Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello we are looking for comments about an article that is up for miscellany deletion...See-->

Hello, I just finished translating Denez Prigent from fr:, where it has GA status. I would certainly be very glad if it could also obtain the silver star on en:. It is most likely technically good enough for this, but its main problem is that… well, I wrote it. While I have no problem reading English, I am not that good at writing it. So, would someone care to read the article and check the grammar, spelling, and other potential English issues ? Thanks. Oyp (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Noticed this request, so I just did the first two sections. Your English is near excellent -- great job! I hope my small contribution is helpful //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to Akrabbim for this too. Oyp (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a

Hello, Please help by reviewing the following article, and make suggestions in order to improve the Billie Jean black sequin jacket page. Very much appreciated! User:DinhoGauch10/Billie Jean black sequin jacketDinhoGauch10 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD for article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billie Jean black sequin jacketDinhoGauch10 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated

You know how a lot of the band sorting by genre categories are phrased "________ musical groups"? The category of

Sounds OK to me. Feel free to start a

CFD discussion to get more input and results. —Akrabbim^talk

23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I like that suggestion of yours. I brought this up in two other places, but to no avail. Hopefully there can be some responses activated by doing that.

Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.}

01:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The following books have been identified by Headbomb (talk · contribs) as having problems (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book clean up). Any questions, ask Headbomb. Thanks.

• Book:Louis Armstrong (problems)
• Book:David Bowie (problems)
• Book:James Brown (problems)
• Book:Johnny Cash (problems)

--

Hello! I'm sorry if this is explained in intricate detail elsewhere, but I couldn't find the information I was looking for which explains my post here.

Some time ago I created some music-related stubs and was wondering what the particular manual of style was for the introduction of songs/albums. A few years ago it seemed to be common to write '''''Song'''''; however, these days it seems to be more popular to write "'''Song'''" as an introduction to the text body of the article. Take "Lebanese Blonde" by Thievery Corporation for example. The introduction back then read:

Lebanese Blonde was a 1998 single.....

but now it seems to be that

"Lebanese Blonde" was a 1998 single.....

is the norm. Could anyone be so nice as to clear this up for me? Many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Song titles go in quotes and are not italiziced. You would still bold the title to indicate it as the article's subject. We no longer pipe links to "year in music" as it goes against

WP:EGG

. So the correct format would be:

"Lebanese Blonde" was a 1998 single.....

--IllaZilla (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks for your help IllaZilla! Jared Preston (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm hoping someone here will be able to help me out on some articles I've been working on. I recently did a major redesign of...

• List of songs in SingStar games (PlayStation 2), and
• List of songs in SingStar games (PlayStation 3)

The two articles list the entire song discography released on games from the SingStar series. I combined information from various sources, many of which don't follow the

In particular, I was wondering if anyone here could help out with the following tasks:

• Correct the capitalisation of song titles in accordance with
  WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization
• Correct mistakes in table sorting using the {{sort}} template (so that "The Beatles", for example, sorts under "B" instead of "T")
• Implement language tags as mentioned at
  WP:MUSTARD#Names (foreign language)
  (I only just came across this now)

There are other things which need to be dealt with (detailed referencing, wikilinks, article size) but I can manage those myself later on.

Issues:

• This is a massive job. Between the two articles there are over 2700 artists and song titles
• The SingStar games have been localised for many European markets. The lists include artists/songs from the following languages: English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish

According to

For the table sorting, I've been using sort templates to skip the following words when they occur at the start of a artist name or song title: "a", "an", "the", "le", "la", "les", "der", "die", "das", "il", "gli", "el" (based on guidelines for film titles). I don't know how complete this list is, or if there are additional phrases in other languages which I should have been filtering.

(I've also been using the sorting template to remove accented characters from the sorted text. Wikipedia's alphabetic sorting order places accented characters beneath regular text)

So yeah. Like I said, this is a massive job, so any help at all would be very much appreciated. Even if someone here, for example, spoke French and was able to help out with capitalisation/sorting for French titles -- that would be great. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently, "Assessments are done by individual music projects, such as Albums, Classical music, Composers etc., not by this Music Project, which is an umbrella project." I think this should be changed, not to step on the good work done by the mentioned subprojects, but to assess articles that are outside of their scope, but very much within the scope of the WikiProject Music. Sample articles that should be assessed include: music (!) or musicology. Or would you say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory is enough to take care of all of those? Unfortunately, that wikiproject is classified as semiactive/inactive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything sinister about the Music project deferring to subprojects for assessment. It's just a way of splitting up the work. People who are interested in a certain area of music, such as music theory, will probably be members of both projects. If music theory is becoming inactive, I have doubts that shifting its work to the music project will resolve the problem. You said it's "semiactive"; I presume that means not completely inactive (I have seen edits and questions about terminology in the last few months), and anyone still intested in that area can still join the theory project and work from there, even if they work alone. If they want to generate discussion that isn't getting a response at that project's page, they can ask on our talk page, or create a pointer to theory's talk page, and the response should be just as good. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion at

• Ask your descendant WikiProjects to get involved in the discussions and actions below.
• At the discussion at
  WT:GAN
  , let us know how you think the situation can be improved - or whether you're happy with things as they are.
• Can your members do more GA reviews? This should only be done by members who are interested in doing the job well, as a poorly-produced review will probably need to be re-done at
  WP:GAR
  .
• There's a possible
  COI if your members review Music articles. However, there's also a backlog at Theatre and Films archives, and if Music review Theatre and Films articles while Theatre and Films review Music articles there's no COI. --Philcha (talk
  ) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This link you have provided goes to an old page that should not be edited (no new comments) I think you mean to link here -->Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Categories with huge lists of noms....Moxy (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've updated my list of missing music topics - Skysmith (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Eddie Rabbitt/1 has been open since March 20 and needs more commentary as to whether or not it should be delisted as a GA. Please leave a comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:

• WT:Manual of Style (music)#Appraisal of Manual of Style (music) and WP:MUSTARD

It also contains a summary of my thoughts and recommendations. Thoughts welcome. It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at

Colleagues, I've just been gnoming through articles on new US albums and their groups. There's a definite improvement in what has been a chronic problem: the low-value linking of common words (please see

Thank you. Tony (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Can't figure out why so many articles about bands and albums would contain the word "airport"...? :-) – IbLeo^(talk) 20:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that's funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "airport" doesn't seem like a word to be linked from an album page. Thanks for the improvements.

Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.}

01:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IbLeo, I had to stare at it for 10 seconds to realise the joke; good one! Tony (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they've revamped their website. Artist bios, which used to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/foo, now appear to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/foo/ and then some code. It also looks like a lot of album reviews have disappeared. --JD554 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Moxy here from the Canadian wikiproject,,,,Was wondering if you guys would like a copy of the new tips section we have added to our project ..it links to all the major Wikirules of music ...Pls fell free to use it and or aimed t to your needs..Moxy (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with that. I find the tips pretty cool. Thanks.

Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.}

22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've waited long enough on this and have gotten zero replies. I'm going to take this as a sign that since nobody has replied, that I have permission to re-insert the preferred intro. Caden ^cool 06:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I placed a speedy on

I don't know if this is the proper place for suggesting a new music-related category, but here goes: I suggest a category for musical groups fronted by women, not including category:All-female bands. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion over at

As most of you are aware, I've been pushing for a standardized template to take care of the sourcing of singles for a while. It's met with some resistance, and I'm trying to get some focus on what it will take to overcome that resistance. Your input is requested at WT:Record charts#Chart template formats.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This wikia is pretty inactive and could use with some more activity. If anybody has an interest in Christian music and/or has an interest in adding articles to or editing existing articles of the Christian music wikia, then feel free to join it. The link is here.

Is the Christian Music Wikia connected with Wikipedia? --Kleinzach 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good question. I was figuring that I post that message here and in other wikiprojects, because it has received sparse activity within the last two months (by sparse, I mean about two or three edits within the last two months, one of which is an edit I have performed). I did not think about whether the Christian Music Wikia was actually connected to wikipedia, as I thought that the wikia format was similar enough to the wikipedia format that I could bring it up on wikiproject talk pages. As for there being an actual connection, I can't really think of one at the moment, other than it being brought up on the

Speak to me^{concerning my deeds.}

02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

MUSTARD has again been marked as historical (Quote: "Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear."). I think we need to discuss this here, hopefully bringing in some real contributing editors (as opposed to the ubiquitous metapedians), including those who have actually contributed to the guidelines.

One of the main reasons for having MUSTARD has been to involve members of different music projects, creatively and collectively in style and standards issues. Various editors have put effort into developing what has become a long document. Unfortunately instead of processing past contributions (moving finished sections as appropriate to the

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)

then replacing them in MUSTARD with links to their new location) while leaving other sections for further work here, one or two editors are going for the lazy option of simply abandoning the whole thing with a 'tag', to prevent further work being done on it. Why is this?

Last year, when I was interviewed by the Signpost about the work of this project: I wrote:

The Project also has the MUSTARD or 'Music Standards' guidelines. More work is needed to make sure they include editing practices and styles developed by individual projects on the one hand, and are consistent with WP-wide practice, the Manual of Style etc. on the other, but this will become an important resource in the future.

That's still my opinion. If MUSTARD is going to be removed we need to consider the purpose of this project. Is it still viable? What is it for? --Kleinzach 09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted several times inviting people to comment about my reappraisal of the Music MoS and MUSTARD. See

clipman

11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think Jubilee did a great job here in organizing years of edits to the mustard page..The

appraisals were one of the best i have ever seen. This whole process was done in the open and well explained during its process (however this does not mean something is missing or wrong). Perhaps if you could mention what you believe was omitted to the new page, maybe it could be intergraded back into the new page. Having the page as historical is fine the info is still there and usable. What we have now is much clearer for new people. As i mentioned before in the talks - I believe when it comes to individual wikiproject styles there is no need to duplicate the info on multiple pages that is y there is a sub group style page. Moxy (talk

) 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Moxy has now removed all mention of MUSTARD from the project page [1].

To clarify. 1. Information should not be duplicated on multiple pages. This is a linked publication and we should use links. (I don't think there is any disagreement about this.) 2. Marking

MUSTARD

as 'Historical' (really a tag for projects not guidelines) closes it down and makes it unusable except via (quote) "broader input via a forum such as the village pump proposals page." I oppose this.

What is happening here is that censorship and centralization are once again killing creativity, initiative and encyclopedia building. (This is the story all over Wikipedia where the number of encyclopedia-contributing editors is plummeting, while the bureaucracy becomes more and more inflated.) The various Music projects are now largely inactive - will this one soon be as moribund as the others? Does anyone care? --Kleinzach 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

a) {{

clipman

00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have linked the main page back in ..see [2], this way it is clearly still visible/usable to all and in the appropriate section. However not sure if it should be there. Moxy (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I... Also, I am looking at the history of MUSTARD and am not convinced it was ever used as a brainstorming page in any sense. Even the creator,

clipman

02:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick thought: we could use {{

clipman

07:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)