Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Member Section Standards proposal.

I would like to propose that instead of listing members on the member sections by when the joined, we should list by instrument. In the order of: Vocals, Lead Guitar, Rhythm Guitar, (Guitar if there is only one), Bass, Drums, Keyboards then any other instruments after that. If they have repeats such as two keyboardist then the most recent would go first. It would only affect the current member list, where former members can be listed by year left. What do you think? There is an example below. (Timeline was left out of my example to save space and so the main point of this discussion is focused on. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Members

Current

Craig Mabbitt – lead vocals (2008–present)

Kevin "Thrasher" Gruft – lead guitar, backing vocals (2013–present), bass guitar (2015–present)

Thomas "TJ" Bell – rhythm guitar, vocals (2013–present), bass guitar, vocals (2012–2013; 2015–present)

Robert Ortiz – drums, percussion (2004–present)

Current touring musicians

Max Georgiev – bass guitar, backing vocals (2015–present)

Former

Carson Allen – keyboards, synthesizers, vocals (2005–2006)

Omar Espinosa – rhythm guitar, backing vocals (2004–2007)

Ronnie Radke – lead vocals (2004–2008)

Monte Money – lead guitar, backing vocals (2004–2013), keyboards, synthesizers (2008–2013)

Michael Money – rhythm guitar (2012–2013)

Max Green – bass guitar, vocals (2004–2012; 2013–2014)

Former touring musicians

Zakk Sandler – bass guitar, backing vocals (2011)

Davey Richmond – bass guitar (2014)

Alex Torres – bass guitar (2014; 2015)

Tyler Burgess – bass guitar (2015)

Personally, I disagree. This leads to endless arguments and edit warring over the ordering. The problem is that when they are listed by instrument, it tends to give some sense of importance to the members that are listed highest. When listed by date then alphabetically, it presents a more unbiased and always consistent ordering. The reason we list them in the order we do is to cluster to better show transitions. I don't see what we would really gain by ordering them this way. Please feel free to elaborate on a reason for your proposal. — DLManiac (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with DLManiac. Wikiepdia is to be edited from a neutral point of view. Arranging members chronologically/alphabetically is a completely neutral, unbiased and fair way to present band members. As DLManiac points out, always having the vocalist at the top suggests this member is more important, which is a non-neutral way to edit and seems to show preferential treatment to one role over another. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Now that you put it like that I totally agree with you guys. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Bummer. I go to work and I don't even get a say. I agree with DLManiac though.

Did we ever come to consensus on timelines? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

PR

Lady Gaga is currently up for a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Lady Gaga/archive4. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review input requested for Michael Laucke

Hi. Please join in the peer review of Michael Laucke. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh my. Fan cruft and promotional. I fixed a bit of it, but it needs more critical eyes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting Checkingfax asked for peer review. I made multiple edits, all with links to appropriate guidelines or appeals to template documentation, and they were all reverted in a single edited: "Reverted good faith edits by Walter Görlitz (talk): I will put back some of your changes, but most are unnecessary." Sorry most were necessary and the subsequent edits did not remove any of the WP:OVERLINKs to common terms, etc. and did not fix formatting of the infobox or abuse of {{nbsp}} and issues with linking or lack of specific sources to address the grand claims. It certainly did not address the promotional nature of the article or address teh fan cruft that exists. May I suggest that project members review the article? The editor who requested the review has made it a goal to make the article achieve GA. Let's help the editor achieve this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding Navbox musical artist

I've made a suggestion regarding Template:Navbox musical artist. Input would be appreciated at Template talk:Navbox musical artist#Add an editing notice?. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

ReverbNation vs. AllMusic and Discogs

Hello. ReverbNation artists pages are creates and manage by ReverbNation stuff like AllMusic or are creates and menage by any registered editors like Discogs? Please answer me one my discussion page, it will help me to follow this thread. Eurohunter (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Article request

I looked at the to do list, and saw a few categories but I did not see a category for possible new articles. Did I miss it?

Wikimedia received an email at OTRS noting that while there are a lot of articles about big bands and big band leaders, there is none about Susan Scherman one of the few women in this position.

What is the best way to prompt someone to look into this possibility? The collapsed section below includes some potential references.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/26782295/article-Union-City--Kid--to-play-Weehawken-concert--Summer-concert-series-continues-on-waterfront-?instance=search_results http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/2365605/article-Leader-of-the-band-After-near-fatal-accident--Weehawken-woman-finds-strength-in-conducting-big-band?instance=search_results http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/21664731/article-Rebuild-Hoboken-Gala-raises-over--500K-Non-profit-event-draws-stars-and-high-bidders-for-Sandy-relief-?instance=secondary_stories_left_column

Plurals and band articles

There is currently a discussion happening at Talk:Boys Like Girls#LANGVAR edit warrior that would likely be of interest for this project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Info prior to a subject relevant?

Is info relevant although it is prior to the subject? I added info on Dallon Weekes stating why and when the he was recruited into the band, Panic! at the Disco. [1] Although referenced by in-line citations, a user is reverting the edits due to the info being prior to the subject's recruitment, to which he says is irrelevant to the subject due to the info being prior to is association with the group. Although it is prior to the subject's recruitment, it gives valid, referenced info of the reasons the subject was recruited. Nowhere is info prior to a subject's history with a group forbidden in an article page, especially when it is relevant to the topic.

Please comment on the current RfC here. Thank you. Sekyaw (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Billy Bragg

I am arguing with an editor who does not think that the "Billy" of Stephen William "Billy" Bragg should appear in the first line of the Billy Bragg article, for reasons he has given. I would be grateful for any opinions the project might have on this. Britmax (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about use of flatlist in infobox

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist about whether some infobox parameters should be assigned to the hlist class. All this would do is remove the inconvenience of having to use {{hlist}}/{{flatlist}} on all artist pages. There would be no display changes — the modification is for utility purposes only.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:American male singer-songwriters

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Singer-songwriter vs Singer and songwriter, we reached a general consensus that singer-songwriter was a genre and not an occupation, yet Category:American male singer-songwriters and others exist. Do we care? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Gwen Stefani for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Any interest in being a stand alone project?

This project is within the constraints of being a project in name but a working group of biography.

I think because of the sheer volume of identifiable musicians, that there could be an argument for separation and proper construction as a stand alone project. Knowing the general disinterest in projects amongst many eds, I would be very interested if anyone even responds, but it would be good if there were enough interested that the process might be possibhle to separate JarrahTree 00:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No interest in that on my side. It makes perfect sense to be a working group of biographies many musicians include living people, and those that aren't living are dead people, and that fits-in to the biographies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough - if that is the only response, here and there (Biography) that is fine, can leave as is and carry on.. JarrahTree 10:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Genre use in opening sentence of a band/musician article

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

---

Is it acceptable to state a broad genre in the opening sentence of a band/musician article? For example: "Metallica is an American heavy metal band." This scenario assumes that genre is reliably sourced and musical style fully explained later in the body of the article. (Like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Acceptable - This is frequently the way it is handled in peer reviewed, WP:GA/WP:FA articles.

Here are ones that have an opening sentence that define a bands genre with a specific genre.

1. Smashing Pumpkins (FA) - Alternative rock
2. Nine Inch Nails(FA) - Industrial rock
3. Megadeth (FA) - Thrash metal
4. The Clash (GA) - Punk rock
5. Slipknot (band) (GA) - Nu metal

Here's a full list of peer reviewed, GA/FA articles that have an opening sentence that define a band simply as "rock"

1. Tool (band) (FA)
2. A Perfect Circle (GA)
3. Pearl Jam (GA)
4. Nirvana (band) (FA)
5. Alice in Chains (FA)

In short, this is perfectly acceptable to do, as long as the genre is reliable sourced, further sourced content in finer nuances in the musical style are covered in the body, and there is a consensus that the genre selected is acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Acceptable - at the very least it should include the most generic term for them, as you stated with Tool, AiC, Nirvana, etc. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Acceptable as long as it is limited to one, at most two, broad gernes that can be sourced. It has to be limited to preferrably one otherwise as other projects have found out you get kudzu on genres (like in film, video games, TV series, etc. which all have guidelines in place to avoid this kudzu). If a given band is extremely hard to categorize into a broad genre, then that can be explained in the second sentence or so on. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Acceptable within limits (keep it to a single musical genre), and with special exceptions (say if an album is state in interviews/previews to actively incorporate multiple genres). Also, I agree with Masem about the possible issues with bands that are difficult to categorize. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you both for your input. The question originates from the Limp Bizkit article actually - not a particularly complex or hard-to-define band, so I imagine a genre solution can be found. The problem is that an editor keeps on stone-walling any discussion on genre proposals, saying that WP:OR and WP:NPOV makes it literally impossible to use anything other than "American band". No matter how many featured articles I point out showing there's a precedent and consensus that it can be done, he refuses to budge and keeps derailing discussions, so I wrote up an RFC to directly address it, so we can move on to the actual genre discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Acceptable - for one to two genres in sentence and only if genres are not debatable. If there are many genres with reliable sources - not acceptable. If there are three genres, for example nu metal, rap rock and rap metal, better to use a neutral version of "American band", than to force to try to pick one, at the expense of neutrality. Unacceptable is also original research, for example. If music band plays the alternative rock and hard rock, we can shorten to rock band but in the case of 'for example' Limp Bizkit or other, the situation is much more complicated (too many sources for three genres), so - this is not acceptable. Largely, I also agree with user Masem and user ProtoDrake.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 17:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If one were to draw the line at merely 3 similar genre though, that would basically render things impossible. There are so many genre out there. Someone could literally pick any musical act out there, and assign three genre to them, no matter how complex or simple their sound is. Half of the last decades rock music could probably have alternative rock, hard rock, and post-grunge tagged to them. Just like the WP:GA Breaking Benjamin, another very straightforward band with a ton of genre tagged on. This is not a good way to draw the line. Nor is it how any of the FA/GA handled it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand, there are a lot of genres and I have nothing against the grouping of similar-name genres. For example: band playing nu metal, thrash metal and post-metal, I have nothing against to use term of "metal band". Or, for example: alternative rock, hard rock, psychedelic rock = "rock band". But, you can not call "rock band", for example, Limp Bizkit (genres nu metal, rap rock and rap metal), because this OR and also this is not true. Rap rock this is not only rock, this is hip-hop (rap) with rock music etc etc. Apart from the OR, it's better to use the term of "rap rock and nu metal American band" or "rap rock/metal and nu metal American band", eventually hip-hop and metal band or similar term. Unfortunately, so it is - many genres and many sources and many bands. For many bands we can determine terms (for example Megadeth, Slipknot, The Smashing Pumpkins etc) but for many bands (for example Limp Bizkit) - not. In such cases, better to use a neutral version of first sentence of intro, without genres.
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 17:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A separate RFC will address Limp Bizkit's genre. I'm just getting a consensus that the practice is generally acceptable, since you kept on derailing the prior discussions saying it wasn't, claiming that all the featured articles that did it were in the wrong, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Misconception

There is a misunderstanding. Change the voice. Acceptable - of cource but only for one to two genres in sentence and only if genres is not debatable. If there are many reliable sources - not accetable - for example nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, better to use a neutral version of "American band", than to force to try to pick one, at the expense of neutrality. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 17:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC) *Not acceptable - If there are many reliable sources for example nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, better to use a neutral version of "American band", than to force to try to pick one, at the expense of neutrality. Sorry. I am totally opposed for this. Generally, policy does not allow according to the core content policies of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read the sentence in intro of 'for example' Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". Of course, if music band plays the alternative rock and hard rock, we can shorten to rock band but in the case of 'for example' Limp Bizkit or other, the situation is much more complicated (too many sources for three genres), so - this is not acceptable. Largely, I also agree with user Masem and user ProtoDrake. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 16:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC) To be clear, this RFC is just talking in a general sense. It would be directly applicable to the Limp Bizkit dispute, but it's not specifically for debating the band's genre. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC) It does not make sense to cite OR or NPOV. I'm not talking about stripping all mentioning of all genre and musical styles away from the article in favor of one. Im talking about adding one frequently reliably sourced genre to the opening sentence. Any other genre and styles would be covered in appropriate detail in the body. Your approach is ludicrous - we're not required to cover every single nuance of a subject in the lead. It'd literally be impossible to write - it'd either have to be trimmed down to nothing, or swell to the size of the article body and be completely redundant to it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC) *You wrote above: "The question originates from the Limp Bizkit article actually - not a particularly complex or hard-to-define band" - this is ludicrous. There are very many reliable sources for nu metal, rap rock and rap metal (and mixed, for example rap rock and nu metal etc), difficult to define genre, your proposed "nu metal band" is not neutrally and your second propositions "rock band" this almost hoax and clear original research[2]. So, Limp Bizkit is good example why your idea is not acceptable. I know that it is discuss about first sentence of the intro of article and concerns a matter of general (not one article) but these examples are show, it is a very bad idea for two and more genres. As wrote user Masem and user ProtoDrake, "as long as it is limited to one, at most two" and "keep it to a single musical genre". Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 16:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC) You are misunderstanding their stance. They're saying only if only one or two genre are being used in the opening sentence not "only if a band is described one or two genre overall. They are not agreeing with you. To break it down for you and tie it into the original example, they're saying don't write something like "Metallica is heavy metal, hard rock and thrash metal band... as part of the opening sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Hmm. @Masem: and @ProtoDrake:, please precise explanation. I also recall that in terms of acceptance of the research and the selection of one of several genres (for exaple, Limp Bizkit and three primary genres, selection of one on based on own original research like as it. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 17:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Yes, that's a dif of me fixing a typo? But yes, it would be good to get clarification from the two so far. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Is it acceptable to have a general genre in the lede? Yes, of course. Is it acceptable to have something more specific in the lede? Yes, of course. Is it acceptable to omit? Yes, of course. Peer reviewed articles don't mean that they're crafted according to guidelines or even stellar examples. There are many that are good articles that simply had grammatical errors or bad linking corrected. So what are you asking? I am opposed to stating it must be a generic genre. I am opposed to stating that there must be a genre at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• The question was mere asking if it was acceptable, so you've already answered the question fine. It being "required" is not part of the question. Thank you for your input. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Acceptable but this is a waste of time. I would support early closure. There is obviously agreement above that this is acceptable in at least some cases. However this RFC is clearly derived from a dispute at Talk:Limp_Bizkit. When "genre" becomes complex, or sources are significantly split, or it is otherwise contentious, it is likely more appropriate to move genre discussion to the body of the article where it can be dealt with in depth. I know jack-squat about genre categorization for Limp_Bizkit, or what sources say. If there is a dispute there, then editors should request a 3rd opinion there, or run an RFC on that topic there, or other WP:Dispute resolution mechanism there. Or at least ask Wikiproject_Musicians for input on Limp_Bizkit's genre. A close on this RFC isn't going to do squat to help anyone with anything. Alsee (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Alsee You are correct that this originates from the Limp Bizkit page, but are mistaken on the core issue there. One editor started up a discussion to discuss adding a genre to the opening sentence. Another aggressively opposed the addition of any genre on the opening sentence, proposing that OR/NPOV would 100% of the time prevent this on an multi-genre band. I, already a third party myself, notified him there are many high level, peer-reviewed examples where editors were able to come to a consensus on this with proper sourcing and wording, and that it was worth discussing. He remained indignant and proceeded to stone-wall any discussion on genre at all, insisting anyone who opposed him was grossly violating policy. If I started off with an RFC with Limp Bizkit's genre, he likely would have done the same there too, likely scaring off people from wanting to get involved. So, I wanted to clear out all of the nonsense about it being impossible first, and then move on to the actual genre discussion. And even that's more dependent on if the original editor wants to continue the discussions. My stances wasn't that a particular genre needed to be included, just that it was possible to do so. Any comments of mine regarding genre were just attempts to get discussion going, I'm personally open to using just about any relevant genre. I have very little interest in the band, I just randomly stumbled upon a rather aggressive and pessimistic discussion, and got involved. It's not about the genre-warring, is about actually allowing discussion to occur. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I also think that the RFC does not make sense. I also I agree with Walter Görlitz ("Is it acceptable to have a general genre in the lede? Yes, of course. Is it acceptable to omit? Yes, of course"). The problem lies elsewhere. If there is a band that plays three primary genres, if there are many reliable sources for this three primary genres and even sources who show band as two-genre or three genres band - Wikipedians have the right to do own original research? Wikipedians have the right to breaking a neutral point of view, favoring one genre? The question is not only whether they have the right but also is worth it? Why to do if it is not mandatory? I think Sergecross73 started to wander, Sergecross73 forget that Wikipedia is not music portal, Sergecross73 forget that Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view are two core content policies, and accurate quote: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". Sergecross73, genre(s) in first sentence of articles is not important but reputation of Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia is much more important. Do not you realize it that your idea is very destructive for Wikipedia.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have at no point suggested that NPOV or OR be ignored, my stance is that it wouldn't be violated if you approach it correctly. All viewpoints (genre in this case) would be sourced and covered in the article with the appropriate weight. It's just that not every single nuance of a band's sound would be covered in the opening sentence, which is fine, because every possible perspective is not required to be covered in the constraints of a single sentence. Its possible to cover something in a general sense at first, and then expand upon it later. It's literally how one is supposed to write a WP:LEAD. My aim with the RFC was to show its acceptable, so that actual improvements could be discussed without you plastering an ill-conceived wall-of-text about the basics that aren't being violated after every comment that is made. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Since a number of people have voiced concerns that this RFC was too vague, I've created a new RFC to address the issue directly. Feel free to comment at the new one found here. Pinging participants so far: Dissident93, ProtoDrake, Masem, Subtropical-man, Walter Görlitz, Alsee. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• User:Sergecross73, please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy. You can create survey, but only for the estimation, not for consensus to push your idea. Consensus must be based on arguments, no your arguments do not justify breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Even, if would a consensus (after discussion), each user not only has the right undo those changes according to the rules ("This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus") or insert template of Template:POV lead & Template:Unbalanced & Template:Original research/Template:Original research section (& Template:Fanpov, Template:Missing information), and even Template:Synthesis, Template:Controversial & Template:Disputed & Template:Unreferenced & Template:Fringe theories (for American rock band). As I mentioned earlier: "The problem will have to be discussed in a larger group on technically pages. Possible that we will need to create a commission (like constitutional review) for the analysis of whether these "practices" do not violate the basic!!! principles of Wikipedia". If you want to avoid such a discussion - ok, but you can be sure that such changes will be reverted or I give (above) templates to article. As I look at your actions that you are doing everything to enter your idea. You create unnecessary discussions and surveys with unnecessary questions instead of dealing with the only problem: whether these measures are compatible with the rules of Wikipedia. You want to go further? Ok. First discussion about "whether these measures are compatible with the rules of Wikipedia or not?".
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sure the RFC closer would address said hypothetical scenario appropriately. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned earlier: "The problem will have to be discussed in a larger group on technically pages. Possible that we will need to create a commission (like constitutional review) for the analysis of whether these "practices" do not violate the basic!!! principles of Wikipedia". If you want to avoid such a discussion - ok, but you can be sure that such changes will be reverted or I give (above) templates to article. As I look at your actions that you are doing everything to enter your idea. You create unnecessary discussions and surveys with unnecessary questions instead of dealing with the only problem: whether these measures are compatible with the rules of Wikipedia. You want to go further? Ok. First discussion about "whether these measures are compatible with the rules of Wikipedia or not?".
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• This RFC was created to address whether or not the practice was acceptable in general in theory. Unless things change, its looking like the consensus here is basically "It's generally acceptable, but individual instances should be discussed further." The second RFC was created to address an individual instance - Limp Bizkit. Everything is being addressed either here or there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• You do not understand. These two RFC are waste of time. If there is no discussion for the analysis of whether these "practices" do not violate the basic principles of Wikipedia, if someone adds a controversial genre to lede, you are like a bank - I reverted it according to the "non-negotiable" rules of Wikipedia or add POV/OR templates to article.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 19:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• That's your opinion that it violates non-negotiable rules. Your personal interpretation of the rules. The new RFC will settle whether or not there is consensus for your personal interpretation. If adding a genre is so blatantly breaking policies as you suggest, then rest assured, the RFC participants will agree with you. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• You wrote: "If adding a genre is so blatantly breaking policies as you suggest" - stop lying and trolling. I did not say it, even acceptable it above. You are blind? My objection concerns only the form of choice. If there are more genres (for example, three primary genres) and you use only one in lead and you based on original research and own opinions - it breaks the rules. I think you know it, you are afraid of discussion on this topic because you will not be able to enter their idea. You're doing everything to avoid discussion about this, even using deception. Again: if there is no discussion for the analysis of whether these "practices" do not violate the basic principles of Wikipedia, if someone adds a controversial genre to lede, you are like a bank - I reverted it according to the "non-negotiable" rules of Wikipedia or add POV/OR templates to article. Do not be deceived survey or similar.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 20:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point of what I'm trying to convey here. You are certain that you are correct, and you are certain that I am wrong. I'm saying, if this is the case, then surely the RFC results will reflect this, and you have nothing to worry about. If you are 100% correct with no room for doubt, surely other editors will recognize this and decide not to add any genre to the opening sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  I knew, I knew :) :) You all the time you use tricks and manipulations. First RFC/survey concern "Is it acceptable to state a broad genre in the opening sentence of a band/musician article?", second: what other users prefer to use in lede (select from list). Users wonder what genre to use, not whether it is against the rules. You're doing a shame. The administrator should be trusted user, whom we can trust, not a user who uses tricks to pushing his version. You're doing everything to avoid a main discussion, all the time it is about objection concerns only the form of choice and all the time you create new topics about other. Please give-back your administrator-permissions.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 20:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I literally have no idea what you're talking about, or how you're coming to that conclusion. That Statik N user wanted to add a genre. You shut him down. I said it was possible through discussion. You shut it down. Unable to come to a conclusion, I started an WP:RFC to get others to comment on it, to get a consensus to move forward. And this is somehow shameful and trickery? Starting up an RFC is what you're supposed to do when you can't agree on what to do in an article. Even beyond that, what in the world would my motivation be? I don't even edit Limp Bizkit's article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Quick question: Did you even read the new RFC? Because one of the options is E: American band (no genre addition). If people feel its against policy to pick a genre, they'd pick that one. I gave the option for you, and others, to take that stance. You're spending too much time getting angry and coming up with crazy conspiracy theories and accusations that you haven't even bothered to read the RFC or defend your stance in it yet. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I know my English is not good, but still you can not understand. The problem is one: dispute concerns the form of choice/vote... And you create RFC/survey: "Is it acceptable to state a broad genre in the opening sentence of a band/musician article?"[3] - it does not make sense, even other users say it. Later you create second RFC/survey: "which genre would be best to be added to the opening sentence of Limp Bizkit" (select from list) [4] - this is proof that you're trying to push its version through the back door. Again: no matter who he chooses an option (genre) from the list. Discussion is needed, analysis of whether these "practices" do not violate the basic principles of Wikipedia. Just enough, nothing more. PS. Your second RFC/survey: "which genre would be best to be added to the opening sentence of Limp Bizkit" (select from list) [5] is also proof - how work the choice of genre to lede in the Wikipedia. Shame, shame, shame for Wikipedia. Again, if you want do such things - give back admin-permission.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 21:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're accusing me of. You're not making any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

New WikiProject

I've long thought it would be a good idea to tie Sinatra-related material together, it's a big topic in its own right really, and one which overall badly needs an injection of quality. You're invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Frank Sinatra!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wolf Krakowski

Would someone mind taking a look at Wolf Krakowski and assessing it. It's unsourced so it's not clear if he is notable per WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:GNG. Article was created back in 2004 (when the notability guidelines might have been a little laxer than they are now), so it's not eligible for WP:BLPPROD. I googled his name and got quite a few hits, but nothing looked like the significant coverage needed for GNG. Perhaps someone else knows where better sources might be found? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:MUSIC IMHO - send it to AfD? Karst (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Karst. I haven't been able to find any sources about him, at least nothing that would represent sigcov. I guess it's possible that non-English sources might exist, but I wouldn't no how to begin looking for them. Maybe via AfD is the way to go. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sithu Aye

This article has been created and mostly edited by a SPA (possible COI). The references look shaky to me (user-contributed content?), but this is not really my field, so I'd appreciate if somebody who knows more about this stuff could have a look and see if the references are sufficient to establish notability. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Said the Sky

Can anyone assist with notability on the recently created Said the Sky article. I can't see anything of substance but I don't work on musician articles that often. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Norbert Stachel

Hi, my name is Norbert Stachel. I'm a veteran (jazz based but multi genre) saxophonist and woodwind player, composer, and arranger. I'm an established professional musician that has worked with many extremely famous artists during my career as what is referred to as a "sideman" in the music business. Some names to mention are Boz Scaggs, Roger Waters, Tower Of Power, Tito Puente, Celia Cruz, Dream Theater, Prince, Freddie Hubbard, Aerosmith, Zigaboo Modeliste, Sheila E, Roy Hargrove, Andrew Hill, Don Cherry, and many many more. I'm looking for writers to write articles about me (Norbert Stachel), my flutist wife Karen Stachel, and our music group LehCats.

Some links to verify who I am and what I'm talking about:

I can't deal with the aggravation of trying to figure out how to write articles myself, and it goes against Wikipedia guidelines anyway. Please Help Me!!!

References

LehCats (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Craig Gill

A recent AfD for Craig Gill was closed as no consensus with a recommendation to discuss a possible redirect. Further input requested at Talk:Craig Gill#Redirecting to Inspiral Carpets. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Musicians/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability of musicians

Hi I am a musician who played with Yngwie Malmsteen 1990 and did my own article and got it deleted it was a conflict of interest. And it´s not Notability (music)? How come my bandmates from 1990 have their articles on Wikipedia? Also Wikipedia:Notability. I did not even get a week to get help, someone could have helped me. I have my Swedish article but I really like to have it in English. How come my Swedish Wikipedia article is ok? I wish I could have folks from the Yngwie Malmsteen page to help me.Knorr59 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why your article was deleted and others exist. Every article about a musician should meet the notability requirement for musicians, which is listed at WP:MUSICBIO. If there isn't proof that an article meets that criteria, then it should be nominated for deletion. Of course, editors don't do this for a living and we may stumble across one article and recognize that the subject does not meet notability criteria but miss a dozen others. That's discussed at the following essay: WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Hey! The article on Tom Colontonio is at AfD. I didn't find any good sources, but I know nothing about this topic. The page creator and another editor feel strongly the artist is a big deal and have added some sources. More eyes to assess the article at AfD would be greatly appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about music is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Judy Garland

I have nominated Judy Garland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Pat McGee Band

Would someone from this WP:MUSICIAN mind talking a look at Pat McGee Band? The article is a bit promotional sounding, which is something that can be cleaned up. The band has had a couple of albums released by Warner Bros. Records which seems to be enough to establish notability per WP:BAND, but the only source being cited is a press release which does nothing to establish notability. Perhaps this is a case of WP:NEXIST and the band has received some coverage in the music media which can be used as sources, so any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Long lost article?

I found Pete Day, which might need some cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Trenyce for peer review

I've listed Trenyce for peer review. This article is about an American singer and actress best known as a finalist on the second season of American Idol and for her work in musical theatre. I would like to get this article to the level of a Good Article sometime in the future. This is the first time that I have worked on this time of article (something on a living person). I would greatly appreciate any help on this. Comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Trenyce/archive1. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hakol Over Habibi

I wonder if anyone with some subject familiarity might be willing to work a little on the above article? We currently have a picture of the band nominated at FPC, and it'd be great if we could see some article improvement. Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Katz

I was wondering if someone would mind taking a look at Matthew Katz to see if he's notable enough for a stand-alone article. Although Katz is not a musician, the article claims that he has managed/produced some Wikipedia notable bands, so I figured I'd ask for feedback here. If he's not notable for a stand-alone article, then perhaps a redirect to one of the band articles could be made. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• In my view, he's notable. The claims are correct. He was involved in a long-running legal battle with the famed group Moby Grape and it's an encyclopedic story. He managed other bands also, as you note. Jusdafax 06:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• By now, he's probably only notable for screwing Moby Grape – I'd say redirect there. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't agree. He was fired by the Jefferson Airplane, for example. That's history in ithe rock world, and wouldn't be properly located in a Moby Grape article. It's worth noting that the article appears to have been cleansed of criticism of Katz, unlike the Moby Grape article. A case could be made to locate some or much of that material in Katz's article. Jusdafax 22:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ben Sollee

Attention any seasoned editors for musician articles, I need assistance on the subject article. I think most editors would consider the article to be bloaty, even with all the sources available to discuss Sollee. I'm out of my element with doing necessary reductions on musician articles. Could someone please take some thoughtful scissors to this article? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

GAR

Members of this project might be interested in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demi Lovato/1. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Is allmusic.com considered a reliable source for biographical information?

I've searched for this information on my own but couldn't find a discussion. So, is allmusic.com considered a reliable source of biographical information on musicians? I ask because while checking a source recently I saw that things like birth date were listed and there was a link underneath where one could send in corrections. So I'm not sure if this editor-created content or information that is actually researched by and vetted by the staff. Does anyone know or have an opinion or can point to previous discussions? Thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is professionally-created content. I've used the correction submission form before: Basically, you can make suggestions, and the site, at it's discretion, will research what you've submitted and update the biographical information accordingly. The actual written content produced by AllMusic is reliable, because it is attributable to an author. I'd be careful using it for things like date of birth, though, unless the written biography mentions it (basically, stick to the site's prose and avoid the sidebar when it comes to biographical information and genre listings).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Usually, yes. The only thing that is not a RS is the genre clouds. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say most of the sidebar stuff isn't reliable - it isn't attributable to a writer, and the information is often wrong.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, any of the prose/writing should be fine to use. All the sidebar stuff though, is far more questionable. The genre stuff is definitely off-limits. Some of the other stuff, like the release dates, album time lengthy, etc...I try to use sparingly. They're typically right, but I wouldn't use it to prove a disputed release date or anything, because I have come across errors. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Multi-instrumentalist"

I may turn this into an RFC, but this is something which has bothered my in Wikipedia articles for some time, and it's the use of the word "multi-instrumentalist". I find the term an unnecessarily obfuscatory term where the word "musician" would do just as well. From my point of view, there are two possibilities:

• A musician is primarily known for a single instrument. In that case, use the name for the player of that instrument (flautist, trumpeter, guitarist, etc.)
• A musician is known for playing a wide range of instruments. In that case, calling them a musician should be sufficient. Elaboration into the full breadth and depth of their musical talents can be explored further on in the later paragraphs of the lead or in the body of the article.

What does everyone think on this. Is there a case where "multi-instrumentalist" should be used where "musician" would not suffice? --Jayron32 04:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

For the Infobox "Occupation" field, musician should be used since there is another field for "Instrument". For the body of the article and especially the lead, "multi-instrumentalist" seems too vague. Most musicians can play several instruments, but are primarily known for one or two. In my experience, if the refs are followed, the field can be narrowed to the most notable (the rest may be noted later in the text). Studio musicians may be the best candidates for the broader "Musician". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Multi-instrumentalist" tells me something that "musician" doesn't, so I would preserve its use in some contexts. However, I agree there is a tendency to over-use the word for musicians who are primarily known for one instrument. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll also agree that it's probably overused, but I do think it's preferrable to use at certain times. For example, Dave Grohl is a good example, because he drummed for a massive band (Nirvana) but is also a guitarist for another a massive band (Foo Fighters). That's not a common situation, and I think it's worth using the term. Other examples though, like Billy Corgan, who mostly just known for different kinds of guitars...is not worth calling as such. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

article suggestion

I'm wondering if anyone is interested in writing an article based on Kal Lavelle? Would be great to see one please! She's a singer songwriter who has supported the likes of Ed Sheeran, James Brown, Bastille (band) and The Beach Boys. Kal Lavelle is an Irish singer-songwriter, based in London and her first EP; 'Shivers' was self-released in June 2011, and reached #5 in the iTunes Singer/Songwriter chart. Following the release of her EP, Kal went on tour with Ed Sheeran, and her song 'Breakfast At Tiffany's' was chosen as 'Single of the Week' on UK iTunes, and was subsequently downloaded over 60,000 times.

interesting links: http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/going-out/music/kal-lavelle-live-review-147299 http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/14429791.Kal_Lavelle_has_writing_music_all_wrapped_up/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019jq81 http://www.kallavelle.com/

Jenholton (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dexta daps

Hello,

I applied a Prod tag to this article - which was removed by the author of the article, who contested the deletion at Talk:Dexta daps. It is not appearing to me that the musician meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG - based upon the {{find sources}} template I applied on my reply on the talk page.

I wanted to check, though, before I nominated it for an AfD - am I missing something? Are there music sources that can be used to find sufficient sources to establish notability for Dexta Daps?

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I didn't have the "s" in Daps in the search criteria and now am getting hits. It would still be great to get input - because I don't see a major label, chart history, going gold, etc. Perhaps there is sufficient coverage, though?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Cauby - I'd Start All Over Again

An article that you have been involved in editing—Cauby - I'd Start All Over Again—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary instruments

This edit got me thinking. I know that for {{Infobox musical artist}} we only expect primary instruments, but I've never seen a MoS for it in a members list. Is this common practice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Musicians.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Musicians, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for singles chronologies in musical artist navboxes

Input requested at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Best practice for singles chronologies in musical artist navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WiR focus on music and dance in July

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC: How to refer to singers that write songs exclusively for their own use

Please forgive me for locating this RfC in this Wikiproject, but there seems to be no other logical place to put it. The issue is, there is currently not much consistency in the lead sentence in articles on singers who (sometimes) write the songs that they sing. Some will use "singer and songwriter", some "singer-songwriter", and some refer to them only as "singer". I'ld like to check if there is a rough consensus on what to use in the lead sentence in articles on singers who also sometimes write songs (somewhat exclusively) for their own use. I believe the relevant guidelines are WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:MOSLEAD --LK (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing RfC, as pointed out below, the question has already by discussed. LK (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Comment This has been discussed before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 7#Does being a singer and songwriter equate to being a singer-songwriter, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Singer-songwriter vs Singer and songwriter, etc. "Singer-songwriter" or "singer/songwriter" appears to refer more to a genre or folk-type style and those that perform it rather than anyone who both sings and writes songs. AllMusic takes this approach.[6]. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Monteverdi peer review

User:Brianboulton and I have sought to significantly expand, and improve the quality of, the article on Claudio Monteverdi and would be very grateful for any comments at the Peer Review which we have just launched here. Many thanks, Smerus (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Monteverdi for FA

Following a very helpful peer review, Brianboulton and I have now resolved to subject the article to an FA candidature, and welcome all and any constructive comment. --Smerus (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Manila Killa notability?

Hi guys I only occasionally edit musician-related articles, I was thinking about starting an article on Manila Killa but was unsure if this and this was enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There a few other third party sources but their all pretty much the same in tone and content to the two mentioned above. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Swedish metal band Desultory

Please chime in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desultory Chris Troutman (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved as keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Zenîma

Is she notable? The page is unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

young death (of musicians)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#WP:Articles for deletion/List of composers who died before age 50. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

New article, Jena Rose, needs help

Jena Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a new article about an "American pop singer/songwriter" created by an inexperienced editor. It did not go through any review process at creation. There is a conflict of interest of some type according to the edit summary for the article's creation [7], "Created page for singer/songwriter Jena Rose per her/management's request".

The sourcing is poor (far too much based upon primary sources), and my initial impression is that she doesn't meet MUSICBIO, but may meet GNG based on the amount of publicity for her. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone subscribe to Billboard? I need to know some boxscore data for a tour.

Please ping me here or post on my user talk. Thanks.  — Calvin999 14:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Chris "Daddy Mac" Smith

Not sure if this person is notable enough for a BLP. Other versions of their name, like Chris "Daddy Mack" Smith, re-direct to his duo Kris Kross.
Page creator, AGF, seems like a WP:SPA. Also created now deleted Chris smith of kris kross.
Regards, 220 of ^Borg 06:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women musicians during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the appropriate sub list Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

One-hit wonder inclusion criteria

If you're interested in the topic, your comments would be appreciated at Talk:List of 2010s one-hit wonders in the United States#Inclusion criteria where there is a discussion with sweeping ramifications about whether the "one-hit wonder" articles will be based on charting songs or on artists described in sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Template:Infobox musical artist

Changes to the parameter descriptions are being proposed at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Singer/singing in occupation & instrument parameters. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Basshunter

Hello. I planing to replace Discogs sources with official sources like iTunes. What should be next step to do on the way to the good article? Eurohunter (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, why and what content? You mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Sources that it was release dates. A better source for either would be AllMusic, a charting source (such as Billboard or a European or British equivalent based on the area of your interest), or a source not associated with the subject. If that can't be found, a song article may not be appropriate. If you're just adding references for release dates for singles inside of a biography or even an album article, why isn't the existing reference sufficient? Please give an example of a reference you would replace with the content you would replace it with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[8] to [9]. Eurohunter (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would go with the the iTunes link, without the /se/ in the URL, but that's my opinion. Others may disagree with me or not like either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither. The text on the Discog pages is user generated, AllMusic is only RS for its reviews, and links to retail sites is discouraged. A mention in the entertainment press or even the artist's/record company's press release (after all, where did iTunes get their info?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojorojo (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

iTunes is a digital store and works are releases by labels and artists. Eurohunter (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What else I could improve in this article? Eurohunter (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've corrected Basshunter infoboxes for "Boten Anna", "Vifta med händerna", and "Northern Light" that had problems with subtemplates (broken headers, etc.) These may be followed to correct the rest. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing FAC

Members of this WikiProject might be interested in leaving comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Gaga/archive2. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Member sections in K-pop articles

Hi! Could you please look at this discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#Members sections.

The proposal is to remove all the member information beyond their nicknames from all the K-pop articles.

I believe it could affect many articles outside the K-pop scope as there are similar sections in articles like "Fifth Harmony" ("Fifth Harmony#Members"), "Little Mix" (Little Mix#Members), etc. And I'm not even talking about numerous articles about historical groups like The Andrews Sisters (The Andrews Sisters#Marriages, family, and deaths).

And the problem is that the user who started the discussion has already removed everything but the nicknames from the "Members" sections in all the K-pop articles on Wiki and it doesn't look like he is willing to put them back. He removed prose, he removed their birth dates, their last names / real names, their functions in the band, he also removed member timelines, everything. Even if it was sourced. He did all that in spite of the fact that the discussion he started did not result in any consensus. A few examples of his actions: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

(By the way, tbh, all this can be seen as an attempt to drive K-pop fan boys and fan girls out of Wikipedia by making the wiki useless for them. But I don't know... The user seems to be interested in K-pop himself and I'm WP:AGFing.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia categories named after musicians by genre

I've created Category:Wikipedia categories named after musicians by genre and various genre subcategories for eponymous musician categories. I took a swing at populating some categories, but there is a still a large amount to be categorized under this new category tree. I would really appreciate the assistance of other editors in this area. Thank you. ℯxplicit 09:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)

A few days ago, Drmies removed content from the article on the grounds that the information was "trivia". This is despite the fact that these information were sourced to reliable sources (interviews), and that there was no consensus (either on the talk page or elsewhere) to remove the text in question. Requesting for outside opinions here to discuss what should be done about the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• One does not need consensus on the talk page before making an edit, unless there are special circumstances. Stuff doesn't become relevant just because it's verified to an interview or whatever. What trivia are you talking about? Her name maybe standing for "Lovely international Super Apple"? Or are you talking about the lengthy and way too detailed comments about individual songs in the "Style" section? Or such poorly-written detail such as "that the concept of the single is that it can be divided into two parts: pink and black"? (What can be divided: the concept of the single? And what does a divided concept or single look like?) Drmies (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The section was discussing her musical style based on her interviews. I can't see how discussing individual songs doesn't explain her musical style; it would be like saying that we can't discuss what Michael Jackson thought about producing Billie Jean on Wikipedia. The apple thing, I can at least give you that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If "style" is about the concepts pink and black in a song, we're well into trivial territory. "Style" calls for secondary sourcing making general comments about an artist's artistry, not for the artist herself making throwaway comments about an individual song. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wax Dey

A Cameroonian urban musician based in South Africa. My first musician article. Can someone take a look at a it? May be edit it a bit improve the article? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Brymo

Brymo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)