Music Shows in South Korea should meet the notability requirements. Not every group in K-Pop gets to attend music shows.

LukeHorridSalmon (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the key point would be if there are reliable sources, not blogs or fan sites, that state that the groups have attended these shows. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Define "major music show" as well. Are we talking about television programs or festivals? If the "show" has an article, it's probably major. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed – if the show itself hasn't been covered by reliable news sources, it's probably not notable and the attendance or not of the group at the show is going to be irrelevant. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah exactly this if a group has attended a show that currently has a Wikipedia page then i think that, that should make the group meet the requirements. LukeHorridSalmon (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For example if a group has attended and performed on the shows like Inkigayo, M Countdown etc... and its been covered by a reliable source that they attended then that group should meet the requirements for notability. LukeHorridSalmon (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Both are required. Simply having a program listing or similar are not enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Tim McGeary

Would some members of this WikiProject mind giving Tim McGeary a once-over? It was recently prodded for deletion for notability concerns​, but subsequently de-prodded​ without any justification given as to why. I tried to do some minor cleanup, but the subject's notability per WP:BIO and WP:NMG probably needs a more thorough assessment. The article was created by AhmdAsjad who declared paid contributions for another article, but didn't make any such declaration for this one; so, there might be some WP:COI/WP:UPE involved in the editing of the article as well. The creator has since been indefinitely blocked, but there might've be others editing the article who are connected to the subject in some way. Anyway, since the article has already been prodded once, the next step would be WP:AFD if there's no way to WP:OVERCOME the notability concerns that were raised. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: yes, I can find nothing to suggest that this subject is notable, and the article isn't likely to survive an AfD, in my opinion. The APN News source is just a management press release biography, reproduced on other websites, the newspapers are all local ones to where he lives in Florida, and the other sources are non-RS. AhmdAsjad may not have declared any UPE for this particular article, but he describes himself on his user talk page as a "digital media promotor" (sic), so one suspects that all his contributions to date have been paid promotional work. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this Richard3120. There appears to be a discussion going on at Talk:Tim McGeary now for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Primary source vs non-primary source

Primary source after event happened (official artist website or social media, after so it's confirmation event actually happened) or non-primary source before event happened (The Guardian or other reliable source, before so there is no confirmation it actually happened)? Or we assume if there is no next article about event cancelation it actually happened? Eurohunter (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How to write consistent biography?

1. When I write biography I divide sections by studio albums then just describe mostly singles, so it is exact release date of single, time of album recording, exact release date of album, album and singles charts and certifications or sale eventually information like 5 weeks on number one etc. Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
2. I mean if there is exact date of one single then I will add all exact dates for all singles - I don't like when some singles randomly has exact release date and some only has year of release. Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
3. Also. I don't like when in featured article like Taylor Swift there are different constructions like in "2008–2010: Fearless and acting debut" becausde there is like summary sentence: Five singles were released in 2008 through 2009: "Love Story", "White Horse", "You Belong with Me", "Fifteen", and "Fearless" which mention all singles generally and then describe each one in detailed way and then in next section there is no summary sentence mentioning all singles. So from my perspective I would add such summary sentence to each section of album. Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Some biograpgies mention awards in section for albums in Carrer but then there is section like "Awards and nominations" with table and little summary about some awards. Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
5. Why "Songwriting" isn't part of "Carrer"? Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
6. I know there is not all information available for each album or single so we can skip some information. How to write consistent biography? Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the hundreds of thousands of people who have edited in this encyclopedia over the decades, the quest for consistency is, I fear, rather Quixotic. I advise you to find a format you like, preferably from a Featured Article, that works for the musician you're writing about; then try to be consistent yourself. My personal preference is to keep the biographical material separate, then follow it with separate "Albums and singles", "Awards and honors" and possibly "Notable covers" (if any) sections; but that's me. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact release date of every single and every album, and their chart positions, are really necessary to add in a biographical article – the article is supposed to be about the musician or the band, not each of their records. The Fall have released 147 albums, 12 EPs and 46 singles over the course of their career – describing release dates and chart details of every one of those releases in their biography article would be exhausting and not very informative for the reader, so they are listed in The Fall discography instead. I don't even think every single or album needs to be mentioned by name in a biography article – I'm sure Elvis Presley, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones don't mention everything they ever released. Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike: @Richard3120: How to continue biography if artist is not anymore on charts and withouth significant successes? He just release singles which has some media attention or he has interviews and that's all you could say about them. What summary you can write about it instead of mentioning all of them with release dates? Eurohunter (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You have to let the sources shape the article. If he never hit the charts, but has received significant coverage by critics and reviewers, then emphasize what the critics and reviewers have to say about him. Interviews are often self-serving, and not fact-checked. We prefer impartial third-party coverage by reliable sources, discussing their music, their musicianship, and their place within their field and why they are notable when they never charted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It can't be any worse than Now United discography, which is literally nothing more than a long list of singles, none of which have ever charted anywhere. Richard3120 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike: @Richard3120: I ratcher mean the situation when artist has 15-20 charted singles but then popularity decrease and next 5-10 singles are not on charts anymore. Do you know examples? Sean Paul discography or Pitbull discography but they has no featured biography and they still has some successes so better example would be Arash discography. Eurohunter (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

When they drop off the charts, it is undue emphasis to spend as much space talking about obscure releases as you did about notable ones. At some point, you have to say, "After CERTAINDATE, SUBJECT stopped reaching the charts. From then until OTHERDATE, they released QUANTITY singles, including TITLE1 and TITLE2, none of which did any better than LARGENUMBER on the charts. They received little notice from the critics, and their work was dismissed (when it was noticed at all) as HARSHADJECTIVE and MEANADJECTIVE." (And provide sources for the harsh adjective and the mean adjective.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Orangemike: I had similar idea but that's good. Here I would have the different question. If they charted on DJ's lists - it's not single factor like iTunes chart but Commercial Pop Top 30 - it's not UK Singles Chart - is it worth to mention? Thanks. If anyone has more tips or examples ping me. Eurohunter (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's an officially recognised chart, then no, because it's just one DJ's personal list... anyone can make one of those. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Commercial Pop Top 30 is published by Music Week. I mean "official" DJ lists - voted by DJ's and published by organisations. Eurohunter (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's an official chart though, even if it's published in Music Week... I don't think a DJ vote amounts to very much. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Two concerns about an article

First should we be including "Patreon-exclusive music downloads" in an artist's discography, {{diff|The Choir (alternative rock band)|1080421579|1074944044|like this and the ones above here? It seems odd to include when they are only available to a limited set of individuals, although they may be later released on an album that compiles them?

Is the discography here getting two large and should it be spun off? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it'd be worth spinning off that discog, it's definitely taking up a significant amount of real estate on the page. Just gotta find sources for all those projects. And while I'm looking at it, a third question arises: is there a precedent for solo releases from band members being listed in a discog section like that? Can't say I've ever seen it before, nor would I think it proper to make one, but I wonder where consensus lies on it. QuietHere (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Bernard Fanning

I have nominated Bernard Fanning for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote

Is this hat note needed to distinguish Sam Phillips and Sam Phillips (musician)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I would replace it with one sending back to the dab page. Surprised that wasn't already there. QuietHere (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Poppy

I have noticed a very disturbing trend to omit information on this article, altering this article to better represent the artist as they want to be seen. I can't tell whether this is WP:COI but either way the result is an article that does not meet the standards of WP:NPOV. We need to emphasize WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RECENT in handling this. This is an encyclopedia, it must be information-complete.

To summarize the issue, Poppy is engaged in a dispute with her former romantic partner and creative director Titanic Sinclair, and since this dispute became public at the end of 2019, almost all references to him have been removed, even when necessary for contextual understanding of what the article says. Compare this revision of the article from December 2019 to today's article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poppy_(entertainer)&oldid=931571211 -- the article clearly reads like information was selectively removed from it.

We also see evidence for example on the talk page for the article in question, where Sinclair is described using the phrase 'former directors name' almost as if he's Voldemort, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, or on this user talk page, where numerous editors have noted these content changes over time.

I would like to go back through the revision history and bring back the removed or altered content where it makes sense, but from the edit history it seems likely to be that any such attempt would be stymied by an edit brigade. I also think there are probably more qualified editors involved in this project that might be able or willing to give this a look and help improve this article. Finally, I wanted to bring this concern up to the community in the hopes that a) we can keep a more vigilant eye on it and that b) in the event that continued vandalism persists, a further discussion may need to be had on how to proceed.

Thank you and keep wiki-ing on! 98.217.255.37 (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This should make it easier to see what's been removed. From a brief skim I can see a few places where his name has been taken out unnecessarily so you may have a point, but I make no guarantees (nor do I think jumping straight to WP:COI is the best idea, could easily just be a fan messing around). If the edits are indeed a consistent problem you could apply for page protection, especially if they're IP users doing the disrupting. QuietHere (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I see the IP above has been warring with another editor – the other editor is not "vandalizing" the article, the problem is that you have been adding a statement with no sources to back it up, and one of the core principles of Wikipedia is that all information should be verifiable. I agree with QuietHere that there's no reason to remove Sinclair's name completely from the article, but any claims regarding his involvement must be backed up by independent, reliable sources – as you haven't done so, the other editor is entitled to remove the claim. Richard3120 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

First, please don't call me "the IP" -- I am not an IP, but a person, an editor just like the other editor who has an account, and the fact I choose not to register and make an identified account but rather edit on an IP has no bearing whatsoever on the quality or value of my edits. Even if I had no history of edits on my IP, that should not matter, only the merit of the edits.

Secondly, I have not been "warring" with any user, if you are referring to the reversions to my edits that have been made, these are being made automatically it seems by the user's Twinkle script, and I will most certainly point that user to this discussion to see if they have merit to the reversions, and am happy to discuss it. I don't have the desire to get into a protracted "war" with anyone over something as trivial as edits to a musician's Wikipedia page. These statements that I have been adding are not statements that I am making myself, they are verbatim from previous versions of the very Wikipedia article we are discussing, which are cited with sources in the revision history if you cared enough to look closely rather than cast aspersions on others without basis. I have not delved into the extensive edits that have been made to properly return the article's former informational balance with proper sources, for that would take a while, though if the community would be receptive I do think that would be wise.

To that end, I appreciate the link you included QuietHere, it is very helpful to seeing the changes made. I certainly would not jump to WP:COI as the potential reason for these changes, and also do not think that page protection is necessary at this juncture here by any means. In fact the diff page you linked makes it clear there is less of a change necessary than I thought, and I think it can be fixed relatively judiciously. But if my good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia will be met by the kind of hostility Richard3120 presents me with, I guess I'll leave it to you all to do your own research and determine how authoritative Wikipedia will actually be versus how much it will be influenced by fanbases and vitriol.

I simply care about Wikipedia's adherence to its core principles, one of the primary ones of which is WP:NPOV. I agree with you Richard that any claims must be backed up by independent, reliable sources. What I am trying to point out is that they were, and that those sources and references have been removed from the article over the past two years, and the information should be restored.

If we take the page as it is currently written, based on the current revision, the first mention of Titanic Sinclair is: "On April 17, 2018, Sinclair's former partner Mars Argo filed a 44-page lawsuit in Central California court against Sinclair and Poppy alleging copyright infringement, stating that Sinclair based Poppy's online persona on theirs, as well as emotional and physical abuse Sinclair had allegedly subjected them to in the period after their separation and the subsequent abandonment of the project.[32]" If you read this without context, how does this make any sense? You would say, who is Sinclair? (His first name is never mentioned at any point before this) Who is Mars Argo? Where did this statement come from? The article clearly makes no sense as written, it's clearly been edited by people selectively to remove information. If you want to look at the history you will see it clearly, I think, or do I need to spell it out? 98.217.255.37 (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

As I don't know who you are, I have no option but to refer to you as an IP, as that is the term commonly used on Wikipedia for edits made from an IP account with no user name. I have absolutely no idea where you got any hostility from, as I am simply stating the facts and have made no threats whatsoever against you. "Warring" simply refers to the back and forth addition and reversion of edits between you and the other editor, that again is the standard Wikipedia term. If the statements are indeed in the previous history, then you can re-add the statement with the source and it shouldn't get reverted. Richard3120 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to assume any hostility, just in my experience on Wikipedia IP-based editors have been treated as less valid than account-based editors by default, I have been IP editing for decades across many IPs and it is a consistent thing that is faced. I do intend to go through and re-add the statements at some point only wherever it makes sense and improves the article, (for example, the one sentence I've re-added thus far is just to introduce who TItanic Sinclair is once before this sentence about a lawsuit comes in out of nowhere), but I am somewhat prescient of the fact that when I do, very likely there will be further reversions and consternation. This is widely available infomation across a variety of sources, for example https://www.wired.com/story/poppy-mars-argo-copyright/ . I am very sympathetic to fans of Poppy who may feel upset and disturbed at having someone who they feel treated her badly or abusively mentioned in the article about her, that is a terrible thing and I get the impulse they have to protect the artist they care about, but Wikipedia is not here to coddle our feelings, it must reflect the sourced facts that make up the verifiable past, and that is why I bring this up with great sadness. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you interpreted anything I said as hostility towards you, I assure you that absolutely was not my intention, and I definitely don't believe that anonymous editors are any less valid than those with a user name – your original post has a perfectly valid argument. I do agree with you and QuietHere that there is no obvious reason to remove Sinclair's name entirely from the article as it is clear that he was heavily involved in her earlier work, and would support any sourced reinsertion of his contributions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I should reiterate here that my look at the article was a brief skim so I don't know the specifics of page history or anything else Richard has garnered from their analysis, so don't take my earlier comment as a blessing to just re-add whatever statements are under question here without proper sourcing or anything. And based on what you're describing, I should also remind you to be wary of the three-revert rule and how important it is to not violate that policy. I do believe you that informing readers about who Titanic Sinclair is is important to understanding the rest of the article, but it's also important to not ignore other editors' positions on the way you're going about it. Always pay mind to what they write as their reason for reverting your edits, those notes are there for a good reason. QuietHere (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on Patreon-exclusive music downloads

Any opinion on whether music downloads that are available to Patreon supporters should be considered a single? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Choir_(alternative_rock_band)&curid=91126&diff=1069765967&oldid=1069418485 Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Another added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Choir_(alternative_rock_band)&curid=91126&diff=1085505601&oldid=1080421579 Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess this is the modern-day equivalent to a fanclub-only single. I suppose I would include it in a separate section in a discography for completeness, but I don't think I would include it as an official single release, just as fanclub 7" singles weren't official releases. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by a singer

For the "Writers" section, do we also include the producer and/or music arranger's names? Or just the songwriter/lyricist? Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking about the parameter in Template:Track listing or the personnel section of an album/song article? QuietHere (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Track listing and the "Writers" section in one of those List of songs by Taylor Swift (for example). Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ingram Marshall

A few people have added a date of death for Ingram Marshall, without citing a source. I have reverted, until a source can be found. Is this the right thing to do? If he has died, the BLP flags will also have to be removed from the talk page. --188.30.233.44 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)--

It's been reported by his former record company: https://www.nonesuch.com/journal/composer-ingram-marshall-dies-80-2022-06-01. But there should be a better source than this. Richard3120 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I also found this on a Spanish language site. I don't read Spanish well enough to judge if this is an authoritative source. https://www.plateamagazine.com/noticias/13425-fallece-el-compositor-estadounidense-ingram-marshall-a-los-80-anos --188.30.233.44 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that - I do read Spanish, and it looks like a good source to me... a regularly published magazine with an editorial team. I should think you could use that as a source. Richard3120 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I've restored the date of death and added that as a source. Hope I've used the templates correctly! --188.30.233.44 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a source from NPR, also saw coverage from Pitchfork. QuietHere (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for Kelly Sweet

Hello, there is a requested move for the page Kelly Sweet, which was relisted due to a lack of consensus. Please visit the talk page to leave your input for this discussion. Thanks! Mori Calliope fan talk 05:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This requested move has been relisted once again. Please visit the talk page in order to form a consensus on this move. Thanks! Mori Calliope fan talk 03:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can singles be sourced to discogs?

I created a draft for musician Bryce Hackford. He has a number of singles that I can’t find reviews or mentions of in the press. Can they be sourced from his discogs page? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, according to WP:RSMUSIC Discogs is not considered reliable, but allmusic.com can be used for sourcing singles and albums. Dwnloda (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That's always been a slippery slope because they definitely fail WP:RSMUSIC, but they seem to be evidence they exist, if nothing else. I would not trust any information as to when it was released of any genre, for certain. Other sources are in all ways preferable. If AM does not cover much of Hackford's releases, it's probably a good indication the subject you're writing about cannot meet notability requirements. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:Richard Pryor#Quotes some editors may be interested in. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Need your opinion on this draft

I would like your opinions whether you think this draft User:Dwnloda/sandbox is good enough to be submitted to the AFC and whether you see any issues with it or what edits or changes you recommend before it is submitted to the AFC. Overall do you think this page has a chance? Dwnloda (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly an impressive list of sources and I don't see anything in major need of fixing (though you are violating MOS:CURLY and should fix that immediately). I think it's up to snuff. QuietHere (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I also think you could combine sentences together more in the "Early life" section, those are a bit awkward with how short they are. Try "Arad was born on October 2, 1981, and raised in Haifa, Israel. He earned his bachelor's degree at Tel Aviv University where he became the first musician to earn a doctorate in contemporary improvisation and third stream from the New England Conservatory of Music." (With your sources in their appropriate places of course)

Oh, and remember to italicise album names in the prose as well. I see three instances ("Arad released his album Sparks of Understanding in 2009", "He also recorded Ellington Upside Down", "Arad's album Segments") where you missed that. QuietHere (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all, I will make this revisions. Are there any admins here that can unlock the page? because the name is locked due to prior sock poppet and UPE issues. I have disclosed my COI, so I am not in violation. Dwnloda (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dwnloda Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level is where you wanna go for that. Click the "Request unprotection" button, fill out the form and link your draft. QuietHere (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Slayer

I have nominated Slayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Faulconer

Not one of Wikipedia's better moments: a Prominent Composer Lost His Wikipedia Page—and Got Entangled in Kafkaesque Nightmare Trying to Get it Back. As of this writing (27 July at 6:10 PM), it's not yet reinstated. - kosboot (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed link here [1] QuietHere (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the AfD for Faulconer's article was as fair a process as we have. WP policy is clear that having notable work/work on a notable project does not make an individual themselves notable, and he just doesn't clear on his own. It'd be interesting to see if this incident leads to enough attention to get him over the hurdle, but I doubt it. As for the blog post, I like and respect Gioia as a writer but, in my opinion at least, that thing is full of bad faith readings of WP's processes (not that the forms are easy to figure out -- I have trouble with plenty of WP stuff myself -- but that I simply do not believe AfDs and the like to be full of "inconsistency and foolishness" or "petty tyrants" with "spurious opinions") and vitriol toward us editors, and it doesn't exactly endear me to this cause. It's unfortunate to see but I believe the rules are clear here and we can't give special treatment just because a few people complained. QuietHere (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon Distelmans

Napoleon Distelmans. Created with zero references in 2006 and nothing has been added since. Anyone in this project fancy having a look at it and fixing or PRODing it as necessary? I've tried searching, but not sure what sources this project classes as reliable, and I think there may be a lot of citogenesis going on.- X201 (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@X201: looking at it, you might have more luck posting this at WT:CLASSICAL as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've posted it there as well. - X201 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Newton-John

Hi, there are a number of sourcing issues keeping Olivia Newton-John appearing on the main page. Please see the discussion here. Any help with sourcing some of the tours and television sections would be much appreciated by all those wanting to see this posted. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on List of Best Selling Music Artists

Could I ask people to join the discussion happening on the talk page for the list of best selling music artists? It seems like there are some issues regarding the standard by which artists are added to the list that have persisted for years now. I feel a bit like I'm in over my head, and could use some more experienced editors' perspectives. Thanks. Pacack (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC at List of best-selling music artists

There is an RfC currently open at Talk:List of best-selling music artists that would benefit from members of this WikiProject. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Separate timeline for touring musicians with a band

Paramore has had many touring musicians in its history. Would it be appropriate to add a separate timeline for its touring musicians like what was done for The Doobie Brothers? Kart2401real (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Billboard website deleting some of their charting. I recommend editors to start archiving their pages

Hi all I have been working recently on some musical artist's page, the rap group House of Pain and some of its members.

I wanted to be specific on how each single charted, so I put their name in the search engine of the Billboard website and they are gone. I go back to the pages of their singles and albums, luckily someone made an archive of some of their charts but not all of them.

It's quite upsetting if anyone knows another way to access to the Billboard charts that have been deleted let me know.

I started making a backup on wayback machine of all the charts from the Billboard website I could, but most of these that I contributed are now gone.

Even the Beatles are gone. Strangely some smaller acts are still there. Anyways if you are working on an artist's page and they still have their charting listed do a backup.

Also if anyone knows how to get the charts back let me know.Filmman3000 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that's just a result of a site update. They've had trouble before when they update things where they have to update all the artist pages and I guess that's not an automated process. Hopefully it'll fix soon enough. But having an alternate source/back-up would be good for whenever this happens. QuietHere (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know thank you. I have started to go musician pages that I did and did a backup on waybackmachine. Dr. Dre is also gone but some one-hit wonder still remains.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that if you have a paid subscription to Billboard, you can access detailed chart records going back many years. Dwnloda (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank Dwnloda. Maybe I will.Filmman3000 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if we can pay a subscription I recommend back up what is free.Filmman3000 (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Odd things happening with vocal groups

FYI, some odd things have been happening with Vocal group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of vocal groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this September 2022. First List of vocal groups was blanked to being a dicdef, then that dicdef was cut-and-pasted to vocal group, previously a redirect to the list, and the list at list of vocal groups was then rebuilt without the extensive intro section it had prior to blanking, leaving no intro at all.

So currently, we have a bare list without an intro, and a dicdef article.

IMHO, the dicdef located at vocal group cannot support an article as it is, and should either redirect back to the list again, or some of the content that was deleted from the list that used to be the intro should be pasted into the current dicdef. Though that has the problem of lacking sourcing, as that was the reason provided for blanking the intro into being a sourced dicdef. The dicdef would serve as a start for an intro into the list article, but is still insufficient for a list intro.

As it stands, the dicdef vocal group article is liable to be deleted because it is a dicdef. I previously recommended to the person who blanked the list article that they should just revert and send the list to WP:Articles for deletion, if they didn't like the list, as the dicdef article cannot stand as it is, as a dicdef because it is deletable for that reason.

-- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Red Telephone (band)

The article The Red Telephone (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of meeting WP:BAND

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Move proposal

Move proposal at Talk:Shelley FKA DRAM#Requested move 30 September 2022 which is of interest to this WikiProject. QuietHere (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alice Di Micele

The article Alice Di Micele has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While there is a tenuous claim of significance (and so fails speedy), there is no claim of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

PROD cancelled, now an AfD here. And while I'm here I'll also mention this AfD for the Kris Barras Band which has received a limited response and could definitely use more. QuietHere (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

How many past members is too much?

I originally posted this to Template talk:Infobox musical artist and have added it here per FlightTime's suggestion.

With Yes recently earning good article status, the detail that all 15 past members of the group are listed in the infobox stuck out to me. As I'm doing work on Cardiacs, another group with many previous members (20 including crew who are officially listed as members), I was wondering what the cap off point is where it becomes superfluous to list every member.

For instance, Megadeth's page simply adds a link to the former members heading of the list of band members article a similar way to how awards are handled, with 24 members. They also do not have their own section in the members heading of the main article. On the other hand Swans, a band with the same number of past members, lists all of them in a drop down menu, though they do not have their own article to link to. Mayhem provides two options of either the members section of its own article or the standalone list page, still not listing its seven "notable" members out of the 19.

Which is the optimal option and should any of these articles be altered for consistency?

There seems to currently be no set standard on this, and I agree with FlightTime that there should be a guideline established to prevent edit warring and keep things consistent. Miklogfeather (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

First off, I definitely agree that the Yes list is unseemly. As for an exact number, the first suggestion I can think of is 10 since that's the same limit set on Template:Album ratings and the like. Personally I think that might still be a bit much and would suggest a limit of seven sounds reasonable.

I do also like the way it's done for Cardiacs where it highlights a key former member because clearly Tim Smith's inclusion there is due. I think it would be fair to do that with more bands, but seeing as I don't know how many members of Yes would deserve that distinction, maybe that should also have a cutoff point around the same limit. QuietHere (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Even that's going to be difficult in the case of something like Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band, where the members change for every record and tour, and almost all of them are individually notable. Fortunately, that article has decided not to list any of them in the infobox. You might have to say something more along the lines of "if the band has more than 10 past members, do not include them in the infobox, but include a list in the article text instead". Richard3120 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

List of missing musicians?

I've been doing work on Discogs and discovering some artists who should be notable enough to have articles, e.g. they've had at least one Billboard Hot 100 hit. Is there a place to make suggestions or add red links? Before you ask, I don't have the time to write articles at this time. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you want Wikipedia:Requested articles. QuietHere (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Should add that just because they've had a hit doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to an article, if there is no other information apart from the fact that they had a hit... that is more of an indication that the song may be notable, not the musician. Richard3120 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Point taken. Surely anything added to the list would be investigated further. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Audio works

There are discographies, videographies and filmographies. What about audio publications like podcasts for radio or streaming? Popular musicians should have atleast a list of few notable works but I have never seen any. Eurohunter (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've seen other people, primarily actors, who have lists like that on their pages, e.g. Paul F. Tompkins#Podcast and radio appearances and Scott Aukerman#Podcasts. As for music, Björk's new podcast Sonic Symbolism is mentioned twice in prose on her page, and Jamey Jasta's has its own section on his, so there's at least some precedent for podcasts being mentioned on musician pages. If musicians have similar lists of work in their history, whether as hosts or guests, I don't see why that shouldn't be added as a list somewhere. QuietHere (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ellis Paul Featured article review

I have nominated Ellis Paul for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: John Serry Sr. - questionable editing and deletions of the article's text on this biography require a review by a more experienced editor in the project to remove warning templates at the top of the page.

Ciao members of the WikiProject Musicians: Perhaps when time permits a more seasoned and experienced editor who has additional expert knowledge of the contribution of musicians within the United States during the 1930's - 1950's era could review 1) the multiple deletions of text and 2)the questionable doubts raised regarding the relevance of sourcing documentation provided in the article John Serry Sr -- both of which have been executed and posted by User:Eddiehugh. A review of the persistent dismissal of multiple established reference source citations provided in the article and the removal of text from the article without first posting templates calling for additional citations to be provided within the body of the article which would enable other editors to review these requests prior to initiating these deletions unilaterally suggests that he lacks the experience required to undertake a comprehensive reorganization of this mature article. Kindly note that the article dates back to 2005 and has been reviewed by several editorial teams within the Classical Music Project, the Jazz music Project, the Biography Project, the Latin Music Project, the Composers Project and the New York City Project. Members of each of these projects have graded the article at a level of either C or B and have not raised serious questions regarding the reference sources utilized within the article or the specific narrative of the article as a whole. In addition, the article has been translated into several languages including French, German, Spanish German and Italian and has not been cited in any of these countries for questionable sourcing or improper text. These observations suggest that User:EddieHugh might benefit from additional guidance related to the proper collaborative editorial procedure which is the hallmark on Wikipedia and that the warning templates posted at the top of the page can by removed upon completion of a review by an editor from your project. Thanks again for your assistance.160.72.81.182 (talk)MPL 160.72.81.182 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Les Arts Florissants video FPC

File:Henry Purcell "Dido & Aeneas" (extrait) - Les Arts Florissants, William Christie.webm has been nominated as a featured picture candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the picture falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. Thanks in advance! czar 21:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Lightning Bolt (band)

Lightning Bolt (band) has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to find more experienced editors to look at this draft for Stoneface & Terminal

This draft: Draft:Stoneface and Terminal is one that I tried to work up last year. I believe its acceptable under the notability standards by their having multiple releases from influential indie labels.

Might someone be able to give a quick look and see give me a pointer or 2?

Also if its something I should just move into active space on my own or not, I would like to hear that advice as well. As I'm not experienced enough to know the official next step in the process to move the page along. Mystixa (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Some issues I found:

1. It doesn't appear that you've provided reliable sources for things such as their record labels. I don't know how this site feels about Resident Advisor's artist profiles, but I know Jaxsta and Beatport are both databases of a sort that I can't imagine would be considered reliable. Some sources like the record labels' own websites may be useful for statements of fact, but would not confer notability.

2. I don't see any sourcing for the genre claims made in the lead.

3. In general, it seems the prose of your article is sourced more from the duo's website and Twitter profile than any reliable coverage. If you want to confer notability, you need more coverage from music news publications. Try looking through the EDM-focused sites listed on WP:RSMUSIC, if anyone's gonna have good coverage of this group then they should.

4. That discography section is ridiculously long. That needs to be pared down significantly in some way. I don't think there are enough reliable sources in the section to justify splitting it off into its own page unfortunately.

By my assessment, this article is definitely not ready for mainspace, and should be rejected outright by any reviewer who looks at it. The sourcing needs a huge amount of work, assuming more exists, and there's likely a lot more cleanup to do than what I already did. While WP:NMUSICIAN does say that an act may be notable if they have releases with "one of the more important indie labels", the only label they've released on that I think might count for that is Armada Music, and even then that's not a guarantee because it appears this duo only has a handful of random singles through the label rather than the "two or more albums" the clause also asks for. And even then, that alone wouldn't be enough for a notability pass without meeting any other NMUSICIAN clauses or WP:GNG, and this page doesn't appear to provide any of that. I wouldn't give up on it just yet, there may be more to be found that could turn this around, but unfortunately you're definitely not close so far. QuietHere (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with QuietHere. There might be more than one of their record labels with a blue link, but that doesn't mean they are notable - Coldharbour and Pure Trance are redirects, and FSOE is essentially only sourced to itself. And calling any if these labels "influential" is stretching it a bit (yes, Armada and Perfecto are extremely well known, but mainly for the DJs who set them up, not for any major impact on music). Essentially, this article is just a long list of releases - there's no indication of any notability achieved. Richard3120 (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

On the subject, I've just started AfDs for both the FSOE label and radio show articles. QuietHere (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Afd

I would appreciate it if experienced editors give their opinion here. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Wilbur Soot

An article that been involved with (Wilbur Soot ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Lovejoy (band)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Basshunter

Aren't such informations worth to keep? "Basshunter is a fan of video games." and these edits: [2], [3], [4]? Eurohunter (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The video games part should definitely go. Plenty of people play video games, that doesn't make the fact special information. Unless there's more to the story than just the fact that he likes games, there's no point in including it. The Swedish Teacher's Union part could probably stay, though it appears Drmies was calling the sourcing into question there. The rest seems pretty trivial as well and probably won't be missed from the article. QuietHere (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The man is a fan of video games? So? And QuietHere, you are correct--sourcing is an enormous problem in that article bloated with fan stuff. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: @Drmies: I only restored Swedish Teacher's Union part and I think it should be okey now. Eurohunter (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Eurohunter I'm not going to argue with that. Thanks for taking it up here. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jimmy Chamberlin

Jimmy Chamberlin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mina (Italian singer)

Mina (Italian singer) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Evermore (band)

Evermore (band) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Steel Wheels--notable?

The article seems to be a COI creation or product, lacking secondary sourcing. They release their own albums, so we might as well call their discography mostly self-published. Please see the history for my revert of some of the more blatant advertising. I don't think they're notable, but this isn't my kind of music. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

They might just barely stretch for a weak keep from what I can see. Winning multiple Independent Music Awards (search their name here) and getting just a bit of coverage for their festival and that NPR piece looks decent. I don't imagine the EuroAmericana or Americana Music Association charts mean much here, but the rest isn't quite nothing. It definitely reads like a CoI was involved though, and some of the sourcing makes no sense, but I could understand why some editors might see this and say keep. Personally I don't know which way an AfD would land, but I also haven't looked for any more coverage than what's already on the page so maybe there's even more there. QuietHere (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

AfD notice

In the middle of an AfD discussion which is likely to end in no consensus at current. Hoping to get more eyes on it. Thanks! QuietHere (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Henry Rollins

Henry Rollins has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Vachirawit Chivaaree

Would some members of WP:MUSICIAN mind taking a look at Vachirawit Chivaaree? It seems to have been recently been expanded quite a bit. Although this was probably done with the best of intentions, the article seems to be moving in the direction of becoming a fan page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)