Talk:2013 in British music

Updates needed!
This article has no lists of number ones (singles, albums, single downloads, album downloads, compilations), and no chart summary. Also there should be a list of BRIT award winners. I don't know if B*Witched and The Boomtown Rats should be listed as they're Irish, not British. Also, wouldn't the Big Reunion bands have reformed in 2012? – anemone projectors – 12:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See 2013 BRIT Awards and 2013 in British music charts for those. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, see 2012 in British music and all the articles that came before it. There's always been a list of BRIT winners (as well as other awards that have been missed in 2012, like the Mercury prize, and the charts have always been in this article. I don't see a reason to split them off, especially when there's nothing in this page to direct people to that page. I say merge it back here. – anemone projectors – 09:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2013 in British music takes you right to the appropriate link. And the link to the page on charts is under 2013 in British music? Do you think 2013 BRIT Awards should be merged here instead of having its own article? The list of winners surely doesn't need to be repeated here when it is already there. If there are other notable awards related to the UK, feel free to add them to this article under the awards section. The amount of info in these articles on weekly chart statistics was giving undue weight to that aspect of "British music" and needed to be split out just as it had been done for 2006 through 2009 British music articles. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No I don't think the BRIT Awards should be merged here, but it's been normal for many years to list the winners in these articles (and to list more than just one award ceremony, which 2012 has missed). That's fine though. How is it giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE is about giving a neutral or balanced point of view, not about splitting large sections out of articles)? Is there a discussion about it? It's part of this article and always has been as far as I've been aware - unless the information for previous articles was split off after the end of the year, which is generally when I remove pages from my watchlist. The 2012 article certainly includes this. However, I remember many years ago the prose part was never even included. It's always very poorly written and very rarely, if ever, cites sources. Anyway, I still don't see a reason for splitting those parts off. – anemone projectors – 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Based on how this article was set up, this would imply that music charts in the UK are more important than anything related to the actual music of Britian. There is no way you can make 90% of the article about the charts, and with the week by week breakdown plus the numerous tables of #1's that go on forever, this was all about the charts not the music. Now, in the appropriately titled 2013 in British music charts, that article can be 100% about the charts in Britain in 2013, because that's what it is about. Regarding awards, there's no problem summarizing major winners for various music British music awards. It certainly shouldn't list every winner in every category, and it shouldn't be limited to the BRIT awards, but if there's an article that better captures the information, it's best to link to it than repeat it. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

YEARLINK
I removed the links to the dates under WP:YEARLINK because they are not intrisic to the article and no use can come from linking the individual date itself. Why was the entire edit undone as well? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't - look again. The date links are in keeping with policy. Deb (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You undid the edit. MOS is a guideline, not a policy also. Please explain how they are allowed because I am pointing out they are not covered by MOS. They are not intrinsic and should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an intrinsically chronological article, as covered by DATELINK. Deb (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is not. January linking to the individual days in January is intrinsic. A "year in music" linking to dates which have nothing to do or mention anything related to the entry is not germane. Because it is not relevant - specifically intrinsic - it should not be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an intrinsically chronological article, as are all year articles and year in topic articles. This has been discussed many times. See the Years project for further information. Deb (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken this to DRN. Intrinsic does not mean what you advance here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)