Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Where's Orianthi

She's this really talented young female guitarist in need of an article. She's released one album, but has played with the likes of Clapton, Steve Vai and Santana. She played with Carrie Underwood at the Grammy's and was at Clapton's Crossroads. Someone help me create an article for her? Im not a good Wikipedia editor. So help? --Sickened (talk) 02:57, 25 June, 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article for guidance. --IllaZilla ([[User ested deletion and no other substantial contributors. Thank you to those that commented on the talk page and in the short-lived AfD. Euryalus (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alizée GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Alizée for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Eddy Arnold

I recently finished this article, and was wondering, because its my first of its kind, if you guys could suggest what else should be done. I don't agree with keeping the discography article, personally, but I am just looking for a review. Thanks.Mitch/HC32 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Brand New GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Brand New for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony Middleton (singer)

Can you guys take a look at this article? Found this orphaned, dead-end, uncited article just now. It is also seems to be heavily paraphrased from this article. I think this should be deleted but I defer to you guys since you know more about music bios than I do.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

John Willison (musician) and Carmel Kaine

The articles on these two Australian musicians who are husband and wife have no references and are orphaned. There has been some discussion about this at WT:Articles for deletion#John Willison (musician), so I thought that I would give this project the heads up as there seems to be little or no suitable referencing material to be found via Google. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that both of these articles have now been proposed for deletion as no reliable sources have been found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kurt Cobain

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Kurt Cobain/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Coil (band)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I am notifying you as the article has a banner for your project. I have found some serious concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Coil (band)/GA1. I have de-listed the article but it can be brought back to WP:GAN when fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD help requested

This AFD has been listed and then re-listed twice and not one person has contributed. Therefore, I doubt I'm not breaking WP:CANVAS by posting the link here. (The AFD is for a few Girls Aloud Music DVDs) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style (DVD). DJ 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of The Cure

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:The Cure/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Crowded House

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article and have delisted it from Good Article status as it no longer meets the criteria nd is likley to need considerable work to regain it. You can see the review at Talk:Crowded House/GA1. If you do not agree with my assessment you may challenge it at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Howie Day

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Howie Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Derek and the Dominos

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Derek and the Dominos/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Hayley Westenra

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ahn Eak-tai

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Ahn Eak-tai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad linking practices: infoboxes and common terms

I'm sure it's no secret that popular music articles, many of which contain references to guitars, are badly overlinked. Common term and generalised linking is now not the normal practice, and need specific rationale. This includes the linking of the general common terms such as "guitar", "singer", "songwriter", "author", "poet", "activist", whether in main text or infobox.

I have been auditing the linking, slowly, in a few popular culture articles. Unfortunately, a member of the guitar WikiProject has been reverting tese audits WRT infoboxes. The reasons given have ranged from:

• "that's the way it's done everywhere" (I note that bad grammar can be found everywhere);
• "saves linking in the main text if it's linked in the infobox" (if it's not good link in the main text, why in the infobox?); and
• "we don't want to have to change hundreds of thousand of articles" (so nothing can ever change on a wiki, even through gradualist gnoming?)

There is also a sense that infoboxes should be carpeted blue for aesthetic reasons: the last is clearly an abuse of wikilinking, which loses its effect if every word is blue. Infoboxes are, in any case, a mixture of black and blue, and always will be. The question becomes to what extent the useful links should stand out rather than being swamped.

A related issue is the style-guide rule discouraging adjacent links, and encouraging specific linking. "Guitar", for example, would be much better unlinked at the top, and if the artist played a certain type of guitar, Guitar#Types of guitars is the better target, in the appropriate section. This is what would help the readers, not a formulaic carpet-bombing of infoboxes with double square brackets. Times have changed.

Apart from going against WP:LINK, this practice is diluting the many important, valuable links in popular culture articles. Among these are, of course, the titles of songs, albums and other artists. These should not be diluted by links that are not useful to an understanding of the topic, and that all English-speakers should know the definition of. (I have unlinked "roses", "divorce", "suicide", and many other dictionary words, as well as the seemingly formulaic "singer", "musician", "artist", "activist", etc.).

I ask that editors take the opportunity to support the cleaning up of the "sea of blue" problem to make wikilinking in popular-culture articles work a lot better for our readers. Tony (talk)

Seems like a trivial issue. The infobox looks fine as is. The formatting is OK. There are probably some people who actually find the links useful. It isn't up to us to decide. It can't be a a new rule for just one field. If we are going to do this then we will have to remove the links from every single word inside the infobox. Otherwise no two infoboxes will look alike because no two editors will clean them up the same way. Is anyone here in favour of removing every single linked word from the box? And, if so, is anyone where willing to go through and clean up every single blue link in every single infobox? It is a petty issue. The Real Libs-speak politely 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted

Hello, I am attempting a very ambitious task of trying to compile a list of all notable artists, bands, and musicians from the U.S. The list can be found Here. Any help would be appreciated greatly, - Thanks.  Burningview  ✉ 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, may I ask what purpose this serves that Category:American musicians doesn't? Seems pretty useless considering that we have a category for the exact same purpose. A list of "American musical artists" is so impossibly broad as to be effectively useless. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts -- extra info

For the "associated acts" field in the musical artist infobox, it seems the general practice is to list the associated acts, without any additional information. Recently in a few articles an editor added year information to the associated acts -- see for example the infobox in this article. The documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist doesn't say whether this is allowed or recommended. This "at a glance" year information is potentially useful, but it seems to me that it adds clutter to the infobox, and so should be removed. Also, chronologies can get pretty complicated for some musical artists, which could make things worse in terms of infobox readability. I'd be interested in the opinions of other editors. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the long list of groups he has worked with, the range of years of association for each, makes it clearer which are the more important ones. This isn't a typical situation. I think this list of bands would have had less significance without the years. It was a good choice for this artist. It might not be appropriate or necessary for others, depending on the nature of the association. Anti-disclaimer: I am not an editor on that article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The editor is being bold which isn't a bad thing. I'm suprised that there is nothing about this at Talk:Bob Weir. My initial reaction is go with the consensus decision for individual pages. The editor is a newbie, so some TLC may go a long way to adding a productive editor to our ranks. J04n(talk page) 13:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit belatedly, thanks for the feedback on this question. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing discographies

Would there be any objections to deprecating {{WPMusicians discography}} in favour of a |needs-discography= parameter in {{WPBiography}}? This would remove the need for a seperate template and reduce talk page clutter. I already have a new version of {{WPBiography}} sandboxed which includes this feature, e.g.

Articles would still be added to Category:Musicians work group articles needing discographies as they are now. PC78 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware that {{WPMusicians discography}} existed. The extra parameter you've provided looks way cleaner and easier on the eyes. Therefore, I support deprecating of the aforementioned template for a parameter in {{WPBiography}}. — ξ ^xplicit 16:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here. BNutzer (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In the words of the governator: "Do it! Do it now!" --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done; see below. PC78 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to Template:WPBiography

Please note that priority assessments for this project are now added by using the |musician-priority= parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. In addition, and for this project only, it can be requested that a discography be added to an article by adding |needs-discography= to the banner. For example, {{WPBiography|musician-work-group=yes|needs-discography}} will display:

and add articles to Category:Musicians work group articles needing discographies. Please refer to Template:WPBiography/doc for full instructions on how to use the banner, or feel free to ask any questions on the banner's talk page. PC78 (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Sly & the Family Stone 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Kuts

Unprodded article, is this worth keeping? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Alec Empire

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Alec Empire/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Fall Out Boy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Certifications"

A number of discographies including Radiohead, Arctic Monkeys and Editors have a column in their "Studio albums" section titled "Certifications". In this, there are sources used to classify an album's sales based on music recording sales certifications, and sources are usually used from the BPI or IRMA.

When attempting to open sources from the BPI, I am met with a page titled "Permission Required", simply saying:

Content not found
The article, file or other resource you are looking for can't be found. You can try searching for the material using the search tool.
If you believe this to be a website error then please contact us and we'll have it looked into right away.

I firstly tried using the mentioned "search tool" for an artist I wished to find out about, which brought up no results. Upon being given a "contact us" link, I decided I would bring up my issue here first. I have a number of questions:

• What permission do I need to view this information?
• Does the use of these permitted sites as sources not break a verifiability condition, specified in WP:SOURCEACCESS?
• If this website is being used to source this information, who is sourcing it?

I decided the musicians project would be the most obvious place to ask, as the answers could benefit others. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the bpi website did some restructuring, so all the old urls don't work anymore. I've also seen this recently with the billboard.com citations, where the site designers have successfully killed all the direct links to their site. With a quick Google search for "site:bpi.co.uk certification", I found the new certification search page. All the information (say, from the Radiohead discography) can be found easily, though it doesn't seem to allow direct links anymore, as every search is still on the same "search.aspx" page. —Akrabbim^talk 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this not long after I left the earlier comment, I wonder, does this mean these can still be used as sources? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 05:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the BPI can still be used as a source using the new search page as long as instructions are given to the reader about how to verify the information. I usually put a note at the end of the reference such as "<ref>correctly formatted reference here Note: User needs to enter "xxx" in "yyy" and click search.</ref>" or words to that affect. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that on board for when using that as a source. Thanks! --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru and related articles

The article is in need of attention as it is currently dominated by a raving fan of the singer. It currently features unencyclopaedic content like paragraphs on her impersonators and fans. It also features fantastic claims like "Rotaru earned $100 million in 2007" and "Rotaru was a rapper in the 1970s". The related pages Dusha and Mashina Vremeni include claims on the film Dusha gathering 57 million viewers which is based on the statement of the director of the film who has later admitted spreading rumours of the same kind. The fan also pushes content on Rotaru to the Music of Russia article whereas Rotaru has never considered herself of Russian nationality. It would be nice if anyone could bother to take a look at what is going on at these pages. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Pridgen and the Mars Volta

There has been an edit war at the article for The Mars Volta. The issue is whether drummer Thomas Pridgen has left the group. Based on discussion on Mars Volta forums there has been some kind of dispute, but so far there has been nothing official or even in the news about Pridgen not being in the group. IP addresses and new accounts have been changing the article to make Pridgen a former member without putting comments in their changes or including documentation. I don't really care if he is in the group or not but feel that such changes of fact require proof of some sort, which has not been forthcoming. Any advice? --Beirne (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's settled. --Beirne (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Other Songs" sections in Navbox Musical artist

I have a question about the Navbox Musical artist template. Most of them list released albums and singles, but is there any established consensus towards including an "Other songs" section to these navboxes? This section would be for songs which aren't singles. any thoughts? riffic (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The navbox exists to point to articles. If a song was not issued as a single, it usually isn't notable enough to have an article. I have seen a few cases where navboxes are used to make lists which are not links, but that is improper usage; it's a navigation box to help the reader navigate to other articles. Navbox formatting is very flexible; it doesn't have fixed parameters for "songs", etc. So if you have an exceptional case where an artist has articles for songs that are not singles, you can link to them from the navbox without a need to modify the template. No consensus is needed at a project level for unusual circumstances. If you make the change and it's contested at the article's talk page, it can be discussed there. If you would like an opinion on a particular navbox and articles you want it to point to, let us know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I'm looking for an opinion on a particular usage, but I was also looking to see if this was condoned on a general basis or not. please see Template talk:Lady Gaga for more info. Basically, my argument is from a categorization standpoint, having a section labeled "Other songs" is unmanageable. It creates an arbitrary list without any criteria for inclusion. riffic (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junko Sakurada. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's resolved with a happy outcome. Congratulations! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Interpol band members

So I'm currently assessing notability of the Interpol band members, in what is a run on from the WP:ALT/COTW of Turn On the Bright Lights. Would I be right in saying the following?

• Paul Banks has established notability through his Julian Plenti is... Skyscraper project
• Greg Drudy and Sam Fogarino establish notability through the ol' 2 bands rule being Interpol combined with Hot Cross and Magnetic Morning respectively
  • (Hot Cross's notability (required) established here
  • MM featured in NME, Pitchfork, Rough Trade)
• Carlos D is a famous filmstar
• Daniel Kessler headed Domino America [1] so should be kept
  • slash
• Daniel Kessler should be blanked and redirected to Interpol?

This is just my thoughts, please assess accordingly.... Thanks! ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Natalie, a RS?

Um, I hope I'm asking in the right place. Japanese singer Makoto Kawamoto is making a comeback by releasing an album on February next year. I found out through here: http://natalie.mu/ When searching the singer's name using Google News, this website also came up. Therefore, I want to know whether it's a RS. Samantha Lim88 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has no references whatsoever, so even a non-RS reference is better than nothing! No, it's not a reliable source, but that doesn't mean it can't be used, it just means that it doesn't count as an RS and the article needs more references. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just some extra info, the site Natalie and several others are owned by a company called Natasha (http://natasha.co.jp/index.html). Samantha Lim88 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding Lady Gaga's name

There is a discussion occurring here as to whether the precedent of shortening Lady Gaga's name down to just "Gaga" violates WP:MOS. All users are welcome to contribute. WossOccurring (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR notification

Letting the project know I have opened a good article reassessment for Nelly Furtado. You can read my concerns at Talk:Nelly Furtado/GA1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

External links to official band sites

(Note: this post was reworded 15:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) for clarity) There are some edits being made removing official band sites from the external link section of musician articles as "SPAM", the basis being the link is not to a site specifically for that musician alone, but rather for the entire band that he/she is in. Having explored a bit I'm seeing that although I disagree with the designation of WP:SPAMLINK it may be appropriate to remove them related to WP:ELNO. However, I do not see the issue regarded at either Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/External linking, nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Shouldn't this be delineated in our guidelines? - Steve3849 18:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Post script: My interpretation of WP:ELNO item #13 is if the official band site has a page about the musician it could be externally "deep" linked. - Steve3849 18:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is "not a random collection of information" ("random" is kind of derogatory; we mean to say "comprehensive" or "in-depth"), and "not a reference manual", it is appropriate that we use the external links section to point to websites with more information than what we provide. However, there are many instances where recording artists have a large fan base who have set up many websites, some of which are not too informative, and therefore are indeed spammy. It's hard to make a rule that fairly includes some fan websites and excludes others, so for some artists (Pink Floyd being an example), a rule has been made by WikiProject and/or regular page watchers, that only "official" sites be included. I don't believe this is a universal rule for all musicians, nor should it be.

This rule does have its problems, though. It is my contention that some information, such as long lists of a band's tour dates, does not belong on Wikipedia, because it's detail that only fans (and bootleg record collectors) care to reference. Furthermore, such information is being added to Wikipedia mostly without reference and citation. BUT, this information DOES belong somewhere on the internet, i.e. on fan sites, and we should be pointing to it as a source of "further information". However, we DO have all this tour information on Wikipedia for Pink Floyd, the excuse being that since we're not allowed to link to it at an external site (and there was a fan website set up exclusively to cover this information), the only way to reference it is to copy it all over here as WP content. That's the convoluted situation!

A similar situation is articles with long, long lists of instruments a musician has owned, played, or borrowed, often supported only by "I saw him holding this guitar in a photo, and it looks like this make/model (and I know because I'm an expert)", followed by a flurry of edit warring over the precise colour of the guitar body's shellac finish.

Another problem with "official" sites is that 90% of fan sites call themselves "official"! Still on the subject of Pink Floyd, I was amazed to see not one, but two "official Syd Barrett" sites appear one day on WP, and asked how the heck could such a thing be, when Syd is not only dead, but famously rejected any associations with music since the 1970s (for those who don't know, Syd allegedly went into depression when his career in music was even mentioned), so the idea that he would have sanctioned, let alone been involved with, the creation of a website about his music career is unbelievable, and I doubt his family feels much different. (It does appear that Pink Floyd bandmate David Gilmour may have hosted at least one of these sites, even though there is nothing on the site stating this, nor giving any reason for the site being declared "official", and for that reason the sites were still on the Pink Floyd external links the last time I looked.)

As a solution, I think we should recommend that links to external sites be included where they contain useful information that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The biggest roadblock is that some editors may not like to admit there are limits to the scope of Wikipedia. Regarding the example I gave about lists of instruments, if all that were kept at another website, it would be their problem to sort out what info is properly referenced, and weed out the dubious. Even if their criteria for inclusion is different from what Wikipedia would choose, it doesn't matter. The external sites we link to, don't need to have the same content rules that we do. (In fact, that's the point of linking, instead of adding the information to Wikipedia.) (Except, of course, that we can't link to sites that violate copyright.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fan sites really ought to be limited to well-known and resource intensive sites dedicated to the subject of the article. However, the remainder of this response is staying narrow to my primary concern. Going with the Pink Floyd example: the recent editor who has allegiance with Wiki Project Spam would be making sure that Pink Floyd's official site is not an external link in David Gilmour's wiki article (which BTW it isn't). My point is that this ENLO policy is not written into the guidelines and I'm not sure if Project Musician agrees with the current ENLO interpretation. It appears to me that it would only be okay per ENLO to external link an official band site on a band member's own wikipedia article if the link was a "deep link" straight to the band member's page on that site.

There are many musician's who are primarily members of a band. It seems odd to me that wikipedia policy has been interpreted that their band's official site should not be an external link in their articles. Consequently, I contacted this specific anti-spam editor and he agreed that these particular edits are not actually spam, but that he would continue to delete such links probably under the broader rationale (but only because it was presented as an issue from me). I personally would like to see official band sites in the external link section for single musician's articles who are members of a band. - Steve3849 08:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to re-read your original post; it wasn't clear to me you meant "soloist" when you said "musician". Now I get it. I can see both sides of the situation, based on the "rules" that nothing but official sites are to be included, IF you want to go by that rule. But may I suggest a common sense approach. Ask WHY the external link is being included. Is it because it contains essential information that is not on Wikipedia? If not, there is not much point in including it, regardless of how official it is. And if it does contain important info, it should be included regardless of how unofficial it is. These are the reasons we put external links in Wikipedia. The musicians article rule was put in to deal with a specific problem of fan site spamming, and the consequence is that it goes against the main rationale for having links. It is sometimes helpful to put a little note beside the link stating why you including it, i.e.

• An external link (contains detailed discography, tour dates, list of pets)

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for External Links being used very sparingly, but I agree that it's appropriate to include the official band web site, as well as the musician's own official site, for musicians who are primarily members of bands. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/External linking almost says this already, but not quite: "Articles on performers should have a link to their homepage(s), or other official pages (e.g., the record company's page for that artist, if there is one, or an official fanclub)". Perhaps that could be updated to mention the band's official web site also. "P.S." Looking at the current version of the David Gilmour article, most but not all of those external links should be moved to the References section, per Wikipedia:External links#References and citation: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages and which meets the above criteria." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're rignt. If we were to presume the example I posted ("An external link") were a fan site, it would be best to find a way to use it as a reference to sections in the article that give at least a brief mention to a discography, tour dates, and notable pets. (I was of course kidding about the last one.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So then, do you think it reasonable to replace the band sites to the musician articles??? If so, then I would like to have it in the guidelines that this is okay so that trolling anti-spammers can be redirected to our project's guidelines. - Steve3849 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the ideal criteria for inclusion is the question, "what purpose is this link serving?" As Mudwater pointed out, a link best demonstrates the purpose it serves when it is being used as a reference/citation, and when you use it that way, the link rules are different. The "official website" rules are a protection against fans and anti-fans who want to include or exclude all of a certain class of external sites without regard to their usefulness. Try to rise about that, and ask the other user, as well as yourself, what is the information-related purpose of a link? If you can answer that question, you can forget about the "official site" rule because you are using more important criteria. The guideline you are asking about is for people who can't appreciate this, and even if the guidelines are flawed, I have no interest in updating them, because they serve the purpose for which they are intended: to reduce obvious cases of spam being inserted obliviously. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My original concern was: I merely found it disconcerting that band sites were being removed from musician pages. All of the other things discussed here were not my original concern. - Steve3849 16:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) PS Then are you saying "no" to including the band links, a policy change, or both? - Steve3849 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not a question with a simple yes or no answer, therefore I'm suggesting another way to approach your problem. I don't think my replies have been off topic. I've stated what I would do if I were you, in this situation. But I've also said I don't think a policy change is necessary. There is a longer reply by Wikidemon further down, and he seems to have the same conclusion. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. - Steve3849 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I put up a link to this discussion at talk:Manual of Style and talk:External links to give the other project people a chance to chime in. I'll reiterate my view here as well: I think that official band sites should be included in the external link section of musician articles when that musician is a member of that band. - Steve3849 15:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify my previous post, which made two different points about external links. (1) I do think that, as a general guideline, it's appropriate to include in the External Links section the official band web site, as well as the musician's own official site, for musicians who are primarily members of bands, and I think it would be a good idea to mention this in Mustard/External linking. (2) Links to sites other than the one, or several, web sites of the musician, band, official fan club, etc., should be in the References section, not the External Links section, as per WP:ELNO#References and citation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, popping by from Wikipedia talk:External links, where Steve3849 recently posted a request for wider input. I have edited band and music sites only on occasion, and find them one of the better-organized parts of Wikipedia. Anyway, the above discussion all sounds reasonable. You could add something to the Mustard article, but if it's just to say that deciding on external links is a case-by-case matter that depends on the usefulness and number of links, the quality of the site, etc., that's all in WP:EL already and you want to avoid instruction creep. Best to characterize any addition as an interpretation of how the overall goals of avoiding overlinking, informing the reader, etc., not a music-only sub-guideline. That way when people are following or debating the links on an article they aren't tempted to say "yes, but music is different!" On the specifics, obviously a band's main official site is in most places the way to go. If a band is primarily associated with a single musician or vice-versa it makes sense to use those links too. If a band or its label maintain "official" fan sites, social media sites, etc., at a separate URL or via a service like MySpace, then with some caveats (e.g. the sites contain good additional information, there are not too many of them). And finally, if there are one or two authoritative fansites with high-quality material, that aren't copyvio or slander magnets, or any other mischief, it might make sense on occasion to link to them on a case by case basis. The same goes for bio pages maintained by labels, distributors, tour promoters, corporate sponsors, music schools, and so on (e.g. a jazz artist in residence at a performing arts center may have a sub-page on that center's official website). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry Betts jazz musician unsourced BLP

This information was posted on the page of the article creator, a now-inactive Wikipedian. As Harry Betts is a jazz musician, I thought someone here might be able to find something to help this article. Here are some links to find possible online Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A BLP notice was posted on the talk page of the article's creator, and he was inactive from July 2007 until today, when he has apparently come back! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Green Day

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Collins FAR

I have nominated Phil Collins 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Guto Puw

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Guto Puw/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Basehead GAN

Basehead is a current GAN. Does anyone want to review it? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The role of MUSTARD

WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Contributions are invited to a new discussion on this topic. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "[[WP

Incubation|incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding and fixing unreferenced musician BLPs

As mentioned in the previous section, there's currently a huge discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people about articles that are biographies of living people (BLPs) that don't have any references. Basically, there's quite a few of them, and it seems likely that a lot of them are going to end up deleted, sooner or later, unless references are added. And we don't want that, now do we? So, perhaps some members of WikiProject Musicians would be interested in adding reliable and appropriate references to unreferenced articles about musicians. If so, here's one way to find them:

• Pick a category -- for example, Category:English rock guitarists.
• Go to the Intersection Search tool.
• Leave the first box blank. In the second box, where it says "... and a list of categories...", put your category, without the "Category:" part, on the first line, and put "All unreferenced BLPs" on the second line. The tool will find articles that are in both of these categories.
• Optionally, set the "deep index" number to something other than 0, to also search for articles in sub-categories.
• Click the Query button.

Remember to remove the {{BLP unreferenced}} template from the article after you have added the references, which, obviously, should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks, and have fun. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Elton John

It is a concern that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [2]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. SilkTork *^YES! 10:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GAR notification

I have started a GAR for a article supported by this project, Sugababes. You can read my comments at Talk:Sugababes/GA1; the article will remain on hold for a week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jeff Hanneman

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jeff Hanneman/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bruce Hornsby

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bruce Hornsby/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ray LaMontagne

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Ray LaMontagne/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Natalie Maines

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Natalie Maines/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Nina Simone

Nina Simone has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Dannii Minogue for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bon Scott

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bon Scott/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

a Pop-music question in need of input

there's a discussion going on at the Pop music talk page about whether or not there's consensus to start naming particular artists in the article. more input would be very helpful – thanks! Sssoul (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Tiësto

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as it has been tagged for some time with a number of issues. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have delisted it because of serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Tiësto/GA3. If you disagree with this reassessment please bring it to WP:GAR, otherwise if the outstanding issues are addressed please renominate at WP:GAN. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Billie Jean black sequin jacket

The following article was marked AFD, please give a reassessment of the Billie Jean black sequin jacket article and if possible some feedback. User:DinhoGauch10/Billie Jean black sequin jacket DinhoGauch10 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a follow-up to an AFD discussion (after which the article was deleted), you should point to the discussion, which is here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billie Jean black sequin jacket

I would suggest that on your user page, you explain what has been changed in the article since the AFD, and also ask for help on specific areas that you feel still need improving. You could add a temporary "editor's notes" section to the bottom of the article referring to points raised in the AFD, and state what you have done to address each. If the article hasn't been improved much since AFD, then it's not worth looking at again, because a decision has already been made, and we aren't going to play the role of a higher court overturning a lower court's decision. Good luck with this; for what it's worth, I disagree with the discussion factoring in an assessment as to how much of a "Jackson fan" you and other editors are (and claiming that since you appear to be a fan, this lowers the value of your contributions). They should have been judging the article alone, not the people who wrote it, since they're just guessing. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Editor's Help in creating page for internationally acclaimed drummer Ronnie Vannucci Jr

Hi, I am in the process of drafting a page for Internationally acclaimed drummer Ronnie Vannucci Jr. I would love to get your feedback on this draft to see what changes should be made before it can be posted. Thank you.

Of note (not mentioned in the article) Ronnie Vannucci Jr and the Killers have to date received a combined total of 62 Platinum Awards and 43 Gold Awards and have sold in excess of 15 million records. They have headlined the highest profile festivals in the world including: Glastonbury, Coachella, Reading, Benicassim, T In The Park, Lollapalooza, Hyde Park Hard Rock Calling. And they have appeared on the cover of 43 national magazines in the UK alone, including premier music publications NME (17 times) and Q (4 times). They have also been nominated for 7 grammy awards and won numerous other awards including 3x Best International Band Award(NME Awards) since 2005.

He has personally been a winner in 2 Modern Drummer Polls, Been featured on the cover of at least 3 major drum magazine publications, and been featured in numerous others. All of this has been accomplished because of his unique and skillful drumming style. Ronnie has also helped launch and sign the Mercury Records label signed band Neon Trees who have risen to the top (#1) of the Alternative New Artist chart for national radio play.

The address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie_Vannucci_Jr

Thank you in advance for your expertise and consideration.--Waytagojoe (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waytagojoe (talk • contribs) --Waytagojoe (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been working on bringing Fat Freddy's Drop up to GA-standards, and I'm thinking it might be best to ditch the infobox in this particular article to use a larger group photo in its place. My reasoning is that it

1. is redundant--it just repeats what info is in the 2-paragraph lead and 'Band members' section
2. restricts the size of the group photo
3. awkwardly extends into the first section of the article

Is there consensus about the infobox requirement? I don't want to break any style guidelines you guys have set up.—Sebquantic (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture doesn't have to be in the infobox. You can leave the box with the image parameter left blank, and place the picture elsewhere. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As to your other concerns, (1) repeats info in body of article: it's supposed to; we're always griping about stats in the infobox that aren't in the article! The infobox is supposed to summarize. (2) box extends into article: that too is normal. The only thing I see which needs fixing, is that the picture partly overlaps the title bar (or it does on my browser), which will go away if you take the footnote out of the title bar. It belongs in the article, and I wouldn't make it a footnote; it's probably important enough to mention, though the citation part of it needs to stay (in the article). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like somebody already fixed the footnote. —Sebquantic (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Olivier Messiaen 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Alison Krauss 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Enflo

The notable mathematician Per Enflo is also a concert pianist of regional notability in Sweden and Ohio (which have similar population sizes!). Please provide suggestions for improvement (and flag mistakes) in the section on his piano playing at the end of the article.

A problem is that much of the documentation of his history seems to come from brochures, etc., associated with his performances. Is artist-related sourcing more acceptable for performance artists than for notable academics? Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One of three citations on that section is a New York Times article. The other two, from a concert brochure, seem to be used to support statements of fact rather than opionion or POV, so they are acceptable until other sources can be found. Considering that this is the subject's second career, and he is not a recording artist, the short length of the section and the choice of citations seems adequate. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recording artist?Editor A Knight Who Says Ni noted that Per Enflo's article listed no records. I should add now that Enflo and Popov have recorded 3 cds sold on Amazon, and Enflo and his brothers and a Swedish singer have another CD. It sounds like it is acceptable to list/mention them (only briefly!). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by what the article says, which mentions concerts and radio work, but no CDs. By all means, add them in. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus task force

Hello, a proposal was made a while ago to start a new wikiproject for Miley Cyrus-related topics. It has been suggested since that a task force of this project would be a better idea. So here I come, on behalf of User:Ipodnano05 to see if you guys would allow us to set up a task force as a subpage of this project. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

living=yes for articles about musical groups

If I remember correctly, there has been a recommendation/consensus here to mark band articles as BLP as long as at least one band member is still among the living. I can't find it in the template documentation/talk archives. Can anyone confirm / disconfirm this? Thanks, BNutzer (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a few days to reply; I presumed someone else would have the answer by now! I found a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 21#Are Groups of Persons Covered?. The consensus was against the idea (BLP is intended to cover individuals, not groups), but also pointed out that BLP does not just cover articles about individuals, but any mention of indivduals in any article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In April 2009 a bot was adding BLP information to a lot of band articles. Examples: [3] [4]. Maybe the bot owner could be asked to explain where he got the idea from? – IbLeo ^(talk) 13:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, April 2009 was when the archived discussion took place. I've left a question at the bot's talk page, directing him/her/it to this discussion. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am Yobot's owner. The story has as follows. Musical groups and bands are part of WPBiography. Secondly, in a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons we concluded that all articles must be tagged with the |living=. Then the question raised: What we do with musical bands? We decided that bands should be treated exactly like groups of people (for example duos). We tag them with living=yes if at least one member of the group is still alive. I hope I helped you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion, A Knight Who Says Ni - and thanks for your point of view (of the same discussion apparently), Magioladitis. My impression of the discussion is "no consensus", and my conclusion is: I will continue to mark articles about bands with at least one living member as BLP, because I think the notice on the talk page can prevent problems for Wikipedia. I am aware that this may cause such articles to be tagged as {{unreferencedBLP}} - maybe this speeds up the addition of references ;) I should use {{Blpo}} instead. BNutzer (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We can initiate a discussion if you want. Until now we use blp instead of blpo because pages about bands heavily involve living people. Usually they are the biographies of their members. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that everyone involved would be much happier and their lives made easier if

• This project were not a part of WPBiography
• Band members' biographies were not included in the Band's article
• This project had a Biography work-group

If this project were not a part of WPBiography it could have its own standards for articles' inclusion in the encyclopedia. The notability standards would not have to be the standards for WPBiography.

If each band member had his or her own article and the article was not included in the band's article, there would be no BLP issue. I am assuming that all the articles are thoroughly sourced and references are provided in all the articles.

If this project had a Biography work-group then there may be an editor who would be willing and able to update all the relevant articles when the editor learns of the death of a musician.

Just a few thoughts. JimCubb (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would make life easier, since the question appears to be asking whether or not it's proper to be manually adding or removing living=yes from articles, and the answer (from the BLP discussion page) is it's not necessary to have it, but it's also not a problem when we find articles where it has been added already, therefore it doesn't matter whether it's added or removed. The BLP project has bots that do tagging automatically (whether it's needed or not), so I don't see the need to set up a separate project to duplicate this work. Although we have questioned why bots are doing work on articles on bands, I don't believe anyone has objected to it so far, nor has anyone previously objected to this project being under the umbrella of WPBiography.

As for the statement, "Band members' biographies (should not be) included in the Band's article", this goes against advice in most cases; see the paragraph in italics at the bottom of WP:BAND.

As for the statement, "I am assuming that all the articles are thoroughly sourced and references are provided in all the articles", you gotta be kidding. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bogmen

I don't think The Bogmen meets WP:BAND. Opinions? Woogee (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the meet WP:BAND#5 to me - two or more albums on a major label. --JD554 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with JD554, but also note there is no explanation for the 4 associated acts in the infobox. Only one of them is mentioned in the article, and if that's the only connection, it's not an associated act. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 2832 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. If you know of any of your sub-projects or task forces that aren't already listed on those sign-up pages, but are likely to have UBLPs, then please add them or send me a message to add them to the lists.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just want to thank you all for such a great effort over the past week - you are Number 1 with a bullet on the list of most done in the last week! To make it easier to keep it going I've also set up some sub-lists, based on the subprojects that you already have set up. Some of these are still redlinks, but should be created tomorrow when the Bot runs again.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Industrial/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Theory/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/New unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Reggae/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music/Unreferenced BLPs
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Unreferenced BLPs

Thanks again to everyone who's helped out, especially from the Metal and Opera groups - they've done a fantastic job. The-Pope (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Musicians/Navbox

I have recently been doing some work off-Wiki on the Rolling Stones, and using - of course - Wikipedia as one of my sources. In the course of looking at the articles over the past few days I have noticed that the nax box is unweildy, and against guidance for navigation templates. The Rolling Stones template was put into collapsible sections, but this was undone as the person wanted to use a Project template. I have started a discussion on this on the talkpage, and pointed out that Wikipedia:Navigation templates gives various ways of handling large nav boxes, including using collapsible sections. It gives Johnny Cash as an example of best practice. However, the current Template:Johnny Cash follows a template created by this project, which doesn't use collapsible sections. The choice now is to:

1. Follow consensus and guidance and use a standard collapsible nav box
2. Use this Project's navbox which produces non-collapsible nav boxes
3. Adjust this Project's navbox to take collapsible sections

I would favour option 3, and bring the Project's navboxes in line with Wikipedia:Navigation templates, and make them more user friendly. SilkTork *^YES! 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Current and former members of bands

There seems to be a rather ridiculous presentist bias to the band infoboxes, where the present members, even of bands whose heyday was decades ago, are privileged over the classic line-ups of bands. Thus, for The Temptations we list Otis Williams and a bunch of quasi-famous replacement dudes, the longest-tenured of whom came in in the early 80s, long after the Temptations had stopped being especially relevant, as the "Members," while relegating people like David Ruffin and Eddie Kendrick to a longer, and harder to read, "Former members" section. The situation is even worse for The Allman Brothers Band, where the former members aren't listed in the infobox, meaning that key original members like Duane Allman and Dickey Betts don't appear in the infobox at all, but, again, a number of quasi-famous latter day members do. This seems pretty ridiculous. Nobody except fanatics really cares who the members of oldies circuit bands are, and the main list of members of a band should not be a list of one or two original members and a bunch of obscure session guys nobody's really heard of. The infobox, which ought to serve as a quick intro for people who don't have time to read the full article, should focus on bands' memberships during their period of greatest artistic and commercial success, as determined by reliable sources, not whoever happens to be in those bands in 2010. john k (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Would you rename the section 'Classic members' or 'Notable members' or something along those lines?...Followed by 'Current members' and then finally "Former members'.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As if that wouldn't lead to endless POV wars... The infobox is a place for plain, simple facts. Who is in the group now, and who was in the group in the past is a simple matter of facts, and easily verified. Who are the "classic" or "most notable" members is not a simple matter of verifiable fact, and not an appropriate distinction to be making in the infobox. It requires context and explanation that can only be properly provided in the article body. John Kenney, the infobox is not meant to be "a quick intro for people who don't have time to read the full article". That's what the lead section is for. The infobox is a summation of basic biographical information, drawn from the body of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't think that Betts's and Duane Allman's involvement with the Allman Brothers is part of that bands "basic biographical information"? As for POV issues, I suppose. The current infoboxes, however, suffer from severe due weight issues. And for most bands, at least, there's perfectly easy objective ways to include the original members - you can have a box for "original members" or something. (Obviously, that wouldn't work for every group, but it'd eliminate the problem for a lot of them, especially if you define that to mean members at the time the band first began making records, rather than original members of the high school garage band that developed into the famous band). Then you could have "current members", and also have "other members" for people who came in and left, or who were members of primitive proto-versions of the band. john k (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, these kind of notions of NPOV where we can't use anything that requires judgment are pretty ridiculous. You don't think that just about any reliable secondary source on the Allman Brothers isn't going to talk way more about Allman and Betts than they do about Marc Quinones and Oteil Burbridge? Or that reliable secondary sources about the Temptations aren't going to spend a lot more time on David Ruffin and Eddie Kendrick than they do on Bruce Williamson and Joe Herndon? john k (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Allman Brothers, as you pointed out, the infobox isn't making proper use of the "former members" list. That's a problem with one article, not with the instructions on how to use the infobox. You could fix it without breaking the rules, but first consider that a link to the "members" section was probably used as a replacement for a list because of the large number of members, and listing them all may not be too useful for readers, and would not highlight those who were the original or "important" members in your opinion. Regarding your suggested change which you say "wouldn't work for every group" (but would presumably work for many), I would suggest that reasoning was what led to the current standard: there are many bands for which the current line-up is a significant one, and the list of original members would be of lesser importance to the band's career as a whole. I don't see any "one size fits all" solution, and I don't think we can assess the current standards based on a couple of articles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in the first place, it is absurd to say it is "my opinion" that Dickey Betts and Duane Allman were among the most significant members of the Allman Brothers Band. This is a consensus opinion that you'll find in any reliable source. I agree with you that there is no "one size fits all" solution, but the current situation is more or less an attempt to impose one - and as you can see, IllaZilla below is basically saying we have to impose a one size fits all solution. At any rate, my proposal would involve listing both current members and original members, which seems like it would, in fact, be less of a one size fits all solution - for some bands the original lineup is more significant; for others the current lineup; for still others each have significant people who didn't figure into the other; and obviously, for some others there'll still be important people missing. But you'll be decreasing the number of bands who are ill-served by the infobox. john k (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

John, what I'm saying is that the infobox isn't the place for weight of any kind. That's why we separate very objectively into just 2 groups: current members and former members. If there's a "most notable" lineup, then those persons should be mentioned in the article's lead section. A simple list of names, separated by "current" and "former", is totally objective and does not have due weight issues. Of course Bett' and Allman's involvement is part of the band's basic bio, but they're mentioned in the second sentence of the lead and, as Knight points out, would be at the top of a "former members" list if the editors of that article hadn't decided to exclude former member from the infobox. The examples you give, of classic and oldies groups, don't represent the majority of cases either. For most of the articles I work on (mainly punk, alternative, and independent groups), figuring out a "most notable" lineup would be pretty difficult, and the original recording lineup isn't always the most well-known: take Government Issue, the Descendents, the Ramones, Black Flag, or Bad Religion as examples. Or for more famous examples, how about Kiss, Black Sabbath, or Metallica? Each of those have had past lineups that could be considered as notable or even more notable than the original or current one. Trying to separate by "original members", "most famous members", "current members", and "other members" would become a huge hassle real fast, and would ultimately just serve to clutter infoboxes further. Current vs. Former is a rather black-and-white distinction, doesn't exclude anyone, and in my opinion is the most neutral method of presentation. The place to use judgment in summarizing the most notable members is in the lead. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla - yes, it is objective to state who is a current member and who is a former member. But it is obviously a question of judgment to say that this is the only information that should appear in the infobox. There are any number of other objective ways to divide up members - original members vs. later members; living members vs. dead members; American members vs. British members. I'm not sure any particular reason that every band should have its membership divided based on current/former members. And note that this is also not always completely clear. What do we do in cases where a band has effectively broken up, but one original member carries on using the name despite the opposition of others? How do we determine if a band is still active? If a band hasn't released a new studio album in 20 years, does it really make sense to list the "current" lineup if it is significantly different from the lineup when the band was actually making new albums? These are all subjects on which editors have to exercise discretion; it is wishful thinking to think that the current set-up is completely objective. It's certainly true that for many bands, neither original nor current line-up gives a good approximation of the "classic" lineup. Probably discretion should be used so that the "main lineup" given is whichever of those is more representative, with, if you like "current lineup" having the edge in cases of currently existing bands. But what's really needed here is a greater ability to make independent judgments on a case by case basis, not firm rules that can be misleading. john k (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we're discussing the infobox specifically, I'm going to post a note on the infobox talk page to get more opinions over here. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like a good idea. BTW, one source that could potentially be used to determine "classic" line-ups is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which will only induct some members of bands with frequent personnel changes. For the Allman Brothers Band, for instance, it only inducted the original members; for the Temptations, it inducted the original five, as well as Dennis Edwards. It's a fairly good source for what the consensus is on these issues. john k (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Scuse me for being picky over terminology, but "consensus" at Wikipedia means decisions resulting from discussions that have taken place here at Wikipedia. What you're referring to is "reliable sources" (or perhaps "authoritative sources" would be a better term). There are many cases where consensus at Wikipedia has rejected the standards of external sources. Not that I'm disagreeing with your particular examples, but as a generalization, we have to be careful and rethink everything, because even the "authorities" can be guilty of POV and COI. Especially considering that the music business is the promotional machine that it is. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" is an English word, which means what it means. There is a consensus among reliable sources, I think, that Dickey Betts and Duane Allman are among the more important members of the ABB, and that Marc Quinones and Oteil Burbridge are not. That is reflected in virtually all writing about the band, in the R&R HoF's inductions, and so forth. That there is a wikipedia-specific meaning of "consensus" that is distinct doesn't really change that. My wording should perhaps have been more careful, but I think my point still stands. At any rate, on what possible basis can "consensus at Wikipedia" reject "the standards of external sources"? That seems to me to come pretty close to OR. If all the reliable sources available say something, on what basis does Wikipedia reject it without engaging in original research? Obviously these things need to be looked at on a case by case basis - but that's exactly the point. The current set-up is basically - "well, there's tons of former members of the Allman Brothers Band, and our policy is to never make any judgments whatever about relative importance, so obviously we can't use the infobox to indicate that Duane Allman is more important to the band than Jimmy Herring, because we don't do that." That's a disservice to readers based on nothing more than a dogmatic rule. My basic point is that the infoboxes should have more flexibility so that we can use them to indicate, on a case by case basis, decided at each individual article and based on reliable sources, who the most important members are. john k (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

←Just looking quickly at this discussion and looking at the infobox - the problem with the presentation of information to the reader who wants to learn about a band lies in the use of "current" and "former' band members. The reader should obtain an understanding of who the ORIGINAL band members were or SIGNIFICANT band members of a certain period were. That is the important information to convey, and it is a matter of appropriate word choice in the list heading. If current infobox rules don't support the provision of accurate information to the reading public, the rules need to be modified to allow for that. After all, what is important in an encyclopedia but the provision of information in a manner by which the readers will obtain accurate information? It just might be appropriate to list original band members first under the heading "Original band members" and then follow on from that list as may be applicable for each particular band. In reference to The Allman Brothers Band infobox, the current listing does not convey to the reader that two brothers started the band. That's an extremely significant miscommunication to the reader. Doc2234 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The infobox isn't really equipped to provide the level of context you're suggesting, IMO. Distinctions like "who the significant band members of a certain period were" can only be adequately explained & contextualized in the lead or article body. For The Allman Brothers, I would expect the fact that the band was founded by 2 brothers named Allman to be stated right in the lead sentence (it's in the second sentence at the moment). It's not that it isn't important information to convey, it's that we don't expect or rely on the infobox to stand on its own and convey all the pertinent information about an artist. We expect our readers to actually read the articles if they want information with some level of depth to it. The infobox is merely a summary list of facts & names; a good article should be able to go without one altogether (some projects, such as classical music, have chosen this route; I believe there's some value to infoboxes but I think some editors place way too much weight on them). As mentioned above, for many acts (at least in the genres areas I tend to edit) the "original" members often aren't the most significant. Then of course some members might be original, but also part of a significant lineup in a certain era, and could also be current or former; there's going to be overlap that the box just isn't equipped to compensate for. As Knight said earlier, it seems as if The Allman Brothers Band article is being held up here as the example which shows the "rules" are flawed and project-wide practice must change; but there's never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and just 1 or 2 examples where the current standard maybe doesn't lend itself to the best presentation doesn't mean we need project-wide change. This is a problem that could easily be fixed by editing in the Allman Bros. article itself (which currently doesn't make proper use of the "former members" field). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the infobox is not equipped to provide that level of context, and it is my view that if the infobox programming provided a few available list headings, such as "Original band members", to choose from, the problem would be cleared up. Yes, definitely, the infobox should remain brief, however, the information in the infobox should not either conflict with or even shade the information that is presented in the body of the page. The reader has a choice of what to look at. The infobox may be all a reader has time for. The Allman Brothers Band page just happens to be a good example of the problem, however, I'm experiencing a similar problem with Missing Persons. Not all of the former Missing Persons members listed were original members; (the three members at the bottom of the list played in band reunions when the original members were not available to participate) and that could confuse the reader. Is there some way that we could have the infobox program revised so that it could be a little more flexible? Doc2234 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can modify the infobox, as far as I'm aware, and I agree that having a category for "Original members" would be the best way around. If that were there, then case by case judgments can be made about what's appropriate for any individual article. john k (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox coding is edit protected to prevent changes that have not been approved by consensus (read the article if you're not aware of how the word is used at Wikipedia). Illazilla has raised the issue that adding options like this would likely lead to POV edit wars, and based on what we have seen in the past, this is a very real possibility. Doc raised the issue that "original members" would not be appropriate for an article he is working on, and he would like to see even more options, and you replied, "I agree that having a category for 'Original members' would be the best way around", even though he was not agreeing with just that proposal. Regarding Doc's assertion that an infobox may be confusing to the reader if that's all the reader looks at, I don't see why this would be, if the headings match the list of names. Neither "current members" nor "former members" implies "most classic lineup" - which, I suspect, is what both of you really want to see here, and something that really would lead to POV edit wars. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Doc did not in fact say that "original members" would not be appropriate. Where are you getting that from? At any rate, My original suggestion was to have "original members", "current members" and "other former members," or something similar. This doesn't lead to any POV questions. It may still lead to unsatisfactory results in some cases, but would reduce the number of infoboxes where this is the case, especially if we define "original" to mean band members at the time of first released recording, rather than formation. To insist that "current members" is distinctly important for all bands is itself presentist POV - for many significant bands the current membership is close to non-notable. For an even worse example than Allman Brothers Band, see Guns N' Roses, which lists the current obscure line-up of the Axl Rose-fronted band, and consigns Izzy Stradlin, Slash, and the rest of the members anybody has ever heard of to another article entirely. (They also aren't mentioned in the intro!) The current format seems to encourage this kind of thing.

Anyway, I'm willing to use "original members" as the criteria as a compromise so as not to bring up the supposed POV issues you guys are warning about. I do think that, in an ideal world, letting editors use judgment and discretion to determine the "classic lineup" would be the best solution. Let me be blunt here. When I look up an article about the Allman Brothers Band, I want to know who was in the band in 1970; when I look up an article about Guns N' Roses, I want to know who was in the band in 1987; when I look at an article on the Temptations, I want to know who was in the band in 1965. I don't care who is in some current incarnation of unquestionably lesser historical importance (which goes for all these bands, however much one likes Chinese Democracy or later ABB outings.) I think that the vast majority of readers would agree with me on this. And I don't foresee a great deal of difficulty in determining this for the vast majority of bands. More complicated situations where it's hard to say there was only one "classic" lineup could be dealt with by editors knowledgeable about that band. If POV pushers come in and insist on nonsense and won't stop in the face of consensus against them, they should lose editing privileges. Basically, this should operate more in the way wikipedia in general does, without the imposition of one size fits all bureaucratic rules. If we must insist on the latter, though, including "original members" would generally remove a lot of the problems, at least. john k (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above. My concern even extends to The Beatles infobox where the classic line-up is listed as Members, and earlier members are listed as Former Members. So my thoughts are that the infobox program would include certain list headings that if not populated would not show, as list headings are currently programmed not to show if information is not entered.

The list headings that appear to be of value include Original Members (for historical reference), Classic Line-up (or similar name for most notable period), Other members (to list additional members whether less notable or used for brief fill-ins etc.), and Current Members (to provide information to the reader who will want to know who is currently performing at concerts, etc.) One may pose that there could be dickering over where certain band members may fit, however despite any potential edit wars, the overall accuracy of the infobox lists could in my opinion improve significantly. How would we proceed, if proposing revisions to the infobox template would be agreed upon? Doc2234 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still interested in working to make the infobox more versatile by adding a couple of additional optional list headings in addition to Current band members and Former band members. Is there interest in revising the template? Doc2234 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox?

This is probably not where I should ask, but is there a reason why Japanese celebrities have their names in both English and Japanese in the yellow strip of infobox, while Chinese and Korean celebrities only have English? See Jay Chou, Tang Wei, Zhang Ziyi; they all are only in English. 75.5.8.136 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki, Namie Amuro, Utada Hikaru -- all using both ENGLISH and JAPANESE names. Granted most of them retained mere Romanizations but the same could be said for Tang and Zhang as many Chinese celebrities just use Pinyin names. Pretty much every Japanese celebrity I saw on a Wiki article has both language names while the rest are just English. 75.5.8.136 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is a basic "at-a-glance" summary of the article, and doesn't need to include detailed information. I see no reason to include names in Japanese characters on English Wikipedia. The answer to your question is that editors of articles on Japanese subjects have got into a habit of using a different standard. Most editors build a new article by copying what they see in similar articles, so it's not unusual for certain genres of articles to go off on their own standard. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cary Brothers

Could someone please swing by Cary Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and fix it up so it looks a bit less like it was written by his PR, so the maintenance tags can come off? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally identifiable information in infobox and Personal life sections, living artists

With identity theft currently affecting so many people, what is our policy concerning inclusion of potentially sensitive information on the pages of living musicians? The issue concerns the publication of exact birth dates, childrens' names and other personal information, and also parents' names with the possible divulgence of mothers' maiden names. Can we forego inserting the above information if the subject of an article would prefer not to have that information revealed? (such as - Can we just list a year for the birth date?) Doc2234 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it would make much difference because all out information come from third party sources, so the dates of birth, for example, of a notable artist would likely be widely published. Besides, if I applied for a loan as Brad Pitt, I dare say the bank might want a little more information that his DOB and mother's maiden name! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So long as the info is reliably sourced, there is no problem. For most high-profile artists, most of the info you are worried about (birth dates, maiden names, kids' names) has been published by numerous magazines and in biographies, books, etc...to the extent that it's a matter of public record. So long as we cite our sources, we are not contributing to (or making easier) any potential attempted identity theft. Birth dates and names of parents are hardly "potentially sensitive information", anyway. Now, if we were publishing social security numbers, that'd be a problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable source would be important - to show that the information has been made available to the public. Security briefings that I have attended do point out that the information such as birth date, mother's maiden name, childrens' names, etc. when collectively compiled can present a security risk to the individual. So I think it is a matter of careful consideration and thoughtful discretion when we upload that information. Is there a written policy about this in Wikipedia? Doc2234 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP covers it in the sections WP:DOB and WP:BLPNAME. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That does cover it. Thank you. Doc2234 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Amén –formerly Amen (band of Peru)

I could use a little help on this article if any of you have some time. I don't believe that the author's first language is English and the article has all sorts of issues that I won't be able to address myself. I've tagged the article to draw attention to the issues but the author has removed them twice now. Any help would be appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 17:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Right now it's a redlink. Did the original author keep a user subpage version? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's back under a rename, heading of this section changed. An editor has added references, but they are not connected to prose. A Spanish speaking editor would be needed to fix it. Or we could explain to the current editors what's needed, but I think even for that task, a Spanish speaking editor would be best. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I put some suggestions on the article's talk page, but I don't think I can help further. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Vulpes (band)

This could use some help. Makes some claim to notability, but needs better sourcing. Part of the problem is language-related, as possible references are in Spanish. Any bilingual music experts? JNW (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis (band)'s FAR

I have nominated Genesis (band) 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability - Stevo Maido

I have just restored this article about an Australian band which I had speedied, because the author claimed that this paragraph showed they pass WP:BAND:

Prior to the release, Stevo Maido had three singles from the album in high-rotation on Triple J. Fear Of The Light debuted at number one on the AIR Chart for Independent Label through Independent Distribution and number five for Independent Label through any Distribution. Following the success of the album, the group was labelled the AIR Mover of the Week on 24 March 2010.

I have my doubts, because Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL turns up nothing but Facebook and Twitter. My question here is, how significant are Triple J and the AIR chart? If sources are produced to confirm those claims, does that satisfy WP:BAND #9 and #11? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW I think you meant 2 & 11, 9 is a major music competition. You were right to restore it and I agree that the notability is questionable. I think Triple J qualifies for 11 and AIR Charts for 2 but that's my opinion (assuming a reliable source is found). Send it to AfD and let the community decide. J04n(talk page) 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He actually claimed to pass 4, 9 and 11; I supposed he meant "AIR mover of the week" as the competition. Thanks, anyway; I'll wait for his response about sources, and then probably go to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rate

Could someone rate Good Time (Brazilian Girls song), Thanks! Antoinefcb (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

New image of 50 Cent

I added a new image (well, technically from 2008) of 50 Cent to his article a few weeks ago, but it was removed, as an editor didn't believe it was of Jackson. The image in question is File:50Cent08TIFF.jpg. Although I was also skeptical, the author of the image has stated Jackson was at the film festival due to his role in Righteous Kill. He pointed me to a similar close-up image of him, and if you look at the small marks on his right cheek (there's a black dot about an inch to the left of his right eye, and then another larger one an inch below that) in this image and compare it to this one, you'll see that they match. He definitely doesn't look like his other images since the lighting is different, he's looking at the camera, and is clean-shaven (maybe to avoid recognition from fans to-and-from the event). Can others please weigh in to help determine if it is Jackson, and if I'm not the only one who sees it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editing Calypso musicians

Hi

I am concerned that a user - Howie Bledsoe - is editing articles and not listening to advice. I tried to help him by copyediting one article for him, Lovey's String Band, put the refs in properly and left a note on his talk page User talk:Howie Bledsoe#Editing with advice on how to improve his edits.

I have told him that he needs to check his edits as there have been many cases of him incorrectly adding carriage returns and spaces. This is resulting in articles wiht 6 or 7 paragraphs ending up being one huge paragraph such as Calypso music(where the lead summary is now longer than the article itself) Wilmoth Houdini, Blake Alphonso Higgs, Lionel Belasco, Harry Belafonte#Film career and Lionel Belasco.

You also now have a List of calypso musicians that is peppered with red links introduced mainly by him.

He is also refusing to add edit summaries, in the around 100 edits he has done there is NOT ONE summary

Can someone have a look at his work please before this gets out of hand.

He is a new user and I am trying to give him leeway before starting more vigourous methods of control

(I have also posted this on the Calypso portal and the WikiProject Caribbean)

Thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Project leader

Project leader Heaven's Wrath (talk · contribs) hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since 2008, so I will be bold and take over. Hekerui (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

? Somebody needs to look at all these edits

Ozzy is getting bombarded with edits, I don't know enough to go through and make any needed corrections. But somebody needs to look. Mlpearc powwow 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield GA Review

A GA Review of the Dusty Springfield article for which this project has a talkpage tag has started and is on hold to allow improvements to be made. Please go to Talk:Dusty Springfield/GA1 to see fuller comments. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Barobax

hello everyone, plz take a look at Barobax and join the Afd disscution. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion over, article was kept. Hekerui (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group

(I would very much like to see this added as a rule to the music MOS, but feel like I should gain a consensus before doing so. I will most likely open up a vote on this issue after I have a chance to see what reaction - if any - comes from my edits. If there currently is an official stance already posted somewhere, PLEASE let me know. Since Brit Eng follows a different standard on this issue than other languages, for now all edits will be confined to NON-British musical groups.)

I will be systematically going through and editing every single article that uses the plural forms of passive verbs when referring to bands. (i.e. - "The Killers are an American rock band" "The Moldy Peaches were an indie group") I'm not sure why this glaring error is something that has been used only for musical groups, but it is most assuredly incorrect. A band is a single unit - when talking about a band, in any tense, the singular form should always be used. Were we to be talking about themembers of the band collectivelly (i.e. - "Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward are the comprising members of the band She & Him") then it would be appropriate to use the plural forms of verbs, pronouns, etc... For further clarification, take the article on the United Nations. While the UN is made of of a large number of individual countries, the organization known as the United Nations is one single thing. So the article (correctly) states "The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN)is an international organization..."

(For a simpler way of looking at it, try replacing this band's name with the term "this band" - "The Killers are a band..." "This band are a band..." Obviously, the singular form should be used: "This Band is a band..." "The Killers is a band..." I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it. Obviously, there are a lot of articles out there which need this kind of editing and it will take a long time for me to do so by myself. Feel free to pitch in and make alterations anytime you see this plural/singluar error. Send any questions, comments or objections to my talk page. (This entire text will be copied verbatim into the talk page of evey band article I correct.) ocrasaroon| ^{blah blah blah} 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

• Note: Please make replies at the main discussion thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead sections for bands whose names don't include a definite article

Tell me the leads to Transplants (band), Talking Heads, Foo Fighters, or Yeah Yeah Yeahs (to name a few) don't sound goofy as hell when you actually read them. Contrast that with the leads to Eagles (band) or Pixies (an FA), which sound much more like something a person who knows the English language would actually say. I'm not arguing that the pages should be moved, and I really don't think I'm arguing for informality or anything that's substandard. You wouldn't say "Barack Obama is the President of United States," would you? Neither would we as a project. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Without looking at the histories of the articles I suspect your point is of much contention. The singular verbs after Talking Heads and Foo Fighters are (is?) even more awkward in my opinion. So, yes I agree the missing articles sound odd when read. J04n(talk page) 02:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sanders (musician)

Please could others look in on the AfD above. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the page was uploaded to live status without going through Articles for Creation. In this particular case, it is my opinion that that step would have prevented the current situation where an article that is not written from a neutral point of view, does not establish notability in conformance with the guidelines, and is not well referenced, is live. If an editor could possibly work with VancoD to lend a guiding hand, that could possibly result in improving the articfle and saving it from deletion. The article needs attention.

One major concern that I have about deleting the article is that Chris Sanders and some of his fan base may know that his page exists. If the page disappears for reasons of lack of notability, the result could possibly harm Wikipedia's reputation. Although I am not into metal, my quick survey has given me reason to believe that the Wikipedia article has not captured or adequately explained notability that exists. Chris Sanders has manufacturer endorsements, and that represents a measure of notability in the marketplace. There should be suitable references, for use in Wikipedia, behind what created the platform for those endorsements.

I don't know if an experienced editor who has a little bit of time could possibly contact VancoD to help with improving the page, but that may be easier than someone coming in cold and performing the amount of research and devoting the time required to bring the article quality up to an acceptable level. Doc2234 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In what context are links to youtube music videos appropriate?

Sound clips are used quite often in articles. Music videos are a significant creative element as part of the overall art that musicians create. Under what circumstances can links to music videos be incorporated into articles? Is there detailed guidance on the use of music videos? Doc2234 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean as external links, then links to youtube should be OK but only if they are to the official channel of the artist or record label. For example Devo has their own youtube channel where they put up their own content and music videos. Most user-uploaded music videos on youtube are copyvio and shouldn't be linked, but a lot of artists and labels have these official "channels" there that should be fine to link since we know that they are not copyvio. I generally prefer, however, to link to music videos on the artist's official website or in MTV's archive. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see there being no problem as external links. I was also thinking of using them in a similar manner as the audio files that appear on the Frank Zappa page are used, more as an alternative to photos. Would there be a problem with that; could that be worked out? Doc2234 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that I don't know. I've had some experience with audio files, but none with video. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like the external video linked in John Mayer? That article uses the {{External media}} template to link to a legit YouTube video. Hekerui (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Like that! The artists typically make a substantial investment in music videos, and some of the videos have played a significant role in the development of that art form; or they may even play a significant role, in addition to the music, in defining the artists, themselves. I wish, somehow, that we could get the clip to read as a still at the beginning of the video, but to see a clip available in this form is great for the time being. Thank you for taking care to show the use of the music video in a featured article, just as I had shown the use of the audio clips in another featured article! Doc2234 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Influences

I propose that we add a band or solo artists influence and the acts they influenced into an artist's infobox the way it's done to writers, philosophers, and comedians. This would show the flow in the history of music and make the article more informative. I really want this to be done, so please consider this proposal. Thanks Sbrianhicks (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The place to propose this would be at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, but it's been suggested & shot down in the past & I guarantee it would be again. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Discography - what to include

I know this has probably been covered before, but I can't find it. If you have an artist who has