Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 38

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, WikiProject Music! I have nominated this discography for

Just need one or two more "Supports"! A lot of the major legwork has already been done. If anyone has some time to look it over, that would be so wonderful! It's so close! And as I mentioned, I am more than happy to take a look at anything you have that needs to be reviewed (now or any time in the future). Thank you! — Miss Sarita 19:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, someone of the original group left his opinion though I think it needs some source. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 15:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I think the whole section about who did or didn't play on the album should be deleted, as both sides of the argument lack verifiable sources. The part about the artwork inspiring another record is also debatable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stumbled on that article by case [they issued a song which was covered by an Italian surf rock band] and English is not my native language, thus whatever you do there is well done for me :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed it as it's not verifiable. Agree that the personnel section should be sourced or removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a category tree for recordings by year, i.e. Category:1905 recordings? It seems like an obvious thing to have (possibly with a roll-up hierarchy of recordings by decade) but I'm not finding it. Assuming for the moment that these don't exist, would it be a good idea to create them? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I'm just looking for Category:1905 in music. I knew it had to be there somewhere :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: yes, I'm not sure how many actual recordings you'll find from 1905... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: Descriptive phrases and song titles. The RfC primarily concerns the semantics of descriptive qualifiers such as "(Remix)" and whether they are considered part of the names of songs. Jc86035 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with the music/discography space please review

WP:NBANDS. I could see an argument to userfy though, due to Paste/HP sources, but overall, its usually a hard sell for musicians to have their own article if they haven't charted on any national music charts, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the article (and usually is pretty prominent if it exists.) Sergecross73 msg me

17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! What about Rocker Magazine and TunedLoud, reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I spend a lot of time in music related source and deletion discussions, so I know its easier for me to dive into this sort of stuff. I don't really think either of those sources are reliable sources either. Neither are found on

WP:RSMUSIC, nor have I ever come across them when writing or reviewing articles in the past - so I'm thinking they're pretty obscure enthusiast sites. Skimming them over, I don't see any evidence of a staff with professional credentials and a professional editorial process. Sergecross73 msg me

17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Rock's Backpages is a database of more than 35,000 music news articles including reviews, interviews, and features, from the 1950s to the present day. They have agreed to provide free access to Wikipedia editors, and you can now sign up for access! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on Talk:Monstercat in regards to how an artist redirect is treated. Any editor is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

In case we need to move the discussion here, what I said was per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Brehm, redirects from artist to record label appear to be implausible for the most part considering the subjects of each of the redirects are only mentioned on the targets as listings. The definition of a redirect is for the target to contain information about the subject being redirected as well, not just a mere mention, which creates confusion. My suggestion was, if possible, to retarget these redirects to a more appropriate article, i.e. a song which a remix by that artist is notable, a song which they collaborated with a notable artist, or an album which one of their works is featured in, be it a compilation album or an album in which they were featured. The examples I mentioned seem to be plausible as these give the hint that the subject being redirected is a music producer, to which the targets can confirm (Example: Sullivan King redirects to Vantablack (EP) as a collaboration between the subject and another more notable artist.) 2601:589:8000:2ED0:D1ED:3328:E4E8:D92A (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You've hit on a big topic here. In essence non-wp:notable topics still having a redirect "article" Maybe it's a;ready covered in the sense that such cases to not fall under any of the reasons for redirects under wp;redirect. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_June_8#Template:WikiProject_Music regarding "Template:WikiProject Music". --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading

Any update about music video release date? CK (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:Little Mix. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz: @NaBUru38: I think you may get a better response if you post this query at Template talk:Single chart. Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:SoundCloud_rap#Requested_move_11_July_2018 regarding "Requested Move 11 July 2018". The editor whose username is Z0 10:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have created a new template, similar to

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(music)/Disambiguation#Merge. The editor whose username is Z0 04:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

A proposal has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Rhyme scheme patterns, that Wikipedia adopt a consistent style for rhyme scheme notation. Scansion is also mentioned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't my area, but I've come across

IMO it should just redirect to Folk Rock. Having an English phrase that could refer to a wide range of music redirect to a specialty Bulgarian genre makes no sense. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The trouble is that Chalga isn't that obscure, it appears to be popular over a fairly wide spread of the eastern Mediterranean so there are millions of people who could go round reverting things. It may only get 10% of the hits of folk rock but that still amounts to thousands of page views a month. You also have the evidence of the current redirect - the article had been a stubby one on Bulgaria for years, it was turned into a redirect to folk rock and within weeks it was reverted back, and has stayed that way for the last 6 months or so. Given that this could involve a lot of articles, I think we need stability, and stability comes from a disambiguation page.Le Deluge (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see or understand the argument in your post. But, first a narrower question. What is the connection between the term-in-English "Pop-folk" and Chalga? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that my word "obscure" distracted from the discussion. Please substitute "much more specialized" North8000 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to step in here if I might and add a few thoughts. First, I have to agree that everything related to "pop-folk" is indeed a mess, but through no fault of any individual Wiki editor or any group of them. The problem stems from the extremely amorphous real-world definition of what "folk music" is, and there exists nowhere a satisfactory and comprehensive and universally-accepted definition of it. Various Wiki articles on the topic have themselves struggled mightily to represent all the differing points of view regarding this, with varying degrees of success, IMO.

Interestingly to me, I think that the most successful article along this line is Folk rock, likely because the genre is more discrete and its origins generally more identifiable. Even there, though, the question of who or what to include in the genre's origins and influences has generated some disagreement. The omission of Jimmy Dean from American influences and Lonnie Donegan from the UK has been bruited about a few times.

Now, to one of the questions at hand. "Pop-folk" deserves its own article and should not in any way be redirected to Folk rock or Chalga. They are all distinctively different entities. In fact, when Folk rock discusses origins and refers to "folk music," it is not at all referring to the older definition of the term but rather to the commercialized version of folk from which many of the early stars of Folk rock like Jim/Roger McGuinn, David Crosby, Barry McGuire, John Phillips and others came.

There are plenty of RS that discuss this, both in print and online. Academics such as Harvard's Robert Cantwell (When We Were Good) and Ronald Cohen of Indiana University (ten + books, most especially The Rainbow Connection: The Folk Music Revival and American Society, 1940-1970). Cohen is also a supervising editor for Scarecrow Press and has edited and published dozens more books on trad folk and pop folk. In addition, master banjoist and former pop folkie (and now a professor at the University of Colorad) Dick Weissman has published about a dozen books dealing with different aspects of the music industry and folk music as well. His 2005 book Which Side Are You On? takes the title of the old labor protest song and uses it as a metaphor for the often bitter division between folk traditionalists and pop music commercializers from the 1940s through '70s. If there was one volume that gives a sober and balanced and knowledgeable discussion of the aforementioned mess, this is it.

Online, Richie Unterberger and William Ruhlman on Allmusic.com and Terry Paul Roland on No Depression (among others) have plenty to say about folk vs. pop-folk.

I don't like being self-referential and I'm no RS (though I use them extensively), but if the difference between what used to be called folk and what I'm saying is what pop-folk meant in the U.S. fifty years ago isn't clear, I'd suggest taking a quick look at the "Initial Criticism" section [4] that I included in my complete rewrite of The Kingston Trio a few years back. I dealt with it more extensively in a blog essay I did in 2011 when the KT was given a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Grammy people - [5]. I could have made this and the other 230 essays over 10 years on the blog fully academic and footnoted and such, but it's really just a series of personal essays on songs and folk topics for the entertainment of a smallish number of regular readers.

In any event, the term "pop-folk" a) has a definable, academically supported meaning in English that deserves its own article and b) should not be automatically redirected to Chalga, which as noted above has limited exposure in the English-speaking world. Please append a polite IMO to all of this. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I also found Gilbert Chase (America's Music, from the Pilgrims to the Present) "The 1950s and 1960s brought a great surge of what came to be known as "folk-pop" — the commercial popularization of folk music ..." 115.164.51.60 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO "folk" has no single definition because it has 2-3 distinct definitions. One is traditional folk music meaning from the roots of countries, regions and cultures. The next is the US/English folk revival music which had an evolution from the late 30's or the 40's hitting a zenith in the early / mid 60's, including great popularization, with folk rock sprouting from that in the late 60's. . IMO by far the most common name for the latter is simply Folk music, not pop-folk. Although I sure that some (particularly those who disdained the evolution and popularization) called it pop-folk. The third common meaning is music that either sounds like or has elements of the other two. I still think that a redirect to "Folk Rock" is better, but possibly a new short article describing the uses of the term would be even better. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In Breakaway (Kelly Clarkson song), Whjayg thinks that "folk-pop" is "not useful". What should we do? 183.171.123.203 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO a very short article on the term / usage of the term would be best. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

An editing dispute has arisen between myself and another editor at the indie folk article. It concerns the addition of the band Maybe April to the list of artists; the two sources cited for the entry both describe the group as "country-indie-folk". The relevant discussion is located at Talk:Indie folk#Maybe April. A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. LifeofTau 03:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly several sources say the band Maybe April is Indie folk such as here and here with LoT making a dubious argument that somehow country-indie-folk is not indie folk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

I just created a new section at the

I'm not seeing much. No AllMusic Bio at all either, which generally isn't a good sign. You may get some pushback on it - the usual "well, it charted", which could be countered by "not particularly notably - 54 in a single music genre chart isn't very high" or the "they're notable because BRC covered them" or something, which would be a hard sell to reconcile with Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd probably fall on the delete side unless someone unearths something else on it. (Which could be possible, if someone did a deep dive on the BRC version and maybe ended up talking about Waycross in the process or something. But then I'd say "recreate it if/when we get there".) Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I am topic-banned from creating XFD discussions for the time being, but not from participating in discussions made by others (so if someone agrees with my assessment...). I just wanted to make sure that my assessment of the subject's notability or lack thereof was correct, since my Google-Fu has been called into question many times before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What would be the best way to handle songs (or for that matter, albums) where the producer is unknown? For instance, I've searched high and low and have been utterly unable to find out who produced Ronan (song) or All Cried Out (Kree Harrison song). Allmusic says nothing, and Google searching extensively gives only false positives. Should the field say "unknown" or something to that effect, to differentiate from instances where the "producer" field was just left blank by mistake? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

{{Brit International Male}} ....is the plan to make nav templates for all and every award.? Haveing 12 Category:Music awards templates by country on one article is getting crazy.--Moxy (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Does

The problem I see is that there is very little to be said about the band that can be verified in reliable sources. Most of the sources that are already in the draft are good ones, but they are almost identical – short interviews that tell you the pair's names, that they are from Portland, and that they met in school, along with fluff like "what's your favourite song". There are no sources regarding their tours as a support act (which isn't a particularly notable achievement), no source for the number of YouTube views or Spotify plays (not notable, and the blog source cited doesn't include that information), no source for their music being played in The Vampire Diaries (again, not especially notable... it's very common for a band's song to be featured as background music in a TV show), and despite appearances only one of the final three sources actually mentions Switched at Birth. So all you are left with from verifiable information is "Dresses was an American indie pop duo formed of vocalist Timothy Heller and guitarist Jared Maldonado from Portland, Oregon who formed the band in 2013. Their single "Sun Shy" was featured on the ABC Family TV show Switched at Birth." And apparently the duo have now split (again, unsourced) so how is the article ever going to expand from these two lines? Richard3120 (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated

In a number of recent edits I've seen, FlightTime has been trimming the Instrument field of musicians' infoboxes, e.g. like this. Good, this field is very prone to excess clutter.

However, I note FlightTime has also been adding a warning note to the field that reads, "If you think an instrument should be listed, a discussion to reach consensus is needed first per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument" I've got nothing against having some sort of warning note and a pointer to the infobox guidance is useful, but as far as I know, FlightTime's wording is not true. A discussion is not needed first before adding an instrument. This field is like any part of Wikipedia and can be edited like any part of Wikipedia. Your basic

Can the Project provide some guidance? Is there a rule I've missed that discussion first is required with this field, or can the Project suggest to FlightTime that s/he should re-word? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Any help with this draft and getting it moved to mainspace would be much appreciated. Also

I would appreciate it if someone with expertise in music could look at a proposed draft I have written on Stephen Emmer. The editor who has twice reviewed my requested edits believes that the section on Stephen Emmer's career contains indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples. I do not agree. It covers his 40 year career, and most of the detail included provides information on each of Stephen Emmer's releases. Every record includes multiple guest artists and a distinct theme.

Whether it is to agree or disagree, I would appreciate it very much if someone with music expertise could add their opinion to the discussion on the Stephen Emmer talk page.

Thank you.Maartenbousie (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

[6] The stuff i see on Collectors Corner they seems to know what they are talking about but i need to know is this source reliable.--DR. LUV JA (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The question is, "reliable for what purpose?" Backing away from that, their about us page states that they record collectors and run a radio programme of some sort. However, there is no indication that they are in any way accredited as collectors or radio hosts. They are likely more knowledgeable than the average listener, but without an editorial policy or oversight board, I would argue they are not de facto reliable sources. We could use what they write about a specific release (label, catalogue number, track names and lengths, etc.) as reliable, as they have access to the source, but any interpretation of the data would not likely be considered reliable. So, in your case, the article makes statements about who came to the UK from Jamaica and why. My take is that this statement cannot be taken as reliable. Similarly, the mention of Chris Blackwell and his importance, are not reliable, but that he founded Island records would be. Discussion about Laurel Aitken's place in the scene is not reliable, but the lyrics he sang likely are. Sorry for the inconclusive response. I'm sure you wanted a binary response, but this case is not that clear-cut. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

As Walter says, what specifically do you want to use the site for? If it's for the news items, they are in fact all copied from Jamaican and British newspapers and magazines - for instance, the Blue Beat Records article that you linked to above comes from

The Jamaica Gleaner [7]

. It would be preferable to use this directly as the source.

I can't speak for the US, but in the UK there are lots of reliable sources for reggae coverage - books, retrospective articles in music magazines like Q and Mojo, and in the 1970s and 1980s reggae was heavily covered by the UK's principal music papers NME, Melody Maker and Sounds... all of them would be reliable sources and you wouldn't have to resort to collectorskornernow.com. I know they're not easy to get hold of in the US, but if you give me an idea of what you're looking for, I might be able to help. Richard3120 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Good day!
My question is regarding whether i can include sales from specific chart (summed from several years).
About the chart:

Members of this project may be interested in WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 9#Music_organisations_by_country, whete I have proposed renaming 90 categories to standardise their names on the format "Music organi[sz]ations based in Foo".

Comments should be made at the CFD page linked above, so that they can be weighed by the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note that there is a new music list, see List of music museums. Please give your opinion too whether this list has been referenced enough. See the talk page for that. Ymnes (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is not if it has been referenced enough but whether it should only contain museums that have their own pages on Wikipedia. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors are welcome to comment.

I was summoned by the RfC bot to comment on Talk:Alan_Walker_discography#RFC, which deals with something I would think we'd already address in some WikiProject guideline, but I haven't come across it. Input would be useful from editors experienced with discographies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at

@RoySmith: you might try posting this message on the talk page of WikiProject Classical Music as well, although it's pretty quiet there. Richard3120 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems discography WikiProject to be death so I decided to ask questios here. Are chart positions limited to only 10 lists? Is it requirement? Why there is no "certifications" column on singles? Is it allowed? Why do you use countries abbreviations two and three letters mixed instead of standardized three letters from ISO 3166-1 alpha-3? Eurohunter (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: as far as I know, the "10 countries" limit in discography tables is a guideline, not a policy. But it's a good idea, because otherwise you don't have enough space to fit more countries on the page, and the table becomes unreadable. Yes, you can add certifications for singles, but only for the 10 countries that you are including in the table. I have no idea why some countries have two-letter abbreviations and sometimes three letters... I agree that this should be standardised for all discography tables. Richard3120 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I mean "sales" column. I'm sorry about that. To be honest there is enough space almost to add half of table yet. Monitors are today bigger than it's needed. Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A few AfDs if anyone would like to chip in:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sweetener Sessions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweetener World Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandito Tour (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Slide Park Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macadelic Tour

Thanks! --woodensuperman 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I came across this article about a record company. It doesn't look notable to me and a quick online search doesn't turn up anything to indicate notability. But since this is outside my area of interest, I thought I'd ask what others think here. Deli nk (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartless Records (2nd nomination). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

• Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
• Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
• Format accepted articles
• Promote the journal

Authors

• New Wikipedia articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• submission page
  )
• Image articles, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

• Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1.
  ISSN 2639-5347
  .

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up

I haven't read them, but apparently Michael Palin's diaries for 1972-73 talk about the trouble the Monty Python team had trying to find a company who would press a multi-grooved record for them, the resulting

Matching Tie and Handkerchief

album. It seems the first record with multiple grooves was produced as far back as 1898, which seems incredible.

Incidentally, don't you think the name of this article is wrong? I mean, by definition almost all vinyl records are multisided (two sides). Multi-grooved record seems to be the more accurate name. Richard3120 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to inform anyone who's interested about this discussion on the legitimacy of the Latvian airplay chart that's being used in several articles. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the "Cocaine Blues" article deals with at least 4 songs. Please discuss at Talk:Cocaine Blues if you care. —  AjaxSmack  21:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just helped the son of Karl Marx to improve his father's article in English. Could some native speaker please take a look at the result and copy edit our version. TIA --h-stt !? 17:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. There are many songs and albums that have been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame but are missing articles. I haven't finish checking but there at least 20 of them missing (each subpage has at least 1 missing article). Would anyone like to help me create articles for them? Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And there's also its Latin counterpart. Erick (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following:

Greetings, Sharing with Music WP about article Lyricist was tagged in 2006 as having no references. Hoping members of Music wikiproject may be able to improve this article (totally outside my area of expertise). Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the reliability of 45cat at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at

Could someone in the know add some references to the Faces of Death (album) article please? A recent IP edit has changed the release date from '93 to '91, but my brief checking (Discogs and Rap Music Guide) gives 1995. The article currently has no references beyond an AllMusic review, which also gives 1995. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter:

There is a discussion on the reliability of YouKnowIGotSoul.com on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at

I've restarted a discussion at WikiProject Songs about categorizing all songs by recording artists by genre. I think WikiProject Music members may be interested as well. Members are invited to review past discussion and contribute to the ongoing one. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Content

All non-defining categories ought to be removed. Same for navboxes. It's just clutter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There is an RfC on a page in this Wikiproject here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooeena (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the

I was notified by an editor on my talk page that the reason sources were deleted from an artist article was that "consensus is that discographies don't need to be sourced and that AllMusic is unreliable".

I've never seen any discussion that discography sections do not need references, although I have seen many discography articles without them. I have seen some discussion on TV episode lists that once an episode has been aired, that references may be removed. I have not seen a corresponding discussion in relation to artists and their albums.

As for AllMusic being reliable, I have seen consensus that the genre cloud is unreliable, and a recent discussion that release dates may not be reliable, particularly for older works, but not an overarching discussion that the whole site is unreliable. In fact, I have been involved in discussions to the contrary.

So where are these discussions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

At face value, it’s nonsense. But it could just be a misguided editor. As you say, the AllMusic “infoboxes” are generally considered unreliable. And maybe the editor doesn’t understand that it’s only okay to remove sources from discography items when they have sources present in their own standalone article or something? (And even then it’s not like they need to be removed or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is {{

• @Caldorwards4: @Jax 0677: @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @TenPoundHammer:, delete it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it should be retained, but BrownHairedGirl might be able to give a clearer answer here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:NENAN. I will TfD it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 17:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It would pass a TfD review as it has more than two entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Deletion discussion at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 3#Template:Angaleena_Presley. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the

Temple of Perdition does not appear to be notable. I've thrown these to AfD in the past but this article has a lot of sources. When I look closely at the sources, many are primary and the rest feel like blogs. A neutral reviewer would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not familiar with “Metal Mofos”, or any of the other random “Metal (random word)” blogs it uses, but those sorts of websites are a dime a dozen, and outside of a few exceptions at

WP:RSMUSIC, usually unreliable self published blogs, so I don’t seen anything helping notability yet... Sergecross73 msg me

13:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That was my impression. This editor tends to use a lot of those metal blogs. Since none of them are on the sources to avoid list, I don't usually make any changes. Metal-archives, however, I remove on-sight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

At List of awards and nominations received by Drake, the Billboard Music Awards nominations just announced are shown as "Pending" instead of "Nominated". Why? Are they changed to "Nominated" once the winner is announced (i.e. "Nominated" means "did not win")? Wouldn't it be easier to just list them as "Nominated" to begin with, and just change the winners after they are announced? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Until the results are announced, they should be pending. Once announced they should be changed to won or nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Carnatic music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Carnatic music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Rock music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Prairie Madness valid for an A7 deletion? I see no notability assertations at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place, but I'm guessing someone here can awnser my question. The article I want to create in question is

@

WP:NSONG). Intros, transitions and interludes are not usually notable on their own. Assuming that the song is not really notable, my advice is simple: your problem is best solved by not creating the article at all and simply including the few sourced sentences you can write about an intro in the album article itself. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

💸

01:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we sure the other version is too? (Honest question - I have no idea off-hand.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

💸

01:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean, do any of his other Meek Mills “Intro” songs have their own articles? If not, then the solution is just to name it “Intro (Meek Mills song)”. Disambiguation is meant to disambiguate between existing articles, not necessarily the songs themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In the event that multiple Meek Mill songs named "Intro" are sufficiently notable, the most practical solution would be to use the year of release to differentiate each article's title (e.g. Intro (Meek Mill song, 2012) and Intro (Meek Mill song, 2018)). LifeofTau 04:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the comments from others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the other songs are notable, so

💸

11:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Country music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Country music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated

It seems that there's about to be a major mix up in how the charts work soon.

For one, Billboard is soon introducing a Global 100, based on Streams and Sales (no radio). Secondly, Rolling Stones is releasing a Daily 100 starting in a few days.

Honestly, I've been following the charts very closely for about 7 years (and for even longer less closely) and it feels to me like we might be witnessing history here. I was wondering when and if these charts would be included on the Wikipedia discography pages.

It seems to me like Billboard's Global 100 would be natural to include. Rolling Stone's Daily 100 feels like it might need to develop a degree of notoriety before it should get included. Since that publication has never had charts before. The Rolling Stones charts are redundant in terms of having a US singles charts. Plus, it is unprecedented and out-of-step will all other national charts, since it is daily instead of weekly Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree – the Global 100 chart will almost certainly have to be included in Wikipedia, seeing as it's compiled by Nielsen, and quite likely the Rolling Stone chart too... for those unaware of developments, see here [8] and here [9]. Japan's Oricon has had daily charts before, but Rolling Stone's should have a higher profile.

My worry is that a few years down the line, the next logical step is to have a real-time chart, which could mean more than one number-one per day, and could be extremely difficult to keep track of... Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I really doubt we'll ever see something like that. First off, how on Earth could we even begin to archive that? Does "real time" mean updated per hour? Or updated per minute? Even if it only meant to be updated every hour, that would already be 168x as space/time consuming to archive as regular weekly charts. The Billboard Hot 100's 61 year history would be matched in about 4 months. If charts can't be archived and searched through, then they are pretty much useless as historical records. I know iTunes has done "real time" charts before. But they didn't actually save the information or upload it anywhere. It was just for people to see in the minute that it happened. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting ahead of myself, I know. But yes, the problem of archiving charts is what worries me – people would presumably use the Wayback Machine to archive a snapshot of a chart at a particular moment. But at the moment, Billboard's archives simply give the highest position reached, and the date of the chart that it reached that position – that would be no different if it were a weekly chart, daily chart or any other time increment. So the archive would exist. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's daily chart is being driven from data provided by BuzzAngle Music. BuzzAngle Music is a competitor to Nielson Music and provides "building" album and song charts to Hits Daily Double. The link to the current BuzzAngle Music singles chart is here: [10]. I don't think we've ever had a discussion on including information from BuzzAngle Music before. Richard Hendricks (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and BuzzAngle Music are both partly owned by Penske Media Corporation, so I guess that makes BuzzAngle's supply of data to Rolling Stone an in-house operation. Richard3120 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, don't know how I missed this one, but yes, I agree that both charts would be good to use. My threshold for chart inclusion is probably more lax than your typical experienced editor though, as I don't even like how we peel back use of things like
  Hot Rock Songs" charts. Sergecross73 msg me
  17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Electronic music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electronic music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Soft Rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Soft Rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Percussion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Percussion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Punk rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Punk rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Classical guitar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Classical guitar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pipe organ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pipe organ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Guitar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Guitar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why? Or was this a mistake? Wasn't sure if this was the proper place to ask questions like this, but I know that if I put it on the page for "Meant To Be" that nobody would see it. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally you'd usually ask this at the talk page for whatever article you're talking about, but you can always ask here too if the article/talk page is relatively inactive and unlikely to get any responses. I'd like to help you, but I think I need a little more information first. Looking it over, I see that Bebhe Rexa is the artist, Expectations is the upcoming 2018 album, and "Meant to Be" is a 2017 single that will also be on the upcoming was on the album. But I'm not quite sure I understand the rest of the question. First off, which of these 3 things are the article we're talking about editing? Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikki Lee 1999: I'll echo Sergecross73's comment. Meant to Be (Bebe Rexha song) has no album section though so your question makes no sense. It does link to All Your Fault: Pt. 2 in the infobox. That was the first release the song appeared on. Expectations (Bebe Rexha album) was released almost a year later. Feel free to ask at the song article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I meant the album section of the infobox. Sorry for not including that key word. Why is "Meant To Be" only listed as being from one album, but songs like "Better" (Khalid), "Boo'd Up" (Ella Mai), "Slow Jamz" (Twista), and countless others are listed as part of two different albums/projects? Is there a specific reason? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Title" (Meghan Trainor) is another song that seems to be inconsistent with "Dear Future Husband" and "All About That Bass". All three of which are featured both on "Title" an EP and "Title" the album. But only the latter two have both projects in the infobox. Confused as to why that is. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I see now. Yeah, I think it's really just an oversight of no one ever adding the second release? I'm not aware of any guidelines preventing listing it being from 2 releases in the infobox. Its never been an issue in the articles "Highway Tune" and "Safari Song" that I've created and maintained since inception. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested: the article for

I nominated

A very specific question: Britten's Diversions for Piano Left Hand and Orchestra has "Title" capitalisation, but since it is often referred to as "Britten's Diversions", should it be sentence case? IOW, the "for..." is just a description, not a title. I think sentence case is better, and wrote it that way in Anthony Goldstone, which I just created, but perhaps there is a clear(?!) precedent... Imaginatorium (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:COMMONNAME is "Britten's Diversions", the article needs to be moved there. If it's "Diversions for Piano Left Hand and Orchestra", no move is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm only asking about capitalisation; the reference "Britten's Diversions" is like saying "Beethoven's Fidelio", but this is a reference to the composer and title, not the title itself. Anyway, I found support for my suggestion:

• The score on sale at Boosey is labelled "Diversions [newline] for piano (left hand) and orchestra"
• Slonimsky has "Diversions for Piano, Left-hand, and Orch.", up-style, abbreviated

But I think these both confirm that the "for piano..." is a subtitle, and I will change the capitalisation to our standard down-style, and move the page. I asked because I thought it was likely that this sort of title had been discussed before, and I did not want to go against any existing decision. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Consider reviewing Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music)#Compositions_(classical_music). --Izno (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. A discussion regarding whether the musician K-391 should have a Wikipedia page or not is ongoing. I urge interested editors to participate and comment whether the page should be deleted or kept in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-391. Thank you. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, want to receive consensus on this issue. @

It is not appropriate to include record labels or other companies in artists' navboxes, unless there is some intrinsic link to the artist, i.e. they founded the label or brand. Record labels usually have rosters with multiple artists, so there is no unique tie to the artist, therefore, per

WP:UNDUE weight on the appearance of certain artists over others. Also note that this isn't a mass change - there is longstanding consensus for this. Look at most musical artist navboxes, and you will see how this logic is applied throughout. This has been the tacit status quo for years, it just seems that a few navboxes have slipped through the net. --woodensuperman

13:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with woodensuperman, except for that part about the net that things slip through. A big enough net and you can catch anything, and then the net resistance units have to start climbing up the contraption with sewing needles and soon you've got one hell of a stew. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Record label nav boxes should list imprints of a parent label, not the recordings of a small label.

Compilation albums might deserve navboxes. Large, annual collections, such as the Now That's What I Call Music! series of albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, most of the Now! albums are being redirected to their parent article, on account of there being nothing to say about the individual albums apart from their track listing and gaining multiple platinum certifications. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about compilation album appearances in the artists' navboxes. i.e. would

Now That's What I Call Music 10 belong on {{Kiss}}, etc? I don't there would be an issue for a series of compilations to have their own navbox (or even label specific samplers etc being on the label's navbox) as long as the articles exist, but they shouldn't appear on the artists' pages or vice versa. --woodensuperman

15:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is like comparing apples to watermelons. Compilations made by Now! are a lot different than collaboration albums/"compilations" made by record labels such as Shady XV. Also it seems the comments swerved a weird way, just want to make sure everyone knows we are talking about artists navboxes such as Template: T.I. StaticVapor message me! 05:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Label specific multi artist compilation albums might belong in the navbox for the label, but for the reasons stated above, they would not belong on the individual artists' navboxes. Note how A Factory Sample is included at {{Factory Records}}, but not at {{Joy Division}}, etc, etc. Also note how {{Joy Division}} does not include a link to Factory Records. This is the correct way of dealing with both of these issues. --woodensuperman 08:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The multiple appearances of Dreamville Records in all the artists' navboxes, also the placing of all the artists' navboxes on that page, as well as with compilation appearances such as Revenge of the Dreamers II are the problematic issues that need to be rectified here. --woodensuperman 08:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Input is requested at Talk:Songwriters Hall of Fame#Michael Jackson. Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I often see the term "digital download" in music-related articles. Because all downloads are digital (it can't be analog), I suggest to omit the word "digital" and just write "download". @STATicVapor: --Trustable (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That is it's common name so we should use it, not a truncated yet more correct term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The “digital” part is meant to disguish from “physical” as in a physical release of a CD or record. Yes, there is no “physical download”, but “physical” or “digital” are generally the two terms used in media like music, video games, etc. to distinguish the form of the music release, so I don’t think we’d be better off omitting it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I think “digital” is not a good distinction, because CDs are digital too. --Trustable (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I always delete "digital". It's an obvious tautology.

Serge, I don't understand your reasoning - as you say, a download is obviously not physical because it's a download, so what information does "digital" add? If for some reason it's important that it's a digital release, call it that - a digital release, not a digital download.

talk

) 06:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

My point was just that the natural/most common way of wording it is "(Subject) was released physically and digitally" and not "(Subject) was released physically and by download". It was just a passing comment - I don't feel all that strongly about it - but I would definite advise against "deleting on sight" at this point, as "digital download" appears to be the standard way of listing it in music infoboxes. It's done so widely I've figured it was the MOS standard. I just spot-checked five random song articles and every single one used "digital download". ("

doesn't make it right, but to see it be used so widespread shows that its got to be a standard of some sort. Sergecross73 msg me

13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

To be blunt, it is standard - a standard bit of bad writing. Many tautologies are so common in speech and writing they have to be consciously weeded out. Some examples.

talk

) 14:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not our job to influence the language. It is our job to reflect it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, especially in this instance. I'm not opposed to trimming out your every day redundant "absolute essentials" and some of those other example at Popcornduff's example list, but I feel like this is different because its more of a "terminology" thing than just an "overly wordy prose" thing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. good writing style is acceptable. In other word, we can remove unnecessary words such as "titled" or "entitled" in prose, but changing common terms is not acceptable. This discussion reminds me of the "self-titled" v "eponymous" debate that spilled into social media about five years ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reflecting common use makes sense when the "improper" term is more widely understood - for example there is an argument that "pin number" is more widely understood than "PIN". This is not the case with "digital download". If we omit "digital", no reader will frown and go "huh, I don't get it, what's a download?" There is zero reason to include it. It is the most obvious tautology and I'm surprised there's any dissent here.

talk

) 15:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. We gave you one reason and one is more than zero. I'm surprised at your hyperbole here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"lots of people use this tautology" isn't a good reason when the tautology imparts no improved clarity whatsoever. "Digital download" helps no one.

talk

) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I often see the term "digital download" in music-related articles was both the beginning and the end of the argument. If we often see the term in RSes, then we use that term. Our opinion of the term is entirely irrelevant. – Levivich 15:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I assume Trustable meant Wikipedia articles.

talk

) 16:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean only Wikipedia articles. --Trustable (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS is not a requirement to reflect the language in RSs. It is a requirement that the facts (or opinions) we write about be sourced. The only requirement on language we have is the one reflected by good English manuals of style, of which these are not. --Izno (talk

) 16:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A download is always digital, so it would be more concise (clearer writing) simply to call them downloads. There is also no loss of precision given the context. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't understand why you wrote "No one else agrees" in this revert. I read the replies of Popcornduff and Izno as they agree to remove "digital". --Trustable (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hyperbole. There is still no consensus to change "digital download" to "download" only and doing so is premature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless revert.

talk

) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your This removal of it was what was pointless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong guy.

talk

) 17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. Sorry, that edit is what was pointless. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Hello. I was wondering if the Spotify weekly (or even daily) charts are relevant enough to be included in the charts table for songs. I had never thought about it, but I've seen it being added to a lot of recent songs' articles. Is that something that should be implemented? Thanks! ManuelButera (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they fail

WP:BADCHARTS because they come from a single vendor... same goes for iTunes charts. They should be removed. Richard3120 (talk

) 18:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Single vendor chart. No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the

In preparation for Glastonbury Festival next week a small project has been set up to try to get pictures for acts appearing who don't have photos (or pics are poor/out of date). A list has been started at Wikipedia:Glastonbury 2019. Are there acts on the line up which need pics but aren't included on the list? In addition there has been some discussion about which acts, who do not have articles, would be considered notable enough (in wp terms) to justify one and should be included on the list as red links. If you had any pointers or could contribute to the list that would be great.— Rod ^talk 19:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here to request a peer review for John Denver's article. Here's the link to the review page if anyone is willing to add comments. Thanks, NightBag10 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

But the infobox doesn't say it.Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nikki Lee 1999: it did say it until a week ago, when a vandal screwed up the formatting in the infobox... I've changed it now. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have

I was mentioned above. I have no views whatsoever of the correct styling of the band's name. I do note that The Guardian article used a lower case "the" in their headline regarding Greta that I cited. Good luck with the resolution. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned you for completeness only (no suggestion that you behaved improperly), but since you're here; I have no views whatsoever of the correct styling of the band's name is demonstrably incorrect since you made an edit that changed the content of an article in this regard. Our views take a back seat to policies and guidelines unless there's a community discussion about the possibility of changing them; the relevant guidelines are linked above.

Popcornduff has already fixed the 1975 and only the Greta Thunberg article remains; the resolution will require no luck, but thanks :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

16:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The consensus on whether to capitalise the definite article in band names was settled with the Beatles argument a few years ago. We don't do it. It's right there in

talk

) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Popcornduff for fixing both articles. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have started an RfC for determining inclusion criteria for List of music considered the worst, and would like the input of WikiProject Music. Please go to Talk:List of music considered the worst#RfC - Inclusion criteria to leave a response. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Mind if I make {{WikiProject Music}}? Enterprisey (talk!) 00:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That template has been deleted twice and salted. It was discussed in 2008 and rejected. Summary: This is an umbrella project that doesn't do assessments, and a banner wouldn't lead to improved articles. Such a banner would also collide with this project's many subprojects. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone willing to finish what I started in adding all the winners and nominations from this year's International Dance Music Awards? I've been including some winners based on this source for nominations and this source for winners. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WikiProject Musicians and would appreciate input:

Hello Wikipedians, I have made some updates to the Cazadero Performing Arts Camp page. This is an important music camp in the San Francisco Bay Area and it has trained many well known local musicians. The page could use more images and information by other wikipedians interested in contributing to music related pages. Please view the page and provide feedback on my work as well as add any additional information you can.Trixie07 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the notabilities of

The album is borderline notable – the band is obviously notable, and the album has at least one review on AllMusic... it's possible there may be more coverage in Christian magazines/websites. The song, however, seems non-notable – I can't find any coverage, even in Polish, except for YouTube videos and MP3 sites. There was no Polish singles chart at the time, and it didn't chart anywhere else in Europe. I'd probably redirect it to Mandaryna, as the parent album is even less notable and should be redirected too... even the album's article states that it bombed. Richard3120 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a requested move under discussion at Talk:Good_Year_for_the_Roses. Please participate and determine whether the article should be renamed to A Good Year for the Roses per my evidence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion on the

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force#Clarification regarding country names in infobox. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Please see the section "Naming countries in infoboxes" below. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For almost a year now, there has been a content dispute over at List of music considered the worst over the inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The chief problem I've identified is that the entry was first added by sockpuppets of The abominable Wiki troll back in 2014 ([11]) and was formally deleted by Sergecross73 in December of that year ([12]). By September 2018, however, the entry was reinstated ([13]), and I have been lead to believe that the editor who restored it was an IP sock of TAWT, as both that IP address and an IP address cited in a noticeboard discussion about TAWT share nearly identical geolocation information (compare - [14] [15]). However, there are some legitimate editors who support the album's inclusion, as seen here.

My question is: does support for inclusion from legitimate editors override any concerns that the entry was added by a sockpuppet, confirmed or suspected? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is poorly done

WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and a poorly done summary of a long running dispute. There are multiple more comprehensive ongoing discussions on the talk page that would make much more sense to contribute to than start another here. Sergecross73 msg me

00:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Andrez Bergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is... differently wonderful. It relies almost exclusively on affiliated and self-published sources, and appears to have been written by is most ardent fan. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I agree the current article is not good. But... it has effectively been nominated for AfD twice before, under Mr. Bergen's most commonly used alias Little Nobody, and no consensus has been reached – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Nobody (2nd nomination). It does appear that there might be enough in print sources to show notability. Not written by a fan exactly, but certainly someone with a COI, judging by Talk:Andrez Bergen#Contesting Speedy Deletion as Advertisement. All of Little Nobody's albums have Wikipedia articles at the moment as well, although again, the case for them is not strong. Richard3120 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You Ain't Goin' Nowhere, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Roger Miller, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know what editors watching this page think about "piano ballad" being considered a genre. A user has insisted that

As section title; their FAQ, regarding possible reliability per editorial oversight and omitting less relevant Q&As, states:

What is SecondHandSongs?

SecondHandSongs is the largest and most accurate database of cover songs. Use it to find out who performed the original version of a particular song, or who else around the world covered that song. We try to be as complete and accurate as possible by also indexing the songwriters of the songs and the releases that feature these originals and covers. We order the data in a reusable and maintainable way and we're highly cross-referenced with other databases, among which Discogs, RateYourMusic, Echonest, Spotify, iTunes, ...

How can I add songs to the database?

You can submit them in the participation section. Please provide us with as much information as possible and name the sources where you got your information from.

Why does it take forever until my suggestion has been processed?

Since we started we have been literally flooded with cover song suggestions, which are still stacking up. As we are a small team of volunteers, we're unable to keep up with submitted suggestions. We will however check and add all your submissions, which can currently take up to 5 years or longer. So please be patient or ... become an editor yourself!

Where can I report errors and incomplete information?

Please read our introduction to the database before reporting an error. In many cases mistakenly reported errors are based on misinterpretations. You can report errors by clicking on "Report error" available on most pages. Please provide us with as much information as possible and name the sources where you got your information from. This can speed up processing a lot.

Where can I find reliable sources of information?

You can find some in our bookmarks list. Note that websites like wikipedia, answers.com, music.com, and many others are not to be trusted! If you prefer real books, check out out the reference books our editors use.

Are your statistics reliable?

No. As said before, given the enormous work ahead of us, our site is far from comprehensive and doesn't claim to be. Also, the entries are heavily biased by the preferences of the editors and our visitors. Conclusion: Never ever claim Summertime] is the most covered song with more than 750 covers according to SecondHandSongs.

They refer to their "Bookmarks list" which lists a lot of resources they apparently use for research, and as can be seen from the above FAQ answers, although users can make suggestions about the site content, the final decision(s) apparently lie(s) with the site editors. Their editors are listed on their "About us" page. They apparently founded in 2003. I don't want to overly influence other editors review of this possibly useful resource, so will leave the introduction short. What do we think? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not based on what I read at https://secondhandsongs.com/page/About : "The additions to the database are the works of a group of fanatic cover song lovers, who devote their time on a voluntary basis." It seems to have no oversight and no review process. It's one step above an open wiki. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Apart from not seeming to pass as an RS, I'm not sure why we would want to use it anyway... simply having a list of cover versions still doesn't pass the requirements of WP:SONGCOVER of in-depth discussion of each cover version. Richard3120 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally sources that accepted submissions like this are always considered unreliable per

WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me

12:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The way the site seems to function, regarding user submissions, is that anyone may make suggestions that the editors then scrutinise and publish depending on their research. Looking at this page for Willie Nelson, listing various general details; note the "META Added by Mathieu Managed by Bastien" (top right of main content on desktop Chrome). Clicking either of the names will show e.g. the contributor statistics for Bastien.

@Richard3120: If considered reliable, it could be useful for dates, credits and other details which might not be mentioned in other sources.

However, so far it seems that it's not well regarded. I'm okay with that; thanks for the feedback :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: if that's the case, I agree with Walter and Serge and say "unreliable"... as it's user-supplied data, the users are unlikely to have definite knowledge of things like release dates, and very likely they'll just have got them off Discogs or another site that we consider unreliable for these things. Richard3120 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood that anyone may make suggestions that the editors then scrutinise and publish depending on their research Richard3120; as I stated earlier on They refer to their "Bookmarks list" which lists a lot of resources they apparently use for research. I have also just said that each editor's statistics can be viewed regarding their submissions' acceptance or rejections. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed several problems with their details, such as dates, credits, etc. Although there is some oversight, apparently their sources include Discogs, blogs, and other open sources which are not considered RS. By their own admission, corrections may take up to five years to process and their coverage is biased towards user submissions, so they should not be considered reliable (they do note "Are your statistics reliable? – No"). Secondhandsongs.com should be added to

WP:NOTRSMUSIC. —Ojorojo (talk

) 00:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify; as I noted, they admit to their "statistics" being unreliable, but not that the content published is i.e. if they list five covers of "The Song" by the Artist, they admit that the quantity of 5 is not reliable, not that the five listed are incorrect or unreliable. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood. That was one of my concerns. It's not an all-encompassing compendium of cover songs, not that one exists in reality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see why not being an all-encompassing compendium of cover songs should be a concern; a review of a single song in a single newspaper (that is regarded as reliable) is a good enough source for us; we don't expect the paper to list every other cover version alongside it, for it to be considered a valuable source. The reliability of this site is all that is in question, not how much of it there is. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. Or did you mean that since it's not an all-encompassing compendium, we can safely ignore that aspect i.e. the stats, Walter? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if we start using the source, it might be considered a source a valuable as AllMusic or some other online database.

We can safely ignore it because a) we are not interested in being such a database ourselves and instead only want to include notable (ie

WP:COVERSONG) cover songs and 2) because we cannot guarantee its reliability (even though we all admit it's likely very good). Walter Görlitz (talk

) 01:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

And as I answered Richard3120's concerns regarding notable covers; I am not suggesting that we scour their database and translate everything they mention to bullet-points in every article they'll fit in, only that if considered reliable, we might cite any data about notable covers that they've published, that other sources (that go into more detail in other respects) may have ignored or omitted. Multi-referencing content to fill in all the details is normal practice; using this site to fill in some gaps could be handy (if considered reliable etc etc). As for your point "2)" yes, that's the question; "is it reliable?" So far this conversation seems to have skipped around that issue by misunderstanding or misinterpreting how the site operates, or by questioning how it would be used. Other than the statistics, which should absolutely never be cited (by their own admission), the only possibly dodgy looking part is that some of the sources they use don't look awesome. Unfortunately, they don't show which sources they used for each item they list (which is frankly bloody annoying and does them no favours), but a high quality newspaper often won't list its sources either, and we just accept that their editorial ethics are sound. What specifically about this site indicates a lack of reliability? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello project music, there is a deletion request for the article MADTEO ongoing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADTEO. Please participate in the discussion.--༄U-ji (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)