Talk:List of all-female bands/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Older talk

Hello fellow editors. I am here to argue for Morgenstern, a band I seem to have trouble getting to stick on this list. If you read the article I have written for Morgenstern, and visit her website (http://www.ant-zen.com/morgenstern) it is very clear that Morgenstern is all female: that is, in the sense that this project is comprised of one person, who happens to be a woman. I had originally debated adding her to this list, simply because I thought that maybe I should not make a big deal about a band being "all female", because that is certainly not her only quality. But I added her here because I thought there may be people interested in women's impact in the noise music genre. The one thing I could see as being a point of argument is that Morgenstern (like many industrial, noise, techno bands) is not a band in the traditional sense, but consists of one person: Andrea Boerner. But this phenomenon of the "one person band" seems like a discussion for a different article. However, having a "one person band" creates the need for on-stage assistance, from which Andrea has enlisted the help of men...but certainly none of these people would consider themselves members of Morgenstern. The only member of Morgenstern is Andrea Boerner. (PS - If anyone would like, I can email her for clarifications :) Please help me, and I will address any responses below. Iluvchineselit 07:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem is a solo act isnt a band. A band consists of two or more musicians. If Morgenstern really is a solo act it should go on a list for solo musicians. HelenWatt 05:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. User:Heidimo has already pointed out below under All-women bands only that individual female artists shouldnt be included. HelenWatt 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Somebody needs to add riot grrl bands to this list. Thanks! heidimo 21:57, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Though some of these bands had male musicians in them at some time, they have to be all women at some point in their line-up to qualify. The Slits had a female drummer named Palmolive who was eventually replaced by a male drummer. heidimo 00:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a thought

Wouldn't it make more sense to name the band, then their nationality and genre of music? Maybe their years of activity as well. Naming all of the members seems kind of pointless. Your thoughts? My proposed format would go like this: [The 5.6.7.8's] - Japanese Rock-and-Roll band (1993-?) I'd say that's more important than knowing the names of the members.

The Waitresses

  • The Waitresses - a band fronted by a female singer but all the other musicians are male.

The original line-up of The Waitresses had a female bass player, Tracy Wormworth.

Just a Thought (2)

I think that it would be good if this page indicates which genre each group belongs to.

All-women bands only

This is a list of all-women bands. Please do not add individual female artists or bands that contain men and have always contained men. I removed everyone who was added but does not qualify, to the best of my knowledge. If you know something I don't, or find an error I made, please correct it. Thanks. heidimo 17:06, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the limits of this list are still unclear. An all-women band has women playing all the music as well as doing the vocals. A girl group is women singing with male back-up musicians. Any questions? heidimo 18:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I would just like to say that, to the best of my knowledge, the Distillers have never been an All-woman band. In fact Im pretty sure that the only women to ever be in that band is Brody Armstrong and Kim Chi. I accept that Brody writes the songs, plays guitar and sings and I personally think that they are one of the best punk rock bands out their at the moment... but they just dont qualify as an all-woman band. Im sure there are a few other examples of this on the list.Motown Junkie 11:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lacuna coil definatly isn't an all-woman band either. Should be removed

Solas is not an all-woman band. I have removed them. Ogg 08:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed Hole, t.A.T.u and Spice Girls. Timo Honkasalo 14:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed Bikini Kill who had a male guitar player (billy Boredom) and Huggy Bear who was half male. I know that they are both main Riot Grrrl bands but. . . Added Sirens, Broadzilla, Scissor Girls, Tracy + the Plastics and The Need. I didn't know if I should add more electronic type stuff like Chicks on Speed and Capricorn so I'll let someone else decide geeblegee


Removed Bikini Kill again as well as Hole and The Gossip both of which have male members. geeblegee 5 March 2005

Added Scissor Girls, Bride of No No (later Azita Youseffi post-No No project), added Dot Dot Dot, the Modettes, Metalux, Super Junky Monkey (old Japanese hardcore funk group, Mechanical Servants, and 16 Bitch Pile-Up, a noise enclave from San Francisco via Ohio. Deleted Destiny's Child. Should be specified that this listing pertains specifically to Rock groups, it seems. Are we sticking with 2 or more members comprise a band?

Removed

The following bands/musicians have been removed from the list:

That's it for now. Megan1967 12:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corrected Wikilinks

I've corrected the Wikilinks for the following bands as none of them were linking to the relevant articles before;

A lot of them have now become red links but that makes more sense than, for example, having the band Poptarts linked to an article about the Kellogg's product. Pufnstuf 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents of list

Per the guideline for stand-alone lists I've removed all the red links from this article. I'd also propose that the inclusion paragraph be tightened to say that only notable all-women bands be included. - brenneman {L} 08:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the guideline may say, removing items just because they're redlinked seems inappropriate. I have reverted and shall work on pruning this list in a more appropriate, wikipedian manner, by performing some research. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed" and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article." I'll re-remove all red links, as they are all accessible in the history of this page. --brenneman 11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but I'm sure that you recognise that routine blanket removal like this is extremely counter-productive. I'll add back individual items that are verifiable. --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I find edits that remove unsourced material to be productive ones. --brenneman 12:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't remove unsourced statements. However the manner and bulk of the removal can have an adverse impact (for instance your blanket pruning of literary magazines a couple of months ago, which resulted in the removal of one or two historically important magazines along with the rest).
And in your latest edits to this page, in researching only as far as the A's, I've found that you removed a reference to one band that was intervewed by Greil Marcus and another that had a review in the New York Times. Arguably neither merits an article (though one of them does have one, and this was easily found). But they're certainly verifiable. Thus you're performing short-term damage. Wouldn't it be better if you had performed a small amount research yourself instead of blindly removing entries?
I'd suggest that, if you do perform removals of large numbers of list entries, you might consider recording them on the talk page. While editors can recover the information you have deleted by reference to the history, this is fiddly. --Tony Sidaway 13:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion, but I'm pretty happy with the method that I've got. As to the two items you've found links to, I'm not seeing any evidence that these are notable/important "all-women bands" and thus they should probably be removed as well until such a time as they have articles. - brenneman {L} 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


To keep your motors running, I have added Isis as a blue link and am very interested to read the unavoidable discussion.--84.56.94.179 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


just a thought (3)

I've reached the page looking for a Mexican group of the '80 that I didn't remind the name, and I couldn't find it; wouldn't be useful to have a list by country too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.20.144.129 (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Just a thought"'

I agree with you. Perhaps entries should look like this-

The Catholic Girls"
Rock
1976 - 1983
Gail Petersen - Lead Vocals/Rhythm Guitar
Roxy Andersen - Lead Guitar/Backing Vocals
Doreen Holmes - Drums/Percussion
Discography: "The Catholics Girls" MCA Records, 1982
Singles: "Boys Can Cry"

I've watched this list for a while and there are a lot of current bands who are just amatuers and have no real history or discography. More established, professional and well-known bands have been deleted.

Jaguar 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Should those entering new names...

... be directed here? A number (e.g., Bikini Kill) keep gutting added over and over and over and over and over again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psinu (talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Girls Aloud, the Spice Girls, and the Pipettes, just to take a few of the most obvious examples, are not all girl bands.--Tombomp (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This Lists Subject specific Notability Guidelines

This list has unsigned to a major and or "indy" bands on it however Garik pointed out that this list should only contain "notable or canonical" acts. If this is the criteria then several listed acts should be removed. Also if what Garik mentions is true than is the case why did Garik choose to remove the first all female Heavy Metal/Speed Metal band to be signed by a major then? 'Rude Girl' was playing music as heavy as Metalica when CBS signed them - however when the band broke up CBS had no band to promote, let alone release an album from. What followed was an EP that most members of Rude Girl were a part of, this was "Malibu Barbi". And then you have ti put the players into the equation - Drummer Sandy went on to graduate from PIT in Hollywood and joined "Warbride". Singer Leather went on to put out solo albums and was the vocalist for David Chastain.

But lets leave this up to everyone - should this list ONLY contain acts that were signed to a major label? Or ONLY top 10 acts? Or only bands who put out an album, be it indy or major? (And if that is so how do we define anyone who took the DIY road and how do you include, or exclude, the bands on the internet now) We also must define "notable" - for example the Go-Gos were notable as being the first all female band to enter the top 10 in the United States. The Runaways were notable because of their members being as raunchy as guys and what individual members did after the band broke up. But now we must go further - bands like The Pandoras (the 60's one) are not on that level so why should they be included? L7 is certainly notable as one of the few all female bands to break out of the LA scene in the 90's however they were not the first all female band to get a deal and break out of a local scene - The Go-Go's and The Runaways, as well as the Bangles, came before them. They did not have as much success as the Bangle or the Go-Gos did. So in what way would they be justified as being "notable" here? Do not misunderstand - I love L7 and any list about females in the history of music should for sure include them because of what the Hollywood/Sunset Strip scene was like at that time.

Garik also mentioned another reason why bands should be included here. Now if we allow all female bands because they are "related to" (canonical) the topic then we are back to saying that any band who is comprised (or was comprised) of all females be included. Then we are sort of in a non discussion phase and as long as there are no male members in the band the act should be included.

So lets break this list down - what does everyone think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundvisions1 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I did not write the lead with all those conditions for inclusion, it's been there for quite a while. Notable: WP:NOTE. Rude Girl do not seem notable since they did not "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no Wiki article on them, Google gives no reliable information on them, so who are/were they? Your praises on them look like WP:OR. Canonical: "groups that only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music including the instrumental components. This is distinct from girl groups, wherein the members are solely vocalists and non-members perform the instrumental components of the music." Indeed, much more cleaning is needed in this list/article.Garik 11 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead in states Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all-female band. What exactly is meant by canonical examples of an all-female band. If it means every band that has all female members then that part should be removed based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Maybe the intention of that part was to allow the inclusion of not quite notable bands that are cited as being representative of some form of all-female band. Perhaps the lead section should be reworded to reflect this. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of notable acts without cause. I see no discussion on why. Either the powers that be need to redefine this "rules" for inclusion on this list or people need to stop deleting acts based on "well I have never heard of them". Is having a video on MTV notable? Is being a student of Randy Rhoads notable? Is being in Lindsay Buckighams band notable? Is being a songwriter for artists such as The Go-Gos Gina Schock notable? I can go on but these are some of the people you removed because, in your opinion, they were not notable. According to Wikie's WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right". So this topic is "List of All Female bands" and it goes under "music" - lets define notable as it relates to the topic at hand which is defined as a list that lists all female bands. Aloowing for that and expanding on the Wiki WP:NOTE break down - Is an all female band "notable" if its members have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Such as: Coverage on MTV, having songs in films, interviews in guitar magazines, interviews in any magazine or paper, interviews in webzines, having a video(s) on MTV, being in a film or a TV show? Some think that if there is a Wiki entry for an act then they are notable. It is a proven that anyone with access to the internet and a computer can make a Wiki entry so, IMO, I do not feel that should be the only "notable" reason for having, or not having, a bands name on a list such as this.
At some point I will go through and re-add some of the acts once I see the full scope of who you removed. But I started this sub-thread to discuss the "who are they" acts before removal. Clearly acts that are not bands (Spice Girls, TLC, Dream and such) can be removed without much debate because they are not "Canonical" enough to go along with this list. But other acts - such as Malibu Barbie or Rude Girl, which kind of kicked off this discussion, should be discussed and examples cited of why they are notable. (Although I stand behind the fact that if one of the ways to be listed here is because a band "only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music" than it allows any all female band to be listed safely)Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I had reasons for removing every entry I removed. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists suggests that all list entrys should have a wiki article. I removed those without an article (plus two with male members). The best way to have Malibu Barbie or Rude Girl kept on this list is to create an article for them or Leather Leon. Was there a reason you readded Mourning Sickness? Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Duffbeerforme, you say I had reasons for removing every entry I removed however you only state one reason: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. And that is not a valid reason for your deletions as this list is a spin off article from the All-female band article thusly this list inherits it's general notability guideline (GNG) from the parent which informs us that All-female bands (commonly known as all-women bands, all-girl bands or girl bands) are musical groups in which females sing and play all the instruments. They are distinct from girl groups, in which the females sing but do not play any or all the of the instruments. As you do cite Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists than you should also be aware that the article states: Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. For this "list of all female bands" the Specific notability guidelines are clearly stated: This is a list of all-female bands of any musical genre. All-female bands are musical groups that only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music including the instrumental components. This is distinct from girl groups, wherein the members are solely vocalists and non-members perform the instrumental components of the music. This is not a list of solo female musicians or singers. Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all-female band. As the GNG is inherited from the main article and there is a SNG on this list it seems pretty clear there is currently no reason why any act, insofar as it consists of all female members (or did at one time) who play instruments, would be excluded because they have no Wiki page. As a matter of fact one need only to read the SNG that would most closely oversee this list, WP:Notability (music), and find there is not one mention of exclusion because of a lack of a Wiki page. Also, aside from the SNG of this list, many of the criteria listed on that page allow for several, if not all, of the acts you deleted to not only to be listed here but have their own pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually stated two reasons, the second being male members. I did not emphasis that reason as you I believe agree with that one. An additional reason for you, Wikipedia:Lists: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. Also note The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material.
Your statement about this list being a spin off article from the All-female band article addresses the notability of the list itself, not all of it's contents.
Regardless of how this list gets it's reason for existing it is still a Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and still needs to follow those guidelines.
The lists lead section you quoted is not a notability guideline. WP:Notability (music) also does not mention the inclusion of subjects that have not been shown to have satisfied the criteria for inclusion. If the criteria listed on that page allow for several, if not all, of the acts I removed from the list to their own pages then pages should be made. As I stated the best way to have bands kept on this list is to create an article for them. Allowing the listing of any band that has all female members is also contrary to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am starting a new section about modifying the lead section below. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Duffbeerforme please do not delete anything further until a decision is reached about this lists SNG. This is spin-off article whose SNG is in partially set by its parent as was already explained to you. The lists lead section is part of this lists SNG as it further lists requirements for inclusion on this list. This, too, has been explained to you. As currently written, and as currently applies to this list, any all female band could be included with or without an article here on Wkipedia. If you would like to voice an opinion on the greater issue I encourage you to voice that opinion at:
Notability/RFC:compromise which is adressing the following issues:
1. Does every article need reliable third-party sources to prove it is notable, or can notability be inherited from another article?
2. To what extent can the General Notability Guideline be overridden by specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people)?
Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This list does not have it's own SNG. The lead section is not a notability guideline, it is a criterea for inclusion that does not override any other wikipedea guidelines. Pages like WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) are notability guidelines and say something like This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. These guidelines have been widely discussed and approved by the Wikipedia community. The lead section to this list was not widely discussed and the section Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all-female band was added by one editor and was discussed by only one other editor. The discussion at the RFC has no bearing on the contents of this list. Of the issues you mention: 1. is about the existence of the list itself (which I do not dispute), not about the contents of the list; 2. is about the relationships between notability guidelines, not about lists.
Wikipedia:Lists and stand-alone list apply here as does The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Two other editors besides me have removed Rude Girl yet you keep adding them unsourced.
Would you like a third opinion? Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

==> Garik - You had asked about "Rude Girl" - some links for you:

Clearly there are many artists who do not have wiki listings and that can be rectified by anyone. When I have more time I am more than willing to update pages and add pages but I don't see how not having one should exclude someone from these types of lists/discussions. As for your comment about Rude Girl and Malibu Barbi being only my opinion based on WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" I am not sure why you would feel that these acts are only my opinion - a quick google search shows they did exist, and they were all female. Maybe you meant it that you feel it is my opinion that they are "notable", however you and I are eye to eye on "Canonical". That would leave open *any* band that is comprised of (Or was comprised of) all females, notable or not, however IMO, because of the style of music Rude Girl/Malibu Barbi played, because of the members who went on to other projects and because of the major label interest I feel they are every bit as notable as Kittie, who is listed. And that sort of goes back to what I asked before - do we weed out anyone who is not on a major or who was not "popular"? Is that what makes and artist "notable"? Kittie is great, but when you put Rude Girl into the equation what is Kittie doing to make them more notable other than being more popular? I am open either way but as I mentioned - how do you start to limit/weed this list, or do you? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the lead section (Male Member inclusion)

There is also the question of wether having had a male as a member of the band at any point in their history means they are not considered all-female or if they just needed to be all-female at some point in their career. The former would disallow some bands that are currently all-female or were for the most part all-female. The later would allow bands that are currently not all-female or for the significant part of their career not all-female to be included. Both are potentially problematic. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme, there is already a topic above on the Subject specific Notability Guidelines (SNG) for this list. Rather than have the entire topic re-hashed here please join into the discussion above, I have moved that part of your question, unedited, to the "This Lists Subject specific Notability Guidelines" sub topic above. The issue now is that if a band have been traditionally all female should they remain on this list even if both bands have had male members at one point or another. When they formed, and for several year thereafter some acts, such as the Bangles, The Go-Gos and the Pandoras, were all female. This currently fits the SNG for this list. However the issue you raise about male members is valid. I feel the SNG be not be changed to disallow any act that had a male member at some point in their musical career. If the SNG were changed to reflect that than it would eliminate bands such as the Go-Gos, The Bangles and The Pandoras from this list as those acts have had male member over the years and yet they are all known as "all female bands".Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead section (which is not a SNG) currently is not specific either way. As it stands it could be interpreted in different ways. I'm suggesting something should be added to make it clear.
Make it best known as a all-female band, or all-female for the majority of their career, or only always all-female (though I don't think this one would be good), or currently all-female if active? Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Go-Go's have never had a male member. Check your facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.179.219.251 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this comment from a random I.P. Actually if you have followed the Go-Gos they have had males in the band and on record. Most notable live would be their keyboard player in later years, Charlotte's brother Tom Caffey. There was also a fairly early ('83) gig when Gina had heart surgery and a male filled in on drums. My point, however, if one were to actually read this entire page, and thread(s), is that a band, such as Hole, is always removed because one member was male when acts such as Bond, Celtic Women and The Dixie Chicks are left on because the numerous male musicians they play with are not considered "official" members. Visually I would never truly consider the Go-Go's not an all female band (nor Hole really an all female band). However I would never call the Dixie Chicks an all female "band" because when you see them you see three females in the front singing as well as playing some instruments while an entire, male, band is behind them playing. That has been the core issue with this list and has lead to many discussions. If you could not tell from reading my comments on this page, IMO a band is a band, not a few people up front with other people who are "not officially in the band" playing behind them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Total re-write

I have removed the entire first section of the newly overhauled version, the material removed was not appropriate for article space, guidelines to inclusion are not encylopedic content, they are better suited either in the wikipedia namespace or on the talk page, although a hidden comment would be acceptable. Also, you might consider re-writing what was removed so as to form a clear definition of what constitutes an all-female band without writing in terms of inclusion or referring to wikipedia guidelines or policies--Jac16888 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you. Here is what it said before the re-rwrite:
This is a list of all-female bands of any musical genre. All-female bands are musical groups that only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music including the instrumental components. This is distinct from girl groups, wherein the members are solely vocalists and non-members perform the instrumental components of the music. This is not a list of solo female musicians or singers. Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all-female band.
Do you feel that is better/more clear than the rewrite? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As it was before i removed it, it was basically a wikipedia guideline, one that should belong in the [[Wikipedia:random guide]] space, a behind the scenes article which the general public are not supposed to see, remember that there are a hell of a lot more people are going to simply read the article than there are people who are going to edit it, and its more important to make sure that the article is geared towards them, not towards other editors, even if it does make your life easier. The best thing you can do is write a very clear definition in the lead section, basically a dictionary definition, put hidden messages (<!-- Comment -->) underneath every heading, which should hopefully reduce the wrong additions a fair bit, then resign yourself to removing the rest as and when they are added.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made three changes to this article
1. I have taken it back to an old version. The recent changes made were major. They significantly changed the criteria for inclusion in a way that was not discussed on THIS talk page. They were at odds with discussion and suggestions already here. The new criteria are not NPOV. The choice of instruments is overly restrictive and is not an accurate representation of what a band is. Tribute and cover bands are still bands. I believe duos can legitimately be called bands. Most importantly the changes removed, without justification, a lot of bands that belonged on this list.
2. I removed "or canonical examples of an" from the intro. I feel this is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines of what lists should be and not at odds with discussion above.
3. I added a sentence "Bands on this list may have had a male member but were for the majority of their active career all-female and were known as all-female." This was partially based on changes made by Soundvisions1. Please make changes if this is not what was intended or not community consensus. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Still I believe the list would be more comprehensible in a form of a table with a "note" column containing some referenced justification for inclusion of a particular band. This is how one can prove notability. Garik 11 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I also like the idea of the note column. It can provide some good info without having to visit multiple other pages. However it is not needed to prove notability. A wikipedia page for the band is a good claim of notability, good enough to get on the list. Proving notability would be based on that article staying, making it easy for anyone trying to maintain this list. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A new discussion on creating a set of list specific guidelines was started on September 1, 2008. The discussion continued for one month with only three editors participating on this talk page. In going through the list as it was, entry by entry, there were numerous acts that were not a band, were not all female, were non notable and did not have their own English Wikipedia article. All of these issues have been discussed on this page at one time or another including since September 1. If one reads the the history of this article there has always been discussion's about "girl band/girl group" and why acts such as The Spice Girls, Dream, TLC, Danity Kane and so on should not be included. Likewise the issue of male members has been discussed. All of these issue have now been clearly explained. The exclusion or inclusion of acts on this list should be overly clear now. Nobody has suggested acts can not be re-added. However if they do they must meet the now clearly defined set of guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion did not agree with your changes. The discussion did not agree with the removal of notable all female bands. The discussion did not create the article guidelines you added. Stop throwing strawmen into this. None of us has suggested the inclusion of Spice Girls, etc. Duos, tribute bands, acceptable instruments, notable albums were not discussed. No restrictions on the number of bands anyone could add was discussed. Acts on this list that belong on this list should not need to be readded, they should stay on the list. You keep telling people to not make changes until after discussion yet you keep making undiscussed changes yourself. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Duff and Soundvisions, you both need to stop, you have both broken the WP:3RR Rule and if you continue reverting you will both be blocked. Leave the article as it is right now, and discuss the changes. Duff, Soundvisions changes are a much needed improvement, and calling Sounds edit vandalism is a big mistake and can get you into a lot of trouble, but Sound, you need to discuss the exact criteria for inclusion between you and reach a fair consensus, you cannot simply make the up on your own--Jac16888 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Jac16888 - I agree with the 3rr however the topics at hand have been discussed. September 1 I asked a question and started a new sub-header. It was to discuss exclusions of bands from this list who did not have English Speaking Wikipedia pages. In specific I asked: "should this list ONLY contain acts that were signed to a major label? Or ONLY top 10 acts? Or only bands who put out an album, be it indy or major? (And if that is so how do we define anyone who took the DIY road and how do you include, or exclude, the bands on the internet now) We also must define "notable" and "So lets break this list down - what does everyone think?". Both of these were asked in relation to the wording of the lists specific guidelines. If one follows the thread starting from September 1 you will see that only Garik 11 and duffbeerforme participated in the discussion. You will also note that an Edit War broke out between duffbeerforme and myself over the "notability" of a bands inclusion based solely on the fact they had an article on Wikipedia. Even though their reasoning for exclusion/inclusion is included in this new re-write it is again duffbeerforme who has initiated another Edit War. I would ask that the page be reverted to how it was on October 8, 2008 and that is be locked pending further discussion that included more people or even excluding Garik 11, duffbeerforme and myself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
We do not need to define notable. Notable for bands is defined in WP:MUSIC Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Please reread WP:3RR. Both of us have made 3 reverts. We have not exceeded 3. My claim of vandalism is based on the fact that a lot of information was removed that belonged on this page where all that information was referenced and no reason was given for it's removal. Is my understanding wrong? Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • More in reply to Jac16888. I agree that changes to the introduction to this list needed to be made as discussed above. I strongly disagree that Soundvisions1 changes are a much needed improvement. Removal of the majority of the bands on this list was not needed and is not an improvement. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, i misread, you are both about to break the 3RR. Both of you need to leave the article as it is at this moment, and discuss here, not discussing why the other is wrong, you need to decide, even if its only between the three of you, although you could start a WP:RFC to gain other input, what exactly makes up an All-girl band, and apply that to the list. Duff, sounds changes to the list are an improvement because they give it a lot more uniformity, and the whole thing is tidier and better overall, a simple list of names was no use to anyone, there is absolutely nothing to stop you, once you reach an agreement on inclusion criteria, from adding back a large amount of the list, but by starting again from almost nothing, it allows you to go through the list and make it perfect.
So here the plan.
  • Both of you, do not touch the article again today
  • Right here and now both of you, and garik if he/she is about, write your own definition of an all-girl band. Use these to form a consensus for a decent inclusion criteria.
Be willing to compromise, don't just disagree with each other for the sake of it, and try to remember that you are both here to try and improve the encylopedia, assume good faith from each other and try to be civil. If you turn this into an edit war, it will bring you nothing but misery, possibly for months, believe there is nothing more stressfull on here. Good luck--Jac16888 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of "All Female Band"

I was doing research, checking every link on the list, and making the below discussion ("A" named bands suggested for deletion) during the time Jac16888 was posting their response. Thusly to answer the question - how I define "All Female Band" is two fold. First by using the word "All" it would be inclusive, meaning every member of the band. "Female" is pretty obvious, unless of course you are talking trans-gendered. However I strongly maintain this is a spin off list and its criteria are partially set by the parent article and the parent article makes no mention of "trans gendered" so I would say "Female" means just that - female. No male genitalia. "Band" to me has always meant a group of people who play instruments. I would not call a group of people who sing only a "band". I would not call one person who sings a "Band". I would not call two people who sing and also play some form of instrument a "Band". So to me an "All Female Band" is just what is says.
Now to expand on this. There will always be people who feel that if you can call "O-Town" or "N'Sync" 'Boy Bands' than you should be able to call "Danity Kane", "Pussycat Dolls" and "Spice Girls" 'Girl bands' thus allowing them to appear on this list. On that issue I strongly disagree. Likewise there are "groups" who may be all female however if they need to hire a "band" to perform live I also think that needs to be considered. If the "band" is all females than included them, if it not than don't. A few perfect example would be "Aly & Aj", who have appeared, and been removed, from this list in the past. They have performed by themselves however when they have gone on a club tour they are still called "Aly & Aj" but they have a full band behind them. It is a male band - drums, guitar, bass, keyboards. Another example is the "Dixie Chicks". Perhaps when they formed it was three females alone, singing and playing. However for several years they have a rather large "band" backing them up - and it is not comprised of all female members. I feel if you allow them to be listed you would also have to allow bands such as "Hole" to be listed as well as any duo or trio (or more) that regularly performed with male musicians. And I will note here that Hole and other bands who were not fully all female have been removed is the past, yet some trios who tour and use male musicians/back up bands have remained.
As I asked back on September 1, 2008 - how does one start to weed this list? I suggested making list specific guidelines based on the parent article. I seem to be the vocal minority on that issue. Thusly my rewrite was based on discussions here and with third parties. I took a NPOV approach and looked at three factors:
  1. Criteria for musicians and ensembles
  2. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
  3. All-female band parent article
(Well, four if you count the dictionary description of "All Female Band") and combined them to form the wording of:
This alphabetized list of All Female Bands, of all genres, is a spin off from the English Wikipedia All-female band article. This list is an overview of just some of the numerous all female bands who have their own English Wikipedia page as well as their key releases, country of origin and a brief note about the band.
An all female band is a group of at least 3 musicians who collectively play drums, guitar and bass organized for ensemble playing that generally have not included any male musicians for a greater than three quarters of their active careers.
This article only lists all female bands who perform original material that is either authored by themselves or authored by another musician for that bands use. All female Tribute acts and Cover bands are not included. Nor are vocal groups, duos or solo artists.
If you pick this apart you will see it rewords and clarifies what the lists guidelines and criteria are are based on the discussion (Not only since September 1, 2008 but going back to 2004) and the Wikipedia guidelines that editors have used to delete names from the list as well as the original list specific guidelines (This is a list of all-female bands of any musical genre. All-female bands are musical groups that only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music including the instrumental components. This is distinct from girl groups, wherein the members are solely vocalists and non-members perform the instrumental components of the music. This is not a list of solo female musicians or singers. Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all-female band.). Also, despite the insinuations otherwise, the rewrite does not say bands can not be added to the list. As a matter of fact Sleater-Kinney was re-added with no massive freaks outs or Edit Wars being started. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
All Female band is a band with just females and no males. It is not restricted by what instruments they play or by who writes their songs. It is not one person. Does not include girl bands whos music is created by non all female bands.
No one insinuated bands could not be added to the list. I said bands on the list should not need to be readded. They should not be removed if they belong. Sleater-Kinney should not have needed to be readded as they were already on the list for good reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Third Opinion, Summary Please?

I read both of your posts, and I really could not find any substantial differences, so:

Third opinion

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Soundvisions1
We (Duffbeerforme and myself) were told/asked: "Right here and now both of you, and garik if he/she is about, write your own definition of an all-girl band. Use these to form a consensus for a decent inclusion criteria" Thusly I did. The main issue is first to clearly define All, Female, and band. The second part is to decide if "all female" means "all female" or if it means "Some females with male members backing them up". Third part is to do an "if","than" and "because" criteria (such as "if" The Indigo Girls are an all female band "than" so are Aly & AJ "because"...) and than formulate all of that into a list specific set of inclusion guidelines such as I mentioned above. (Depending on what the definition of "all female" is, and then "band", there may be no need to sub define "male musicians" and their involvement.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Viewpoint by Duffbeerforme's earlier post, added by NW
:All Female band is a band with just females and no males. It is not restricted by what instruments they play or by who writes their songs. It is not one person. Does not include girl bands whos music is created by non all female bands."
Third opinion by NuclearWarfare

It is my humble opinion that you two actually share the almost the same mind set. Soundvisions writes: An all female band is a group of at least 3 musicians who collectively play drums, guitar and bass organized for ensemble playing that generally have not included any male musicians for a greater than three quarters of their active careers. This article only lists all female bands who perform original material that is either authored by themselves or authored by another musician for that bands use, while band with just females and no males. It is not restricted by what instruments they play or by who writes their songs.

The only difference I can see is on the point of including bands whose music has been written by males. That seems like the only difference here; am I correct? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. It never said anywhere, and I do not believe anyone brought it up (maybe is should be?), that only females could write the music. The issue, as a whole, is the list currently allows almost any group who calls themselves, or others consider, "all female" to be listed. Some artists are excluded because they have males performing with them while others are included because they do not consider the male members "official" members. This is most often the case with two people (duos) who form a "group" and then record with studio musicians who may be male and perform live with a "band" who may be male. However this also happens with larger "groups" as well or bands who may have formed as all female but later replaced members with males. As far as instruments go that does figure in because if you define a "band" as any group of musicians who play any instrument and/or sing than you need to sub define the involvement of males. A recent example discussed on this list is Celtic Women who are "four vocalists and one violinist" (A New Journey live show bio), but they are also referred to as "Soloists" who are performing together. The same can be said of Three Tenors. In both cases musicians who were/are solos artists come together under a "group" name and perform together. The fact that one of them might also play an instrument should not automatically make them a "band", more so if they still use other musicians to back them up when they perform (Celtic Women live photo showing the band) and record. This is where the "if","than" and "because" criteria comes into play. To me "if" Celtic Women are allowed "than" (insert female vocal group name here) should be allowed "because" if vocalists can perform under a "group name" with male musicians backing them and still be considered an "all female band" than so should any other "female vocal group". The same rationale can be used for duos or trios as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There are questions still in this. Some covered by Soundvisions1 above. Do males who are not band members affect their status? Do all female bands that had a male for a period count? What is a band (duos, short projects)? Why restrict it by what instruments are played? Do bands performing songs not written by or for them (cover bands, tribute bands) count? (not about the gender of the writers.) Below is a modified version of the lead section for consideration. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of all-female bands of any musical genre. All-female bands are musical groups that only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music including the instrumental components. This is distinct from girl groups, wherein the members are solely vocalists and non-members perform the instrumental components of the music. This is not a list of solo female musicians or singers. Bands on this list should be notable all-female bands. Bands on this list may have had a male member but were for the majority of their active career all-female and were known as all-female.

From reading the conversation over again, the new proposed lead sounds like it has a good inclusion criteria. Do you disagree on any points Soundvisions? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That is basically what it already says except "or canonical" is removed. Take a look at the conversations over the last 4 years, as as clear as it might have sounded it was not. (2004 - "Apparently the limits of this list are still unclear. An all-women band has women playing all the music as well as doing the vocals". Undated - "Should be specified that this listing pertains specifically to Rock groups, it seems. Are we sticking with 2 or more members comprise a band?" 2006 - "Whatever the guideline may say, removing items just because they're redlinked seems inappropriate" 2007 - "I've watched this list for a while and there are a lot of current bands who are just amatuers and have no real history or discography") Rather than simply stick with the old I am trying to start new. Having said that here is what I propose - we come up with at least 2 versions, better if there are three, and we village pump it in order to reach a consensus on which one would be best. I tried to bring in all elements as best I could without actually quoting guidelines. I will break mine down part by part:
This alphabetized list of All Female Bands, of all genres, is a spin off from the English Wikipedia All-female band article.
This sets up that the list is "alphabetized", contains "all female bands", any genre allowed and that it does inherit part of its guidelines from the parent article.
This list is an overview of just some of the numerous all female bands who have their own English Wikipedia page as well as their key releases, country of origin and a brief note about the band.
Part is dependent on the actual layout, keeping this as a "list" or making it into a table. I had redesigned the layout into a table to not only give the viewer a better visual experience but also allow for a mention of a key release or two, country of origin, still active and a brief note. Examples of notes might be "No longer all female" or "First all female band signed to a major label". (To see how it was look at This list in table form) The rest of this paragraph I feel sets up some very important guidelines for the list. Duffbeerforme appeared to have very strong feelings that only bands who had their own Wikipedia page be allowed on the list. I strongly disagree. The Wikipedia guidelines as written (in full) would allow an entry on the list to be included if the band were "verifiably a member of the listed group" even if they did not have their own page. However to compromise I added the line "who have their own English Wikipedia page" to my version. The paragraph also says it is an "overview" meaning it is not meant to include every single band out there. I also added "just some of the numerous all female bands" to further make clear it is not meant to be a list to end all list on the subject.
An all female band is a group of at least 3 musicians who collectively play drums, guitar and bass organized for ensemble playing that generally have not included any male musicians for a greater than three quarters of their active careers.
The section is meant to define "band". In this case "at least 3 musicians" and I wanted to make it clear that "musicians" in this case did not mean "vocalists only" so I added "collectively play drums, guitar and bass organized for ensemble playing". This could be changed to "collectively play instruments" however it was an attempt to define "band" as at least a trio that include a guitar player, a drummer and a bass player. I do not think that a vocalist needs to be part of the listed requirements because any all female instrumental band would be excluded. To be clear it is my thought that a "band" contains instruments other than "vocals" and to have only "bands" on this list members who actively play instruments be members of, not hired to be part of, any act listed. The last part of this paragraph defines that.
This article only lists all female bands who perform original material that is either authored by themselves or authored by another musician for that bands use. All female Tribute acts and Cover bands are not included. Nor are vocal groups, duos or solo artists.
This was just trying to break it down further. The way it is worded now, and the way duffbeerforme has proposed, it does not break down material in relationship to the bands. This stems from the word "notable". To the casual reader "notable" is equal to "fame". In Wikipedia land "notable" has many variations and it does not mean "fame" or even "they are on a major label". I feel notable is relative to the topic - in this case a list of all female bands should start with the fact of being an all female band makes an act notable enough to appear on this list. However, too many issues enter into the picture if you simply say "Bands on this list should be notable" because once you do enter that word into the equation you start to get many reasons hurled about. So my attempt was to eliminate the word "notable" and narrow the scope by saying that bands on this list should play over 90% original music, that simply being a cover band or tribute band that was "all female" was not enough. The last part is simply reinforcing that the list is not meant for vocal groups or solo artists. I added the "duo" because it is rare two people play without some form of back up band, unless they were always, and will always, be an acoustic duo. In which case that is not a band - it is a duo.
Ultimately this is meant to cut down the "They are two/three/four girls, they have a group name, they need to be on this list". Like Wikipedia as a whole, this list is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a list of everything that "is" all female. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You are trying to enforce an actual notability standard which I thought was already implicit. My personal opinion would be to cut down the 90% guideline to maybe 70% (even the best bands play some popular old songs) and work with Soundvisions' "new" idea, which isn't really that different, as that was the mental notability standard that I've had in my head. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The version I poseted above also has an added sentence about males.
Problems I see with the version you have broken down.
Self-References (WP:SELF): This version directly refers to Wikipedia, something to avoid. That could be one of the reasons many lists say list items should be "notable". It suggest list members should have an article without directly saying it.
Limits to band numbers and instruments: Duos can legitimately be called bands so should not be excluded. Duos that play everything may be rare but they do exist, eg (none all female) The White Stripes, Deadboy & the Elephantmen (for a period), Death from Above 1979, The Black Keys. Bands are not restricted to drums, guitar and bass. Many bands include other instruments and/or do not use one or more of three listed, Jug bands can have none of three listed.
Limiting to original music: Cover and Tribute bands are still bands. By there nature I think they have less chance of becoming notable, but they can. If they are notable I see no reason for their exclusion.
Another thing that should be different.
for a greater than three quarters of their active careers. Where does 3/4 come from? That is why I used the majority of their active career when I added that idea to the above proposed intro.
The word notable.
A notable band is notable. What is notable is based on guidelines defined elsewhere. Saying "Bands on this list should be notable" should stop reasons being hurled about or give a solid grounding for discussion of those reasons. People should not say "They are two/three/four girls, they have a group name, they need to be on this list" unless the band is notable.
Question
What do you mean by it does not break down material in relationship to the bands in the second last paragraph?
Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no self reference contained in the break down, I made sure I avoided that. If you feel, because the text reads, "spin off from the English Wikipedia All-female band article" than your proposal is as much "self" as it reads: "All-female bands are musical groups that only contain female members..." The difference is I actually "say" it is a spin off list rather than inline linking to the WP article. Currently the accepted practice is to allow spin-off articles/lists to inherit notability guidelines from the parent. Logic would tell most people that a "list of all female bands", that is spun off from an article about what defines an "all female band", would be a list of "all female bands". Likewise a "list of guitarists", that spun off from a parent article about what a guitar is, should be clear that it is not a list of bass players but even that has to be further defined and discussed. And even that is further split into "List of lead guitarists" and "List of rhythm guitarists" and entires are discussed. This is the world of Wikipedia.
If "All female band" is defined as "Only females, no males" than almost all, if not all, of the "duos" on this list will be removed because they use a backing band. The White Strips I have seen - and there were more than two people on stage. As an example - my friend Don used to be the drummer for Beck when it was "duo". Beck was playing acoustic and singing and Don was playing drums when they started playing Al's Bar and such. However "Beck" grew into a "band" over time, even if the name of the group was still "Beck" the were not a duo. So, again, a band can be defined as a "duo" if that is what NuclearWarfare also feels as the third party. Remember though that any "duo" will have to be proven/cited/referenced that they have never played or recorded with any male musicians backing them the same as any other "band" on the list. And the wording is important - you are saying "male member" and I am saying "male musicians". There is a huge difference between the two. If the wording is "male member" it implies the "male" needed/needs to be a "member" for the band to be excluded. Hole has not been allowed on this list because Eric was a "member" of the band. Other acts have been, and are still, listed because the males who regularly record and perform with the acts were not/are not "members". (And this ties in perfectly with Celtic Women, Dixie Chicks and even the current line up of Bangles)
"Notable" should be removed for the reason(s) I gave. It appears obvious that saying "The band must be notable..." has not fully worked over the last 4 years. Spice Girls have been added and removed many times because they are "all female" and they are "notable". They fit the "guidelines". It has been pointed out several times that an "all female band" contains females who play instruments. But that leaves an opening for any group who has at least one member who plays an instrument to be included. So if Melanie Chisholm came out with an acoustic guitar at a Spice Girls concert than they would be accepted on this list. (I disagree with that logic, but as currently written it allows for that)
What I mean by it does not break down material in relationship to the bands is that if a group meets the definition of "all female", if they meet the criteria of not having "non-member members" who record and/or perform live that are male, if they meet the definition of "band" and if they meet the criteria of having their own English Wikipedia article what is left? Their material. And, as I had said, it goes back to "notable". There are numerous cover and tribute bands who have there own English Wikipedia articles. Some are less "notable" than others however they slip in via meeting one of the pre-defined "notability" guidelines in a general category. If this list "only" goes by those than it "does not break down material in relationship to the bands" unless we define it in this lists subject specific guidelines. We could say that only acts who write and perform their own material be allowed - however that is very limiting, way beyond anything I am proposing. I am only saying that if a band does nothing but perform what are commonly referred to as "cover tunes" and, if that is their sole "claim to fame", they should not be put on the list. As a compromise I would suggest another spin off list named "List of all female cover/tribute bands".
Going back to what I had also proposed - duffbeerforme comes up with their own version. soundvisions1 comes up with their own version. Ideally there is a third version that takes both versions and combines them and we request a consensus as to which one reads/works best. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Read the section in WP:SELF titled Avoid referring to "Wikipedia" to see what I mean by self references.
The previous version of the intro has not worked mostly because it has been ignored, not cause of it's flaws. The likes of Spice Girls have been added despite what the intro say (as it says This is distinct from girl groups) not because of it.
Why should it break down material in relationship to the bands? Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

Sorry for disappearing for a while, guys. I just wanted to know how things stood here. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know were things are at. I have been giving Soundvisions1 time to respond to my last post. I am going to change the lead section to address the main problem (as I see it). Further discussion is more than welcome. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Per NuclearWarfare's suggestion the re-formating to a table along with with newly worded criteria will be up by next week. It is going to read:
This alphabetized list of All Female Bands, of all genres, is a spin off list from the All female band article. This list is an overview of just some of the numerous all female bands who have their own article, as well as their key releases, country of origin and a brief note about the band.
An all female band is a group of at least two musicians who are organized for ensemble playing that generally have not included any male musicians for a greater than three quarters of their active careers.
This article only lists all female bands who perform original material that is either authored by themselves or authored by another musician for that bands use. All female Tribute acts and Cover bands are not included. Nor are vocal groups or solo artists.
There was no need to re-respond to questions that had already been explained in detail prior. This discussion will be archived for future reference. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I am yet to see a good reason why tribute and cover bands should be excluded. They ard bands and if they are notable they are notable.
Where dor 3/4 come from? Without a good reason it should be something like most or majority. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

← Define "most" and define "majority". What percentage are those? Is "most" greater than 50%? 80%? 90%? Is "majority" greater than 75%? 95%? As for cover/tribute bands I have already suggested that you, or any editor, could start a spin off article/list called "List of all female tribute and cover bands" to include these type of acts. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"A" named bands suggested to be removed from this list (10/8/2008)

Removal based on three things:

  1. Criteria for musicians and ensembles
  2. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
  3. All-female band parent article

Bands to be removed and reason:

  • Adickdid - Non Notable
  • The All-Girl Boys - Non-Notable
  • All Girl Summer Fun Band - Non-Notable
  • American Girls - Guidelines state: "Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Existing article should be a redirect to the Fanny article.
  • Amiina - Non Notable
  • Anashi - Non-Notable
  • Angelica - Non-Notable
  • Anti-Scrunti Faction - Not all female and non-Notable
  • Antigone Rising/(Antigone Four) - Debatable for Notability as the band has changed to a new name.
  • The Applicators - Non-Notable
  • Audrey - Non-Notable
  • Au Revoir Simone - Non-Notable
  • Autoclave - Non-Notable
  • Azure Ray - Possible non-notable however page says "Azure Ray disbanded in 2004, leaving Fink and Taylor to work on solo and other collaborative projects, including working in Now It's Overhead and Maria Taylor's solo recordings." One link goes to Taylors own page which says her band "Little Red Rocket" released two albums on Geffen (1997 and 2000) however that bands link redirects to the "Azure Ray" page. It seems as though the "Azure Ray" article should redirect to a "Little Red Rocket" article in that case as they better met the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" guidelines. Further the "Azure Ray" article claims the band had songs in films and television shows, which is a criteria for "Notability", however as the band broke up in 2004 and the films/shows listed came out after that it is unsure if it was a band version of the song or perhaps Taylors version (solo) of the song.

That is it for the "A" named bands on the list as of today. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't go all the way down this list. Just far enough to make myself understood.
  • Adickdid - May be notable based on Kaia Wilson. AFD is the appropraiet place for that question
  • The All-Girl Boys - I agree with non notable. I have nominated it for deletion. If that happens it should be removed from this list.
  • All Girl Summer Fun Band - May be notable by multiple releases on K Records
  • American Girls - Maybe existing article should be a redirect to the Fanny or Screamin' Sirens article. Should be suggested on the article or boldly done.
  • Amiina - May be notable based on coverage on multiple sources. Question best asked on articles talk page or afd.
  • Anashi - I agree with non notable. I have nominated it for deletion. If that happens it should be removed from this list. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"B" named bands suggested to be removed from this list (10/8/2008)

Removal based on three things:

  1. Criteria for musicians and ensembles
  2. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
  3. All-female band parent article

Bands to be removed and reason:

  1. Bangles - While notable they now have two males who perform live with them.
  2. BeBe K'Roche - Non-Notable unless you allow that "Olivia Records" is notable.
  3. Betty Blowtorch - Non Notable
  4. Betty Boop - Non-Notable
  5. Bitch Alert - Possible Non-Notable
  6. Blacky - Non-Notable
  7. Blue Rose - Non-Notable for the list as this does not sound like it was a band (all of the musicians in the group are solo artists in their own right who joined together to record an album as a group in 1988)
  8. Bleach03 - Unsure. Main Article needs to be cleaned up. Seems like they are signed to a major.
  9. Bond - While the focus, and name, belong to "four beautiful, talented musicians" they perform live (and possible record) with a male band backing them. Live shot 1, Live shot 2, Live shot 3
  10. Bones Apart - Really Unsure. Notable for being an all female trombone quartet?
  11. Bratmobile - May have formed as all female but then "Jon Nikki added guitar, bass and keyboard parts to flesh out the famously minimal Brat sound" for their 2nd album and for their 3rd album "Roadie extraordinaire Marty Violence also contributed bass, a Bratmobile first".
  12. Broadzilla - Seem notable in one region. Do they meet Number 7 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles?
  13. The Butchies - Fine for the list but this raises a question: "The Butchies also played on the 2001 Amy Ray (of the Indigo Girls) album Stag on Daemon Records and backed her up on tour". Should Amy Ray included on this list as she was part of an "All Female band"?

End of the "B" name bands as listed on 10/08/2008 Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think a band is non notable then nominate it for deletion. If it is deleted you can call it non notable and remove it from the list. Until then it is your opinion that it is non notable so removing it would not be NPOV. Most of the bands you listed in A as non notable have good arguments for notability.Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. I am not fully saying to delete them for Wikipedia, I am saying from this list - to be deleted from this list. It is NPOV if you only go from the guidelines which I am. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss the point. You are making your own personal judgement about which bands are notable. Your opinion is not properly matching the guidelines. The below list of A bands all have arguments for notability based on the guidelines. Other bands you listed as non-notable are notable according to the guidelines. As Snuppy has pointed out Drain STH are clearly notable. Betty Blowtorch are the subject of coverage in multiple sources, the main claim for notability. Crush and Coyote Sisters have both charted. Cacadou Look article says they had multiple hits. All that said, this is not the place to decide the notability of these acts. You also say "Non-Notable for the list". The only notable for this list is notable for Wikipedia (guidelines found in WP:Notability and connected articles). For the record I object to the removal for the reason of Non-Notable of any band from this list that has its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia.
Your suggestion that Blue Rose, Celtic Woman and Chicks on Speed are not bands appears to be your opinion, and as such is OR. Similarly with your suggestion duos are not bands.
Some of your suggestions do not appear to agree with the All-female band parent article as at least two of the acts you are suggesting to be removed are mentioned in the parent article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Duffbeerforme - you, my cyber friend, are clearly only here to be a troll. Lest I remind you that you deleted numerous notable entries from this list because you had never heard of them and because they did not have a Wikipedia article of their own. When the topic of notability was brought up all you did was focus on one part of one guideline and started an Edit War with me based on that. When I included that one part of that one guideline that you hold so dear to the criteria for list inclusion you again started an Edit War. Now that I am simply going by the guidelines as written, you now decide on your own that any group, even if it is not a "band", that has females in it is notable...why? Because of only one section of another one guideline. Rather than look at what this list is, what it is a spin off list from and *all* the guidelines you choose to be a troll. If this list were called "Duffbeerforme's List of all female bands" I am sure you still find reasons to troll. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring your personal attack for now (don't do that again), my position has been consistent. If a band had no article it's presence on this list needs to be referenced. If a band had an article it is presumed to be notable until demonstrated otherwise. You or me saying "non notable" is not enough. That is why I nonimated Anashi and The All-Girl Boys for deletion. It is not up to us Here to decide what is and is not notable. If you have any specific problems with what I have said detail them. Give real details instead of generalities and I will address them. And please stop misrepresenting what I have written. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • All Girl Summer Fun Band: multiple releases on K Records.
  • American Girls: contains member from 2 notable bands Fanny and Screamin' Sirens.
  • Amiina: based on coverage from multiple sources. See also Kurr.
  • Angelica: based on charting and coverage from multiple sources.
  • Antigone Rising: based on coverage from multiple sources.
  • The Applicators: based on coverage from multiple sources. (I added links to this page)
  • Au Revoir Simone: 2 releases on Moshi Moshi Records.
  • Autoclave: contains members from 2 notable bands Helium and Slant 6.
  • Azure Ray: contains two notable members Maria Taylor and Orenda Fink. 1 release on Saddle Creek Records + 2 releases on Warm Records. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Betty Blowtorch. They are the subject of the movie Betty Blowtorch and her Amazing Adventures. Snuppy 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"C" and "D" named bands suggested to be removed from this list (10/9/2008)

Removal from this list based on three things:

  1. Criteria for musicians and ensembles
  2. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
  3. All-female band parent article

Bands to be removed and reason:

C

  1. Cacadou Look - Maybe. Article says "first Yugoslav all-female band to release a long play record" but then says "not the first all-female band in Yugoslavia." So they are notable because of being first all female band to put out an album in Yugoslavia?
  2. Cadallaca - Non Notable. Guidelines state: "Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Link should redirect to the Sleater-Kinney article.
  3. Cake Like - Non-Notable
  4. Calaisa - Non-Notable
  5. The Capricorns - Non-Notable
  6. Celtic Woman - Not really a band. Solo artists who tour and record together. More of a "brand name" ala "Three Tenors"
  7. The Chelsea - No Article on English Wikipedia
  8. Chicks on Speed - Does not seem like a band, more of a group of artists who put on multimedia "shows". If they were a band their description says its members consisted of a "large and ever-changing collective of musicians".
  9. Cibo Matto - Not an all female band. Band Photo, Live Photo
  10. Clout - Formed as all female in 1977 but got male members in 1978. Band split up in 1981. Seems they were only all female for one year out of four years active.
  11. Cobra - Possible non-notable. Uncited information on the article page.
  12. CocoRosie - Non-Notable as a "band". Not all female. Live 1, Live 2
  13. The Contractions - Non-Notable
  14. Coyote Sisters - Non-Notable (As a band) Currently a duo.
  15. Crush / Crush UK - Redirect to "Donna Air" who was a member of "Crush" which was a "a female pop duo" that was a spin off of "Byker Groove", "a female vocal group". Crush did not seem to be a band nor a notable one. "Crush's second album, Crush was essentially a dance remixed version of the first album"

D

  1. Dangerous Birds - No English Wikipedia article
  2. The Deadly Nightshade - Non-Notable
  3. Delta Dart - Redirect page to "F-106 Delta Dart". Not a band
  4. The Devotchkas - Not always "all female". From an interview: "Line up for the first EP had Jon as the drummer. However, Jon was never really a permanent member of the band"
  5. The Ditty Bops - Not a band, A duo. They often use male musician to back them up.
  6. Dixie Chicks - While the "Chicks" are three females the rest of their band are not.
  7. DRAIN STH / DRAIN S.T.H - Non-Notable
  8. Dusty Trails - Called a Duo. Also Guidelines state: "Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Link should redirect to either Luscious Jackson article or The Breeders article.

All for "C" and "D" acts that were listed as of 10/09/2008 Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with Drain STH. Reason: Multiple releases on major record label. Snuppy 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I see "Upon signing a deal with MVG Records..." on the article. I see the article was tagged in February for lacking sources and/or references so if you wanted to do a clean up, as you seem to know about the band, and reflect they also had a deal with Mercury Records it would help. The way the article reads right now they were a band that came from Sweden, went through many line up changes, signed to an indy (MVG Records), recorded "another demo", played a showcase in Los Angles and "Despite heavy publicity" broke up. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Red links

The following bands seem to have no wikipedia article:

I will remove them.

The following bands have articles on other language wikipedias, but (so far) not on ours: Argentovivo (it), Diva Scarlet (it), Erredieffe (it), Lucky Star (it), probably also Venus Butterfly (th). Austrian (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI KSM only needed a "(band)" after it - KSM (band) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bitch fanzine

Seems like things have calmed down a bit. I had the good fortune to contribute reviews and photos to "Bitch, the woman's rock mag with bite.", which was published 26 issues in the later 1980s by my late, first, wife, Lori Twersky. I think Lori, Bitch and any number of the bands written up in it Bitch pass the notability test by the following reasoning:

1) Bitch was a commercial publication which had hundreds of paid subscriptions, as well as a hundred or more for retail sales through Tower Records, and smaller music stores.

2) Back issues of Bitch are for sale now at "http://groovytunesday.com/fanzines.html" I was surprised to see this when I did a web search.

3) "Bitch" and Lori are mentioned at reasonable length (a couple of pages) in "She's A Rebel", a notable book by Gillian Gaar about women and rock music, which is now in its second edition.

4) The present "Bitch, a feminist response to pop culture" ran a nice article on the first "Bitch" some years ago.

5) "Rockrgrl", a glossy, successful magazine (57 issues, 1995-2005) which is listed in Wikipedia, was inspired, in part, by Lori's "Bitch", according to Carla di Santos, the publisher of Rockrgrl.

6) A web search for "Bitch, the woman's rock mag with bite" produces many relevant hits.

If Bitch passes the notable test, then I submit that all-female bands that were covered in "Bitch" are likely to be notable as well. Bitch covered or mentioned many of the bands on this Wikipedia list of all-female bands. All-female rock bands that I think are missing from this list include "The Brood" "The Poison Dollys" "Das Furlines" The earlier mentioned and apparently deleted "Malibu Barbie" (A registered trade name, that...) "The Clams" "Worlds Cutest Killers" "Rock Goddess" and many others. I'd have to consult my back issues.

I'm not saying every band I liked is notable, nor every band written-up in Bitch is notable. Nor that notability is a magic token to Wikipedia inclusion. What I am saying is that I have memories of many more all-female bands than are listed here, and a convenient source for noteedd bands which may as well be notable.

If I've got this thought out correctly, then I'd add the most obvious, with citations to published references, and feel like I'd added a small part to the world.

69.181.76.37 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bitch was a niche zine and it covered females acts but that does not mean every act/artist covered was notable. The same goes for every other zine that had ever been published that covered acts that may have gone on to more fame. Wikipedia has grown in leaps and bounds from what used to be and certainly many smaller acts slip through the cracks as do many acts that were more highly visible. Part of the issue with acts such as Rude Girl and Malibu Barbi is they existed before the days of the internet and, as you read above, people just assume if they can not find informaiton online then it must not be notable. Ironically you mention ROCKRGRL and I just looked at the Wikipedia article and it is fleshed out, but lacks many citations needs to establish it was notable and contains a lot of flowery wordings not back up with citations. I would call Bitch far more notable than ROCKRGRL but, again, one achieved more "commercial" success than the other due to the editors AOL networking in the early days while the other did not have that access - this leads to a Wikipedia article about a "ground-breaking" zine that was "the only national publication for female musicians" and it was run by "one of the nation's leading advocates for women in rock." And that leads into other areas of concern - here at Wikipedia too many underground publications are overlooked in regards to aiding in the "notability" area because they are not mainstream. It also opens up the fact that Wikipedia is now seen as a way for publicist and managers to promoter an otherwise unheard of project. Old school bands with a DIY attitude that got coverage in zines like Bitch would get deleted on the spot while more internet savvy DIY bands maybe to get, and maintain, fleshed out articles because 9 out of 10 times and editor will simply google and see how many hits come up without ever looking to see what they are. (As an example type in "Rude Girl" and there is almost nothing in the top results about the all female band. Now type in ThundHerStruck and you get all sorts of hits. Wikipedia had an article on them but it was removed as non-notable - even though many of the individual band members have their own article. Go figure.
Having said all that - this list in not supposed to list every possible female musician. As a matter of fact it is only supposed to list "all female bands" which would be why a band like Worlds Cutest Killers are not on it. Even though the band is somewhat notable for having Kelly Johnson and Kathy Valentine in it the band really never became more than a local club band and didn't go too far and as such misses the Wikipedia notability factor for it's own stand alone article. And the fact they are not/were not all female exempts them for this article. At one time I had a clear idea to redo this list so it read better and gave a brief overview of every act on the list. As you can read a editor started an edit war over it and the attempt at better clarification of who goes here.
I don't know if any of that helped out or not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Mothers =

You didn't list The Mothers - they were an all female group, based in Derby and they gigged for four years and recorded one album and a demo. http://www.themothers.co.uk

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.165.222 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tantalum

Tantalum was added but reverted by the Linkbot due to the band's official site being on Myspace. They are surely a valid inclusion because they are and have always been an original all-female band, and have a ten-year history of performing in Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney, Australia. Would it be more acceptable to Wikipedia to create a page for the band on Wikipedia and link an entry on this all-female band page to that (new) Wikipedia page? Cmbhome (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a two part question. First is that the band does not meet the requirements of this list as This list is an overview of just some of the numerous all female bands that have their own articles. That leads into the second part of your question. In order for a subject to have a stand alone article at Wikipedia the subject needs to meet certain policy and guideline requirements. That is out of the scope of this particular page but you can look at Wikipedia:Your first article for an overview, and Wikipedia:Notability (music) for specific guidelines for music related topics. Also it needs to be noted that Myspace is not considered a reliable source for information, partly because a fan page or a band page is not really a neutral point of view. Also adding links to Myspace is normally to be avoided. In this case, as there is no article on the band, it is considered spam. Also if you do want to create an article be aware if you are in some way connected to the band you would have a conflict if interest, so proceed with caution. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Tuesdays

I'd like to add a link to The Tuesdays, an all-girl bad with a Wiki page ([The_Tuesdays]). Does a band need to be currently active to be in the list? Prosthetic.Lips (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

4 Non Blondes The Mermaids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion of The West End Girls from Canada in the early 90's with Not Like Kissing You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.66.36 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Throwing Muses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.21.139 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the above, plus: Goldie And The Gingerbreads, The She Trinity, The GTOs [technically, at least]... and that's without thinking about it too hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.234.149 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Flags

I noticed that Sundayclose removed the flags. I reverted his edit but he reverted back. I sincerery hope that he comes here and tries to reach consensus first. As far as I can see, there is a years-long consensus to have flags near band names in this and similar articles. I'm just defending the page as it was before. And I think the information is important and that the list will be much worse without it. The flags always help me to find what I need. (Sometimes I need to look at bands from a particular country, like Japan or Korea.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG states, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams" (italics added). A band does not represent a country, government, or nationality. So this requires consensus to include flags as an exception for this article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the flags are needed. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information and you just deleted an important part of it, making the article largely useless (for my purpose, for example). MOS:FLAG doesn't say you can't use flags in other situations.
I think there is a factual consensus between hundreds of editors who expanded and updated the article over the years, but okay, let's ask some editors who edited it lately. Pinging @Xfansd:, @IronGargoyle:, @In ictu oculi:, @Sillent DX:, @Random86:, @Soulstaticsound:, @Cattus:. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to WP:CANVAS, let's do it in an unbiased way. I have started an RfC. Sundayclose (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC:Flags

I was summoned via bot, however there is already a clear consensus to not make an exception to MOS:FLAG. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Should List of all-female bands have an exception to the MOS:FLAG guideline by including the country flag with every entry in the list? Sundayclose (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - MOS:FLAG states, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams" (italics added). A band does not represent a country, government, or nationality. Sundayclose (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — MOS:FLAG doesn't forbid to use flags in other situations. The flags here carry encyclopedic information. If we remove them, the list will be largely useless, it will be just a meaningless list of bands with meaningless names. There will be no useful info whatsoever. And if someone wants to look at bands from a particular country, they won't be able to do it. (I know cause I'm one of the people who use the list like that.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a sincere RfC that I started to balance any biased canvassing, and I respect your opinion, but please!! Tone down the hyperbole. The list is not "useless" without flags. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of lists pertaining to bands and musicians that don't have flags (I would guess most of them), and none of them is "useless". Let's focus on the real issue instead of the dramatic claim that a list without flags is "useless". Should this particular list be an exception? Sundayclose (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ebyabe: Thanks for adding the country names. I was planning to do that a little at a time but didn't want to make a 3RR violation. You graciously saved me the trouble. Sundayclose (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support In the vast majority of cases the flag icon will correctly indicate where a band is from in terms of where they are based, as well as where they individually grew up and is therefore valid encyclopedic information. Secondly, music is a huge cultural and economic export internationally, and therefore bands do in a sense 'represent' their country, albeit not usually - with exceptions - in an official capacity. The flags are relevant, useful and visually user-friendly, all of which is pertinent to an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulstaticsound (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose MOSFLAG clearly applies here. If there is a desire to change the guidance on this it should be taken to the MOS talkpage. Primergrey (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no specific aspect to this page that makes an exception to MOSFLAG necessary. There is no reason that this type of band needs to have national identity displayed graphically in order for the information to be sufficiently clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this would make the page completely cluttered and lengthen the page greatly with an image for each band. It is fine as it is--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose dont see any reason why this article should be an exception to MOSFLAG. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose as flag icons represent countries and governments, and their use politicizes the subject. This is contentious and should be avoided (consider protest bands whose work is in opposition to the government). Only bands which directly represent the country (eg: the United States Marine Band) should even be considered for having a flag icon. Words should have precedent, so give the country's name. For this article, I'd also avoid linking to the country (this similarly gives too much political connection and does not seem a valuable link for the reader, though piping to a "music of" country article would be relevant). Reidgreg (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with "MOSFLAG clearly applies here. If there is a desire to change the guidance on this it should be taken to the MOS talkpage," and "this would make the page completely cluttered and lengthen the page greatly with an image for each band." Utsill (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Summoned by bot. While WP:MOSFLAG doesn't prohibit us from adding a flag to each entry, it would be redundant to do so and convolute the page. Each band already notes the country from which it hails, adding a flag is unnecessary. Meatsgains (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_all-female_bands/Archive_1&oldid=1146704695"