Talk:Music community

".music applicant caught using bogus Wikipedia page"

 * http://domainincite.com/19069-music-applicant-caught-using-bogus-wikipedia-page --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Given this article, I've added a "POV" tag so editors can review the article and make sure it is neutral in tone. Unfortunately, at least for me, many of the sources used in the article are not immediately accessible. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that this entire article is nonsense and should be deleted. It's an attempt at commercial corporations at justifying themselves.  If there is a "music community" it's no more definable than "anyone who is interested in music and feels a kinship with others." - kosboot (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

To the extent this article seeks to define something - it fails as nice bafflegab. Wiktionary might be the place for a short definition ... but all I could support is:


 * Music community refers to any group or groups of persons or organizations sharing an interest in any topic related to music, including the music industry, and engaging in discussions thereon.

Covers the gamut AFAICT. Collect (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does AfD seem like the most appropriate course of action? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would wager that the AfD would succeed. Collect (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've nominated it for deletion. Hopefully this will encourage even more contributors to evaluate this article and its purpose and tone. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued at Articles for deletion/Music community --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Take "reset" version to AfD?
This first AfD discussion was a bit of a mess. Do editors feel another one is needed for this revised version of the article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be a complete waste of time. However, anyone considering a second nomination should first read WP:BEFORE, and should show they have done so when framing the proposal. They should also invite all editors who have contributed to the first discussion to contribute to the second. Note DGG's statement that we would not consider removing prior page versions as a reason for deletion. Better to improve the article. But given the controversy about this apparently innocuous subject, any significant removal of material or structural changes should be first discussed on this talk page to obtain consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would not be a waste of time. We have a new version of the article to consider and the second discussion would have nothing to do with the original version of the article. There were still votes to delete the updated version of the article, though, so I don't think a second discussion is inappropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is time to drop the stick and back slowly away. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) If there were to be another one, I would !vote keep on the grounds the current version is well enough sourced to demonstrate notability and to provide a basis for future development. Last time, I voted nuke-and-remake, but in light of DGG's statement that this doesn't come within the scope of nuking, I intend not to promote that approach any further. --Stfg (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Struck my earlier comment. Things further down this talk page reignite my concerns. It may be premature, but I can't say how I would vote right now. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I feel taking the "reset" version to AfD would be the thing to do now (the "trainwreck" of the first AfD was caused by driving the "reset" version at full speed into an AfD that up till that point was pretty organized). Further:
 * The issues listed at User talk:Aymatth2 seem to have found no volunteer for addressing them (since backed down with his "...I have only a passing interest in the subject" comment at the end of that section).
 * The issues for the current version of the article seem largely the same as for the previous:
 * Starts with a bogus definition ("A music community is a group of people who share an interest in a type of music") no social scientist would ever write down (so not only unsourced, but unsourceable)
 * Hotchpotch of conclusions and side remarks of individual (case) studies, extrapolated as if they apply to music communities in general
 * Plus, added to that,
 * WP:COATRACK more prominent in this version than in the previous.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What is this WP:COATRACK stuff? The article reports what various reliable sources have said about the subject. Sometimes it gives two opinions. It does not report what all sources have said about the subject – that would be impossible. But there is no attempt to promote some weird point of view. It does not praise or attack any person or group. I don't get the point. This is just a bland little article about a minor topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody definitely wants to talk about "Irish music"... from the lede image, recurring in every section, particularily the first definition in the first section extrapolated from a such study on such music. Feel free to start an article on Irish traditional music community... Currently it stands in the way of a neutral treatment of the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It was closed as WP:NPASR (see the closing statement), which means No Prejudice Against Speedy Renomination (NPASR). One generally doesn't discuss whether an AfD is needed -- one simply nominates an article, or not. Discussion of the matter is generally unproductive, as it goes nowhere, accomplishes nothing, and is generally longwinded and distracting. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's not rush to cut off discussion. I have tried to address the issues that have been raised so far, and will continue to do so when actionable problems are identified. I have rearranged material to try to avoid synthesis, taken a shot at rewording the opening definition, and played down the Irish aspects. If other concerns can be addressed through talk page discussion before going the AfD route, that is the most efficient way to go. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, better to discuss & improve before someone decides to take this to AfD, than repeat a trainwreck AfD while someone decides to recast the article during the AfD. Surely "Discussion of the matter is generally unproductive (etc)" is against letter and spirit of the WP:CONSENSUS policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Spin-off proposal
The concept of a music community website is quite different from the concept described in this article. The term "music community" is used by web techies to mean a specific type of website, usually commercial, that lets users exchange news and gossip – and buy stuff. The users may be musicians or, more likely, fans. The website would like to be the focus for a virtual community, but the users generally use a range of other sites too. It is a type of music database that supports interaction. Any views on whether it is worth starting an article on this class of website, what it should be called, how to avoid it becoming a magnet for advertising myamazingwebsite.com? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe "quite different" among web marketers, but the idea is the same. Someone suggested "Online music communities" - although such communities pre-dated the web.  I belong to an email list that was founded before 1990, well before Mosaic or Netscape entered the scene.  A noticeable difference is that some (not all) online music communities can be exploited more easily for marketing purposes.  But I feel that the characteristics one finds in "online music communities" also existed previously, so that negates the need to create a separate article. - kosboot (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is the idea of a community of people interested in a given type of music who use the web to exchange news, gossip and music. There is, I think, a separate idea of a website that tries to serve such a group, and that has features like registration, news, chat, moderation, streaming, file sharing, whatever, supported by specialized software. A community of people who use the web will not restrict themselves to a single "music community website", and may not use a specialized website at all. Dunno. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's feasible to write such an article, there must be reliable sources defining the concept and giving it a name, mustn't there? --Stfg (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What a music community is not
The "reset" version of this article was based on books and scholarly papers that discuss "music community" in general terms. Typically they discuss groups of people who know each other and meet on a routine basis. There are sub-groups: people who get together to play or discuss music, and people who are involved in creating and selling a given type of music. The article could cover these different types of community better. But the term "music community" is often also used in a hopelessly vague way, as in "the classical music community" or "the Chicago music community". Is there some way, without getting into original research, to say that the article is not about broad groups of people who have never talked to each other and probably never will? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I say: no. - kosboot (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite so sure of "no" as seems to be, but this is exactly why the "brown horse" problem came up at the AFD. One thing I was concerned about there was your bringing up this source. It's a list of  entities that use "our tools". As "our tools" aren't commercial products, I suppose it isn't a spam link, but it's sailing very close to the wind, imho. And this one is a commercial link, pure and simple. Seems to me we still have a coatrack problem unless an answer to your question can be found. --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article draws on various books that give relevant information including I doubt these citations will have any impact on book sales. If we cannot cite books we have a serious problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course we can cite books, when they are reliable sources. That one looked to me on first inspection to be a primary source plugging an approach, thus I suspected not so reliable. On second, more detailed inspection, I'm not so sure at all. I guess part of my anxiety about all this is that "community" is a bit of a buzzword, the kind of thing that people trot out to push buttons. "Inclusive" is another of those, too, and books with titles like 101 ways to  tend not to be scholarly, imo. But I'm not sure about that book, and have struck that part of my comment. --Stfg (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The concept of "music community" is broad. The article could evolve into some sort of list of types and examples. Nothing wrong with that. A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. It is hard to see how that applies here. What point? But the question is whether there is value in somehow saying what the article does not cover, as opposed to just letting that be implied by the statements of what it does cover. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When it first came to my attention through the media, the article was a coatrack article essentially saying that "music communities" were several commercial websites. Since then it has been dramatically changed to a more WP:NPOV.  I should probably step away from the article now since the commercial bias has been removed and since I feel a "music community" is a self-defined idea whose breadth seems to me infinite and not worth the trouble beyond a simple definition. - kosboot (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Plugs of any kind are making a point about a tangential subject. That includes plugs for books, practice guides, music teachers who host a pupil get-together once a month and call it a "community" because that pushes the right buttons, and mentions of "my favorite music scene what I'm a member of innit". Your question at the top of this section is about properly restricting the scope of the article so that it cannot be used for certain things. All I'm saying as that this question really does need an answer, otherwise the article will (not can, but will) be misused by future editors for that kind of purpose. ( I shall be stepping away very soon too, by the way, having signed up for a 6-year distance learning course that will have first claim on my time from here on in. ) --Stfg (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletions
Francis, you can't remove nearly the entire article and then claim that it's only a dictionary definition. Either AfD the article if you don't like it or believe it is irremediable, or take steps to fix what you don't like (including, if desired, using more applicable tags than that one). If you continue this disruptive line of editing, you're likely heading for a block, or an ANI at best. Softlavender (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would add that given the controversy over this article, bold action by any editor is inappropriate. Any non-trivial changes, including removing, adding, changing or moving any text should first be proposed here and only implemented if there a clear consensus that the change will be an improvement. It it probably best to stick to small and very clearly defined changes, one at a time. There is no urgency. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)