Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. 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. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Highlight songs that hit number-one on the Billboard Hot 100 in Billboard Year-End lists
I'd like to propose highlighting songs that hit number-one in each year's table. Using 1990 (my year of birth) as an example, here is what the article would look like:
This is a list of Billboard magazine's Top Hot 100 songs of 1990.
The song hit number-one on the Hot 100 at some point during the calendar year
The song hit number-one at some point during the previous calendar year (1989)
What do you think? MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- That might not be a bad idea. Such color coding to designate number one hits can be useful to interested parties. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it puts too much emphasis on who hit number one on the chart. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Naming conventions for list articles (as relates to songs)
There is a discussion regarding the naming of list articles as it applies to songs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Interested parties may like to have a look and comment. This is message has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Alerts
Normally a requested move for 20 articles would trigger an alert on a project page to inform editors interested in that project. Where's the best place to drop a notice for popular music? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh well, if anyone's here :) ...the alert would have pointed to Talk:Mỹ Linh (restore undiscussed removal of 'ỹ' accent) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC on band names
You are invited to participate in an RfC on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help in determining current community consensus. Thank you for your time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion
Can I please get someone to weigh in here on whether or not a song should be merged? So far the discussion is just back and forth between me and the page creator. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Trim image
Could we get the space at the bottom of File:Llpd-3.svg trimmed off? For example, ♭, 
Add File:Llpd-½.svg, File:Llpd-1½ var.svg. Hyacinth (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect the people at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshops, and in particular at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, might be better equipped for such requests. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I posted there. Hyacinth (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC/Editnotices
Sorry if this is not in the correct format, I have never started a RfC before. This seems, at least to me ATM, the best way to get this started, all help for format correction appreciated. Mlpearc (powwow)
The following is Copy/Pasted from my talk page.
I noticed this at AC/DC and also at Pink Floyd. Was there either a discussion or a reason for instructing people to not edit without discussion first? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, but all reverting of late (years) has been suggested to discuss "genre or lead" changes. There are many music related articles with these editnotices, which mostly replace the same statement in "hidden" comments. You are the first editor to bring this up. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I'm the first because the messages appear to be official, and people may assume there has been consensus. I'll take them down for now; even though I can see this as well intentioned, it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to impose restrictions on people editing without first going through an appropriate process. If you feel that these editnotices are a valid and useful approach to preventing problems (and they may well be), then it would be worth getting some consensus for them, and an agreed protocol for when they should be applied, by whom, and for how long they should remain in place. You could try raising the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if people respond. It may well be that such notices could be seen as a useful step before applying semi or full protection. It's just that there should be some discussion first to hammer out the details, and to see what objections there are. In the meantime, could you point me to which other articles you have placed them on? SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, would like to help but I don't see any consensus to remove them either but your apparent WP:OWN of the ones you have already removed. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 21:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)- I really don't see the problem here, the notices Do not even remotely imply restrictions on editing it merely ask to discuss your changes before you change a infobox or lead that has been established by consensus in the first place. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I'm the first because the messages appear to be official, and people may assume there has been consensus. I'll take them down for now; even though I can see this as well intentioned, it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to impose restrictions on people editing without first going through an appropriate process. If you feel that these editnotices are a valid and useful approach to preventing problems (and they may well be), then it would be worth getting some consensus for them, and an agreed protocol for when they should be applied, by whom, and for how long they should remain in place. You could try raising the idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if people respond. It may well be that such notices could be seen as a useful step before applying semi or full protection. It's just that there should be some discussion first to hammer out the details, and to see what objections there are. In the meantime, could you point me to which other articles you have placed them on? SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the list of editnotices I have created and placed without any complaints or concerns. Template:Editnotices/Page/ Mlpearc (powwow) 01:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If these editnotices have a potential value in circumstances where there is a concern about edit warring then a discussion should be made available to all Wikipedians. And as the editnotices seek to impose a special requirement on editors, that also has implications for all Wikipedians. So if these notices are seen as positive or negative, either way, the discussion should be held or at the least advertised beyond one project. At this point I am remaining neutral as regards the positive/negative value of the notices, but feel that there should be wide consensus as to if they should be used, and if so, when and how and with what wording. It's worth looking at Wikipedia:Editing policy and in particular Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing to get a feel for the policy regarding editing. We encourage people to get involved, and that they do not need to seek approval: "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles." We also inform people that there may be occasions when they should consider discussing changes: "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring". We do not, however, make it an instruction that people do so, especially for all edits, as is found in the editnotice: "Please do not make any changes to the infobox or lead section without a discussion about your changes on the talk page first." SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say, I just feel that the notices do not hinder editing, involvement or "being bold" they just suggest to discuss changes to two particular parts of a music related article the infobox and lead section, which by just the fact that these sections are a brief synopsis of the subject of the page and has already been long set by consensus. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: The "trigger" that caused me to start the additions of theses notices was the constant "Genres" changes to established (by consensus) infoboxes. I believe this is the first one that I placed
Black Sabbath and the hidden comment the notices were meant to replace. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment As my input on this issue was requested, I must say that while I have never used any of the hidden templates exactly like the one cited as being on the AC/DC page, I have used other hidden notes (usually regarding arbitrary genre changes, or American IP editors who constantly change British spelling and grammar in articles written to that standard, or for "[sic]" issues or whatever) or the American/British English templates on occasion for pages that first I, so as to establish a fixed spelling/grammar standard. As for the template on the AC/DC page, it seems perhaps a bit restrictive to be placed without first mentioning on the talk page, but they were not added without cause. Having dealt with a lot of the same issues with arbitrary, sometimes disruptive changes that ultimately end up disputed and changed back and forth countless times by several, (usually anonymous) parties, I really can't fault Mlpearc in this situation.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you L1A1 FAL, I don't think fault is the issue here, just opinions about the notices being used. Thank you for your input. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment:I've been aware of these edit notices from the point one was added to Black Sabbath. I don't have a strong opinion on their usefulness BUT I believe that seeing a 'notice' requesting a discussion prior to making a specific edit is less bitey than immediately having one's edit reverted. I see no problem with suggesting the addition of the edit notice on the article's talk page before adding it but I don't think this rises to the level of requiring a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). J04n(talk page) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment:The notice seemed perfectly reasonable. Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Mlpearc and Silk Tork are both correct. For tedious genre or line-up changes yes, editors should be strongly encouraged to discuss the change in talk first. This not only saves time but also promotes consensus building. On the other hand, I do find them a bit obnoxious and I think there should be little doubt that they discourage contributions from timid users while not stopping bold ones in the least. They should be used specifically and judiciously. In principle, I am not in favour of the notice to not edit the lead, but again, each article page has unique issues. We should balance the need to discourage unhelpful edits with the requirement that we remain open and welcoming to newer or timid users. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a cleaner, re-worded version
 | Various parts of any established infobox or lead section have had many discussions and a consensus has been reached. Changes of these accepted facts will most likely be reverted. Please discuss any changes to these areas prior making your changes. The article's talk page is the best place for these discussions. |
- Comment - As an editor who has reverted a lot of arbitrary genre changes to the AC/DC article, anything that genuinely discourages this practice is a good thing, in my opinion. Whether or not this notice works, i.e. it puts people off making dumb edits, I don't know. Equally, whether or not it discourages cautious editors from making any edits at all, I don't know - clearly this would not be a good consequence of the notice. I don't see why there shouldn't be a proper discussion about it, but I think some kind of notice would be beneficial. I find that editors who make genre changes are often extremely forthright about their opinions though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Until now, I've merely been observing this discussion, instead of contributing to it. However, this discussion does concern genre warring, which is a practice I have dealt with way too much while on Wikipedia (seriously, way too much; I even wrote an essay about it). I am not against such signs being posted on pages with heavy genre traffic. Wikipedia could always use with less of such pointless traffic. Sometimes, invisible text does not deter people from editing the genres, despite the fact that the text may essentially be shoved into their faces. However, although there is no data available as to people shying away from genre tweaking because of the messages, I have reason to believe that the method has probably worked with at least some individuals who were thinking about it. Therefore, I say, whatever it takes to deter genre warring, and not instead accidentally encourage it, should be implemented. I personally wouldn't mind if the infobox genre area disappeared all together, although I won't necessarily campaign for that. Therefore, I guess that the sign can be implemented, and that it can deter at least some people from such rude meddling. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I would also have reason to believe that this discussion being taken to another avenue would be appropriate. The inquiry could use more opinions. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I juust came up with an idea. How about the discussion is to stay here, and instead of moving it elsewhere, there could be invitations to the discussion placed on other WikiProjects or other areas of interest. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fandam*tasic :P I like your thinking already. I'm kinda in and out today for a few more hours, but if you post a list of places you can think of here I'll be glad to draw up an invatation and post it. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have a working invite here. If this is fine or after changes needed are made I will follow the suggestions from these pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing_an_RfC
Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I juust came up with an idea. How about the discussion is to stay here, and instead of moving it elsewhere, there could be invitations to the discussion placed on other WikiProjects or other areas of interest. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the wording is moving in the right direction. Also to be considered is when such a notice should be placed, by whom, and for how long. Would it be acceptable, for example, for an editor (possibly a genre warrior!) to change infoboxes to their preferred settings, and then place editnotices on the articles to discourage others from changing them? As the editnotice is a form of protection, my thinking is that there should be consensus for each application, or that a trusted user, such as an admin, should apply them - or perhaps either. They should only be applied (as with other forms of protection) only when there has been significant conflict/disruption/edit warring (not just one example of someone changing the genre field). And that initially they should only be applied for a limited time - say a month for first use, then six months. The idea being to discourage edit warring, and once that has been achieved to return to encouraging everyone to get involved.
- I note that Backtable feels the genre field could be removed from infoboxes. I think I prefer looking at that approach. If edit warring over the genre field on infoboxes is the reason for these notices, then it seems more appropriate to be addressing that problem directly. That would also mean this discussion could stay within the project. I'll start a new discussion on the genre field. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- But we're talking about the infobox and lead.... all this has undoubtedly been discussed and consensus reached already, any changes will require discussion anyway, so it seems to me that as soon as an article is determined to be a "high traffic page" regarding changes in these two areas, it is eligible for the editnotices indefinitely. When would it be OK to make infobox or lead changes to an established article without discussion ? Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- "When would it be OK to make infobox or lead changes to an established article without discussion ?" It's OK to make changes without discussion to all articles except those in full protection. It is recommended that when making substantial changes to policy pages that the changes are discussed first, though even then there is nothing in policy or guidelines that prevents a good faith edit, even if substantial. Wikipedia works on the principle of encouraging editing - Wikipedia:Be bold is one of our oldest policies, and "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" is one of the founding Five pillars. We only impose restrictions when there is a history of disruption, and never just because an article has reached a certain level of development or because it is high-profile. A frequently cited essay is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which is worth reading. The key is that if an editor has been bold, and has been reverted, that they should THEN engage in discussion before continuing to make the same edit. There are various procedures in place for editors who continue to edit against consensus - but we do like to first give editors the presumption that their edit will be positive, and to encourage them to make that edit without having to ask anyone's permission. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, but my question was from an established editor to another, not a newbie policy lesson. You know the reference of my question. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- "When would it be OK to make infobox or lead changes to an established article without discussion ?" It's OK to make changes without discussion to all articles except those in full protection. It is recommended that when making substantial changes to policy pages that the changes are discussed first, though even then there is nothing in policy or guidelines that prevents a good faith edit, even if substantial. Wikipedia works on the principle of encouraging editing - Wikipedia:Be bold is one of our oldest policies, and "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" is one of the founding Five pillars. We only impose restrictions when there is a history of disruption, and never just because an article has reached a certain level of development or because it is high-profile. A frequently cited essay is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which is worth reading. The key is that if an editor has been bold, and has been reverted, that they should THEN engage in discussion before continuing to make the same edit. There are various procedures in place for editors who continue to edit against consensus - but we do like to first give editors the presumption that their edit will be positive, and to encourage them to make that edit without having to ask anyone's permission. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- But we're talking about the infobox and lead.... all this has undoubtedly been discussed and consensus reached already, any changes will require discussion anyway, so it seems to me that as soon as an article is determined to be a "high traffic page" regarding changes in these two areas, it is eligible for the editnotices indefinitely. When would it be OK to make infobox or lead changes to an established article without discussion ? Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if you felt that I was telling you stuff that you already know. My experience is that there are lots of guidelines, policies and procedures, and few of us know them all. I am a member of the Arbitration Committee, and so expected to have considerable knowledge and experience of our procedures, but I don't know it all by any means, and I frequently have to ask for advice or information. There is also the question of interpretation - each situation is unique, and there is often differences of opinion on how policy is applied to each situation.
I think it might be clearer if we turned your question round - "When would it be OK to advise users to start a discussion before making infobox or lead changes to an established article?" And we'd also need to consider why it would just be the infobox or lead. The answer would then be - when there has been disruption to the lead or infobox. The next question would be - how much disruption, and for how long? Suppose this proposal were pitched at articles (established or not - doesn't matter) in which there has been some disruption, perhaps edit warring over genre in an infobox; the disruption has been between established editors so semi-protection isn't appropriate, but has not been so severe as to justify full protection. What do we do? Do we put an editnotice on the article first, or do we attempt to stop the disruption by opening a discussion with the editors. Well, opening a discussion would be more appropriate and in line with agreed procedures. So the editnotice wouldn't work then. Suppose the same editors return to warring on the same or different articles. Well, that means warning them again, rather than applying general restriction on the article. However, if a different set of editors starting a genre war on the infobox on the same article, then it might be appropriate to consider an edit notice. I think if you consider the whole process - when to apply the notice, the wording of the notice, who would apply it, and how long it would stay in place, then it would be more likely to be considered. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now as this discussion hasn't attracted much attention, but if you do reformulate your proposal, let me know as I'm quite interested in this. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know of your Arbitration Committee status (I was there :P ). I just feel that the infobox and lead of any article has been long discussed and consensus reached, so I see No Harm in letting even the newest IP know that in these sections if you want to change something it will need to be discussed, and not just changed at a whimm. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Case in point, AC/DC has regressed back to hidden notes and I suspect other music articles are a little less rampant with changes to information that's already been agreed upon (just a quick note :P) Mlpearc (powwow) 22:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Genre field in infoboxes
Glancing at the archives on this page and on the talkpages of the infoboxes, it appears that the genre field has come up for discussion a few times previously. It does appear to be a source of dispute and distraction. I'm going to spend some time later looking at the previous discussions to see what the arguments for and against the field have been, and then perhaps initiate a RfC, inviting related music projects to join in the discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- We actually removed it from artist and album infoboxes back in 2008 and it resulted in a huge backlash, a bunch of RfCs, and eventual reinstatement. The main discussions comprise the entirety of archives 9–14 of this talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. The more I look through the archives the more I think that this would likely lead to a long drawn out discussion with little or no consensus either way. Looking through some previous discussions I can see reasonable rationales for having a genre field, and that occasional problems or edit warring isn't a sufficient reason for removing the field completely. I don't think I'll be taking this any further. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think the problems and edit-warring are far from "occasional"...for anyone who watchlists a lot of music articles I'd say they're a regular occurrence and persistent annoyance. I personally think the field is more trouble than it's worth to keep stable, and I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over getting rid of it. But the brouhaha it caused in '08 left a bad taste in my mouth that still lingers. Some editors are so attached to this annoying little infobox field that they wanted any discussion of its removal to be advertised across the entire encyclopedia, even on the main page, even though the change only affected about 5% (or fewer) of Wikipedia's articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Am I in favor of removing the field? Yes. Would it cause a gigantic brouhaha? Yes. Would a consensus be reached? No. Is it worth the effort? No. Sorry, J04n(talk page) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC on new chart
The Hot Country Songs chart has been split into two new charts. I have filed an RFC asking for how this should be handled, and would appreciate discussion. Please see here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Request for a pointer to a previous discussion I may have only imagined
I thought I remembered seeing this somewhere, but it may have just been a dream. This project seems a good place to ask. At one point, wasn't there a decision somewhere to be really draconian with editors/IP addresses whose only purpose seemed to be to change music genres in articles without providing a reliable source? As in: warn them once or twice that we're being draconian about this, tell them not to do it anymore unless they had a source, and then block them forever if they keep it up? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is the RFC/Editnotes discussion above that did significantly discuss that type of behavior. Also, back in 2008, there was a decision to remove the mention of genres from all infoboxes, even though this was revoked soon thereafter. There has been significant discussion about genre meddlers, genreally speaking, and the decision has been to revert their edits and advise them against that behavior. It is quite unbelievable how some people think they need to edit genres the way they do. For an essay on the subject, see WP:GENREWARRIOR, and there are also other essays linked from there as well on the topic, including one I wrote. Cheers. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Remove colours in genre navboxes?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours Gnevin (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are these colours needed the seem a bit WP:OR to me and ignore WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR in the case that no properly identifying, accessible color exists; or the subject of the navbox should not be identified with a particular color (e.g. an average biography), the default navbox color should be used. It seems the task force that agreed these colours is historical . Should we be removing these colours? Gnevin (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean "Why are these colours needed, they seem...used?"? Hyacinth (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't follow you? Gnevin (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR doesn't seem very clear: I don't understand why Pink Panther would get a color but heavy metal wouldn't. Hyacinth (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- The pink panther is pink , Chelsea FC ware blue. Metal doesn't have a colour Gnevin (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- The pink panther is pink, but The Pink Panther isn't, and Inspector Clouseau certainly wasn't. Many metals are gray. Hyacinth (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- The pink panther is pink , Chelsea FC ware blue. Metal doesn't have a colour Gnevin (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do these colors provide any navigability? Hyacinth (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion looks like it could use a third opinion, so I'll state that the colors don't seem all that necessary. The names and characteristics of each genre should be distinctive enough, and to assign entire diverse genres a single color is redundant. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I second Backtable. Pick a single color to be used on all music genre navboxes. Heck, it should just be the default blue. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. The unnecessary use of colour hinder accessibility. DGG (at NYPL) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a first and second opinion...
- So is the answer, "No, they don't provide navigability"? Hyacinth (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion looks like it could use a third opinion, so I'll state that the colors don't seem all that necessary. The names and characteristics of each genre should be distinctive enough, and to assign entire diverse genres a single color is redundant. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- No. In what possible way would a color provide navigability? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. The colors were just busywork for some bored editors. They don't actually aid in navigation or identification or anything. The default Wikipedia color scheme should be used pretty much everywhere unless there's a really good reason not to. —Gendralman (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems most here are in favour of removing the colours Gnevin (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I am opposed to colour-coded genres, too. Genres create enough disputes without bringing colours into the equation. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems most here are in favour of removing the colours Gnevin (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. The colors were just busywork for some bored editors. They don't actually aid in navigation or identification or anything. The default Wikipedia color scheme should be used pretty much everywhere unless there's a really good reason not to. —Gendralman (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- No. In what possible way would a color provide navigability? --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments needed at Michael Jackson's health and appearance article
Note: transposed here by Moxy (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Are any of you willing to weigh in on the Talk:Michael Jackson's health and appearance#Removal of material based on objection to speculation and offensiveness and/or gruesome details discussion?
Also, regarding this article (Michael Jackson), this citation-needed tag should be reverted; this information is already referenced lower in the article, and, per WP:LEAD, what is already referenced lower in the article does not have to be referenced in the lead of the article. 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Psychology of music preference and add appropriate categories and wikiproject banner. Thanks. Illia Connell (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No spaces in band/artist names
What is the relation of the following guideline to the stylization of band or artist names without spaces, such as 65daysofstatic, Sleepmakeswaves, Alexisonfire, etc.
"Standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands and individual artists" (Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization)
It seems to me that these should then be 65 Days of Static, Sleep Makes Waves, and Alexis on Fire.
To write these without spaces feels to me to be simply reproducing stylizations and trademarks (MOS:TM).
But, if so, why should bands such as Coldplay, Slowdive or Deerhunter not be Cold Play, Slow Dive and Deer Hunter?
Is there a distinction to be made on the grounds that the former bands have names that are more grammatical? Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Formatting and capitalization is not spelling. Coldplay, coldplay, and COLDPLAY are all formatted and capitalized differently, but spelled the same. Hyacinth (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the spacing is formatting, not spelling. 'Coldplay' is a made-up word. '65daysofstatic' isn't; it's a sensible, meaningful phrase, and the lack of spacing is a formatting choice by the band. It's a trademark stylization. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that if the band name is usually only one word, then Wikipedia should likewise address the name as one word, and not try to give the band a name that is not theirs by adding spaces to it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- But it isn't one word, it's four words styled without spaces. Taking the spaces out a phrase doesn't turn it into one word. It's no different than a band that likes their name to appear without capitals, or in all capitals, or with dollar signs and exclamation marks instead of S's and I's. Wikipedia doesn't reproduce those trademarks, so why reproduce the trend towards removing spaces? Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that if the band name is usually only one word, then Wikipedia should likewise address the name as one word, and not try to give the band a name that is not theirs by adding spaces to it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the spacing is formatting, not spelling. 'Coldplay' is a made-up word. '65daysofstatic' isn't; it's a sensible, meaningful phrase, and the lack of spacing is a formatting choice by the band. It's a trademark stylization. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
So if I spell it "dict ionary" then its spelled correctly, just formatted differently? Hyacinth (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, talking about the dictionary by its default conditions, then "dictionary" would be the correct way to spell the word, and not "dict ionary". However, if a band somewhere out there named themselves Dict Ionary, and became notable enough to get a Wikipedia article of their own, then Wikipedia would call the band Dict Ionary, instead of Dictionary. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- In prose it would probably be a typographical error, not a spelling error (unless you thought it was two words). If it's the name of your band, and it's still pronounced dictionary, then yes, of course it's just formatting/stylization. Just as if it were written with a space between each letter, d i c t i o n a r y. Even setting aside the issue of spacing, shouldn't the article at least be titled 65DaysofStatic? That is, if standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands? Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wet Dog Meat? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- If I ever become a famous enough Wikipedia contributor to warrant my own article then sure! Sarcasm aside, does anyobody want to actually answer my question in relation to the established guidelines at Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization and MOS:TM and elsewhere? Please explain why the trend among certain types of bands/artists for styling their names by removing spacing is uncritically reproduced by Wikipedia, when all other such trademark stylings are not (see above re: dollar signs and exclamation marks, decorative and unpronounced symbols, etc. I removed the 'O)))' from Sunn O))), for instance). Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not sarcasm, but raising the point of you are who you are. It is not my place to rename you because of any "style" I may consider correct. Nor should you be renaming any band name, MOSSTYLE relates to stylisations, not "what is proper english" - Once it is a Proper noun then different rules apply. As I have already replied to you over at MOSTYLE, ":MOSstyle relates to capitalizations and designs, so if the name of the band is 65daysofstatic then that's the name and how it should be shown. OTOH if the name was 65DaysOfStatic, then WP should still render as 65daysofstatic. As per my signature, I am not Rich Honcho, or Rich honcho, but I am --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not renaming them, I'm removing the trademark stylization, in the same way that Clouddead is not written cLOUDDEAD, despite their name always appearing in that style. Or that Eminem is not written EMINƎM (or even Eminem with a reversed lowercase e), or Kesha is not written Ke$ha, and so on, etc, for thousands of other articles where vanity stylings and trademarks and logotypes have been rendered so as to conform to standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. Why is spacing (when, as in the case of 65daysofstatic, it is clearly a stylization rather than a spelling) not subject to the same guidelines? You seem to be suggesting that spacing stylization is impossible, and that therefore even if the band worte their name 6 5 d a y s o f s t a t i c Wikipedia would reproduce that (or would it be rendered as 6 5 D A Y S O F S T A T I C because spacing is always spelling and never style?) It's as clear as day that the removal of spacing is a trademark style, absolutely no different than the name being rendered in all lowercase or all caps or with decorative characters or whatever. Why the exception? Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not sarcasm, but raising the point of you are who you are. It is not my place to rename you because of any "style" I may consider correct. Nor should you be renaming any band name, MOSSTYLE relates to stylisations, not "what is proper english" - Once it is a Proper noun then different rules apply. As I have already replied to you over at MOSTYLE, ":MOSstyle relates to capitalizations and designs, so if the name of the band is 65daysofstatic then that's the name and how it should be shown. OTOH if the name was 65DaysOfStatic, then WP should still render as 65daysofstatic. As per my signature, I am not Rich Honcho, or Rich honcho, but I am --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- If I ever become a famous enough Wikipedia contributor to warrant my own article then sure! Sarcasm aside, does anyobody want to actually answer my question in relation to the established guidelines at Wikipedia:MUSTARD#Capitalization and MOS:TM and elsewhere? Please explain why the trend among certain types of bands/artists for styling their names by removing spacing is uncritically reproduced by Wikipedia, when all other such trademark stylings are not (see above re: dollar signs and exclamation marks, decorative and unpronounced symbols, etc. I removed the 'O)))' from Sunn O))), for instance). Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wet Dog Meat? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- In prose it would probably be a typographical error, not a spelling error (unless you thought it was two words). If it's the name of your band, and it's still pronounced dictionary, then yes, of course it's just formatting/stylization. Just as if it were written with a space between each letter, d i c t i o n a r y. Even setting aside the issue of spacing, shouldn't the article at least be titled 65DaysofStatic? That is, if standard English text formatting and capitalization rules apply to the names of bands? Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with Wetdogmeat. Adding spaces is beyond stylizing - it is changing the band's name. Royalbroil 12:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Future Legend Records
Before I go to AFD, can I canvass opinion on Future Legend Records as this reeks of a vanity piece to me but this isn't a field I know well, and I'm not really sure where the cut-off between "legitimate independent label" and "self-publisher" ought to fall.
At first glance this looks like a significant label, but reading more closely it seems to be a long list of acts who recorded one or two songs for this label which failed to chart, and then either moved on to other labels or disbanded; almost all are non-notable, and those that are notable (The Honeycombs, The Lambrettas) appear to have just made one-off recordings for inclusion on this label's compilation albums, rather than actually being signed to or closely associated with the label. There's some jiggery-pokery with citing different editions of the same book to make it look like multiple references are being used, but on closer inspection virtually every reference seems to be to a self-published book written by the company's CEO. (Someone is saying on the talkpage that there's no evidence of COI, but I find it hard to believe that User:AubreySimpson isn't "former D.J., record producer and songwriter Russell C. Brennan" or one of his associates, given the citations to "personal communication" in the article.)
Any thoughts? Obviously I don't want to send this for deletion if it's a genuine label, but it looks very like a guy-in-a-basement-with-a-CD-burner operation to me. Mogism (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:Articles for Creation - Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
There is currently an elimination drive at AFC, which reached some 1200 articles last month and direly needed addressing. We've fought it down to the 200-500 article level, but could still use some more help. There are a substantial number of musicians and bands in AFC at any given point in time, so if you want to help shape the incoming flow, you may find AFC a good place to keep track of those incoming.
The Drive is awarding some cool barnstars for participation, even as low as 5 articles reviewed, so your participation could really help chip away at the backlog. There is also the handy Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script, no download required, you just turn it on in Preferences, which makes reviewing an article very quick, intuitive, and easy. I hope a few of you can come and help us out before the drive ends! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
George Michalski
Hi! In this article:
- Carlisle, John (DetroitBlogger John) "Aged to perfection." Metro Times. October 1, 2008.
It says "He was so well known in Europe as a piano expert at the time that Steinway & Sons acted as his sponsor in bringing him to New York in the late ‘50s." Does anyone have access to newspapers from that period? Maybe one could write an article with those as sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Band undergoing GA review
Type O Negative] was nominated for GA and needs a review. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Do conductors who conduct left-handed belong in List of musicians who play left-handed?
Greetings. The question is all in the subject/headline for this new section. Some discussion has already taken place there. So what do you think?
Please do not get drawn into discussing whether the actual sources provided are verifiable sources for the fact that the conductor Donald Runnicles actually conducts left-handed, for that's another question, and one which we can discuss among ourselves on the talk page to the article just as we would discuss any other question about sources.
Here we came to seek the opinion of people knowledgeable about classical music so please keep the discussion focused on the question in the subject/headline namely: in general, do, in your opinion, conductors who conduct left-handed belong in an article listing musicians who play left-handed.
Thank you for any input.
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 02:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Come on people. We're not looking for any convoluted answers. This should be the easiest question in Wikipedia to answer. It's yes (they do belong) or no (they don't). That simple. Almost 240 people are watching this page. We need a certain amount of answers just to see where the consensus lies. If everyone answers what they think, either yes or no, we should be fine. Surely, you do have an opinion, don't you? Hopefully yours. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 03:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even if conductors don't necessarily play an instrument in their orchestras, then I am not against them being included in this list. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sean Paul singles
Hello! On Wikipedia we have 20 singles but on Discogs is more CD's singles. Why? Eurohunter (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style proposal where it suggests not to include the following:
- Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases.
- Many of the Sean Paul items missing from WP, but included in Discogs, are mixes containing just a stray album cut from Sean Paul. Discogs aims to be utterly comprehensive in its discographies, but I don't think they belong here. However, if there are missing singles that have charted, that have their own WP articles, or are not included within one of the albums, I would encourage you to add them. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sales in UK
Hello! Where I can found other this articles about sales? [1], [2]. Eurohunter (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Same date released albums
How should albums released on the exact same date be listed? For example, Marcella Detroit's two upcoming albums The Vehicle and Skin I'm In are both being released on the same date (what date yet not specified). So overall, how should they be presented on her discography page?--202.159.152.14 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's a very good question; this type of circumstance is certainly unusual and rare. I'll answer your curiosity the best I can, but there is an element of guesswork in my answer. You could possibly order the two albums alphabetically, or by which order the albums were announced. If you want a model for this situation, the band Boris released albums Heavy Rocks (2011 album) and Attention Please both on May 24, 2011. In this particular case, Heavy Rocks I guess comes before Attention Please for some reason. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- If they're on the same label you could go by the catalog number. Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answers, Skin I'm In was announced long before The Vehicle, and comes first alphabetically, so I guess that order would make the most sense.--202.159.152.14 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Unqualified intervals
Hello. All the pages Second (music), Third (music), Fourth (music), Fifth (music), Sixth (music) and Seventh (music) are either disambiguation pages or redirects to disambiguation pages. Recently, someone tagged a mention of a sixth in a work with {{dn}}. In that case, it was no technical problem to disambiguate, but if one wanted to say, for example, that Beethoven's 5th, or his opus 110, begin with a repeated descending-third motto, and to link to the third, then one doesn't want to diambiguate to major/minor, because in both cases there's one of each. Such things are quite common when discussing motifs, and I can't find what to link to in such a case. Has this been considered already, and is there an approved way of doing it? --Stfg (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- If I want to link to a disambiguation page, I use that page's title in the form "
[[<subject> (disambiguation)|<subject>]]", followed by an HTML comment "<!-- intentional link to DAB page -->". It may sometimes be possible to write more specifically ("… descending in a sequence of major and minor thirds …") and avoid the disambiguation pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
AKB48
Please help articles related to the Japanese pop group AKB48 that are being destroyed. I can't fight the admin. Please do something. I think there are people who intentionally don't want to understand anything about how Japanese industry works. Read this: Talk:AKB48#Alert: AKB48-related articles are being destroyed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Depiction of a fictional character
There's a deletion discussion for the use of an image of Marvin Pontiac, a fictional character purportedly releasing the album The Legendary Marvin Pontiac: Greatest Hits, actually by John Lurie. Diego (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources
User0300 (talk · contribs) tried creating the article RoseMary Fiki, and (I think) I tagged it for deletion per A7. The user then asked me what to do, and supplied the following links: AFRO-PUNK, Vibe Vixen, Giant Step, SoulBounce, AfriPOP!, Unclouded by Ambition, ABINA, Sound on Mars, Ciaa Afrique.
Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about music sites. Could someone here try to figure out if these are reliable sources? Thanks -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
People's Republic of China singers
Category:People's Republic of China singers is under discussion for merger with Category:Chinese singers with a counter-proposla to rename both to Category:Singers from China. I figured this might be a discussion that people involved in this wikiproject would like to get involved in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have the Oasis album Heathen Chemistry booklet ?!?!
If you do then can you tell me what the credits and personnel are for "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", "Thank You for the Good Times" and "Shout It Out Loud" in the booklet please? Either on "Stop Crying Your Heart Out's talk page or on my user talk please, it would be very appreciated. — AARON • TALK 19:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Vital articles
There is a discussion regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the project occuring here. Outside input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- We definitely need more participation for this entire project! Zachtron (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)