Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Concerts/Archive 2

England, Scotland, etc. vs UK
For concert articles, is there a preference for identifying the countries of the United Kingdom or only the UK? For example, Manchester, England; Glasgow, Scotland; Cardiff, Wales; Belfast, Northern Ireland; or Manchester, UK; Glasgow, UK; Cardiff, UK; Belfast, UK. Either is correct, so it is a matter of personal choice.

Beginning about 23 March 2023, a number of IPs have been repeatedly changing all to "UK", which in turn have been consistently reverted. Most IP edits do not include edit summaries, but recently, some include "Wales and England aren't independent and sovereign countries since the 18th century (Great Britain). The country's the United Kingdom since the 19th century." The reverting edit summaries often included "was correct: ongoing attempts to ignore WP practice, see Countries of the United Kingdom; discuss rather than edit war)". The sources that are used for the articles are not consistent and may show "London, UK" and "Glasgow, Scotland" in the same list.

Pinging users who recently have made changes to concert articles on this issue:, , , , , , , , , ,. Please indicate your preference ("UK" or "Individual countries") with your reasoning.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In these lists, national sovereignty is not an issue, but WP:Neutrality is always an issue. The Good Friday Agreement was approved by overwhelming majorities in both parts of Ireland, and one of its key principles is the right of "the people of Northern Ireland" to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both". Writing "Coleraine, Northern Ireland" or "Belfast, Northern Ireland" respects both identities; but "Coleraine, UK" or "Belfast, UK" are offensive those who identify as Irish. Similarly in Scotland, everyone agrees that "Edinburgh, Scotland" is accurate; but "Edinburgh, UK" is avoidably provocative to the ~50% of Scots who want Scotland to be not part of the UK. Those editors who prioritise sovereign states are imposing their own ideology on a world which is more complex than they seem to be aware. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries – "Manchester, England"; "Glasgow, Scotland"; etc., are already used in numerous concert articles, including several GA rated articles, and have been so for years. The IPs who are insisting on changing them all to "UK" have not provided adequate reasoning to override the current practice, as outlined in MOS:STYLEVAR, a WP:GUIDELINE. A distinction may be appropriate for articles involving world politics, but not for listing musical performances. The current practice of listing the individual countries should continue. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries It makes no sense to branch all of the four into "United Kingdom", so I would say that the preference is if the show is taking place in: for example, London, it should just be "London" for the city, and "England" for the country, otherwise it may confuse the reader into believing that it is completely one whole country. I agree as well with continuing the practice of listing individual countries for musical performances, and believe that this should be in my honest opinion, expanded into a guideline. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries The reason why I reverted the edit changing to UK was because there would then be multiple issues like this: [insert a suburb here], Manchester, England, United Kingdom, which just looks crowded and sounds weird in my mind.
 * In my opinion:
 * [Suburb], [City]
 * [City], [Constituent country]
 * The editors above have also made good points. Vamsi20 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * UK – We should simply apply the same rule across the board to all cities: [Article name for city], [Country]. If we use the rule applied to all other locations (USA, Canada, Europe, etc.) we should be using "United Kingdom". How is listing "London, United Kingdom" any different from saying "New York, United States"? The only reason for the difference is that the subnational entities of the UK are also called "countries" and some editors are conflating the terms. To not use UK would essentially mean that the term "country" as used in these articles does not have its normal meaning (e.g. "sovereign state"), but a needlessly convoluted meaning (e.g. "sovereign state, except for the UK, which is listed in its constituent parts"). – Zntrip 05:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries - As per sensible points already made. Locations within the devolved constituent countries in particular are generally more associated with the constituent country rather than the UK as a whole. It should be e.g Edinburgh, Scotland. (a distant second choice would be e.g Edinburgh, Scotland, UK). Ignoring or not acknowledging the constituent countries in locations suggests they have no significance at all, which obviously they do. Titus Gold (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A "generally more associated" standard seems rather subjective. I would argue that people may associate "Chicago, Illinois" over "Chicago, United States" but no one is suggesting we change that. My understanding is that this discussion is limited to the tour date tables where there is one column for "City" and one for "Country". For the tables specifically, I think the "Country" should be the sovereign state for consistency, per my prior points. – Zntrip 00:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that the United Kingdom lacks a federal system of governance, while the United States possesses one, it is advisable to employ a consistent approach towards both countries. Nagsb (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Context-dependent. In the examples where city and country are comma-separated, such as "Manchester, England", individual countries make more sense. The purpose is to communicate where it happened and individual country conveys the meaning better (compare with "scientists from Cambridge, Massachusetts" or "designed in Cupertino, California"). However, I looked into a few edits by the users listed in the original question, and all seemed to be affecting tables that had a separate column for a country. It can be argued that in such table UK would be preferable because or WP:HEADERS and a natural expectation that each cell in such column would refer to a name of the state.
 * Not separating the "country" column from a city can be a better compromise than a yes or no answer to the question in this thread. --PaulT2022 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I prefer your approach, but concert editors seem to be set on separating the two. Some still feel it is important to further identify the continent, such as this, which leads to overly gradated tables without a real benefit IMO. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Context-dependent per above, if the rest of the table, infobox or a list uses sovereign states, then best to use United Kingdom (as many of those IP edits seem to be). Constituent countries can be used in text where context justifies the separation for a better meaning or sources used solely specify one of the constituents, and generally it makes sense to lean constituent countries in the body of an article. Also would support a general location column in tables as a compromise as stated above.  Dank Jae  21:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries. The UK is a unique case, a "country of countries". There is a very useful video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10, in which CGP Grey wittily explains the huge tangles, tho with a few minor flaws.
 * Well explained. As others have noted above, should the context matter? In many concert articles at least, countries are presented in a list or table, as in this. Wales, Scotland, and England appear in the country column next to Belgium, France, etc., and some feel they should not be included with sovereign states. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Ojorojo. Those fixated on sovereign states should remember that sovereign state is not a binary condition in which is either sovereign or not. Instead, there are a lot of grey areas such as protectorates, colonies, client states, Overseas France, colonies, British Overseas Territories etc. Then there are states with limited recognition, such as Kosovo, the State of Palestine and Abkhazia.
 * Woud a 1935 concert in Bombay be listed as "Bombay, India", "Bombay, India, UK", "Bombay, British Raj", "Bombay, British India", or "Bombay, British Empire" Or as someone combination of two or more of them?
 * What about a 2022 concert in Oranjestad, Aruba. Should that be listed as "Oranjestad, Kingdom of the Netherlands"?
 * Or a 2019 concert in Amsterdam. Should that be listed as "Amsterdam, Netherlands" or as "Amsterdam, Kingdom of the Netherlands"?
 * Or an 1890 concert in Sydney. Was that in "Sydney, Australia", "Sydney, Colony of New South Wales", or "Sydney, British Empire"?
 * Or a 2023 concert in Nablus. Was that in Israel? Or in Jordan? Or the State of Palestine?
 * Any sort of purist approach, however well-intended, will clash with the complex realities. In many cases there is no possibility of a neutral answer, so purism will just cause disputes which cannot be resolved.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I think I shall have the final say, as of today all concert locations within the UK, must have the United Kingdom instead of it's so called independent countries which are not, if concert dates within America have United States instead of it's states, then so should the United Kingdom with Britain and that's the end of the matter. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This IP was reverted in April with an edit summary "Block evasion by Special:Contributions/82.19.124.15182.19.124.151". (See User talk:82.19.124.151). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IP has been blocked following an ANV report. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:CONSENSUS works. No one person gets to say "my way only".
 * And when a closer weighs a discussion, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS obliges then to give little weight to an editor who insists "'cos I say so".  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur entirely. XAM2175  (T) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, if you have a preference please indicate "UK" or "Individual countries". Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries. XAM2175  (T) 09:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think 's explanations settle the sovereign states/independent countries issue, while the IP's comment doesn't offer anything of substance. Re-pinging the participants to see if we can settle on "individual countries" or if this needs to be expanded with an RfC:, , , , , , , , , , , , , . —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am open to an RfC, if needed. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we really need an RFC?
 * There seems to me to be a clear preference so far to oppose a sovereign states-only rule.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries I continue to stand by my preference, as BrownHairedGirl and Ojorojo both make valid points. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging . HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Individual countries Having considered all of the above, individual countries makes the most sense to me.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mixed I believe there needs to be more clarity on what is actually being proposed, AFAIAA the edits that prompted this discussion were IP edits to tables which listed England etc alongside United States, France, Germany etc. In those instances, if all the other entries were sovereign states, so Spain used rather than Catalonia, Belgium rather than Flanders, Canada rather than Quebec, and United States rather than California, I do not understand why the United Kingdom should not exist there. I support using "Cardiff, Wales, Edinburgh, Scotland, London, England" in text, but if there is a table/list with only the sovereign states so "held tours in France, Belgium, Germany etc" or as in a table (in which I believe the IP edits were) the UK should be used. If a constituent country is used individually in text then that is fine, but if clearly alongside independent countries the UK should be used. Listing the constituent countries alongside independent ones gives the impression that they are/should be independent which is also not neutral. Bombay was not part of the UK proper, and I believe places not part of the country proper, so territories etc, should be referred individually, but Scotland is part of the UK proper, as is Catalonia with Spain and Flanders with Belgium. If we are basing this on "offensiveness" then "Belgium", "Spain" and the United States (Hawaii etc) to a degree should be referred to by their subdivisions too to not offend those wishing they were independent. I guess Quebec too over Canada, Corsica over France and Veneto over Italy. I oppose the accusation those supporting sovereign states are "imposing their own ideology", it is like accusing those supporting individual countries as imposing their ideology that the UK doesn't/shouldn't exist. I recommend raising this discussion at relevant talk pages again as I doubt many IPs would respond again.  Dank Jae  20:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and notified some other projects about this discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I support using "Cardiff, Wales, Edinburgh, Scotland, London, England" in text, but if there is a table/list with only the sovereign states so "held tours in France, Belgium, Germany etc" or as in a table (in which I believe the IP edits were) the UK should be used. If a constituent country is used individually in text then that is fine, but if clearly alongside independent countries the UK should be used. The 'individual countries' approach isn't necessarily incompatible with either of these – I don't read it as ruling out simple lists like "France, Belgium, Germany, the UK, etc". It's the conjunction of city-plus-sovereign-state ("Paris, France; Brussels, Belgium; Berlin, Germany; Edinburgh, UK; ...") that we want to see avoided.I acknowledge that this introduces a degree of inconsistency, but to the best of my knowledge that isn't automatically a problem. The simple fact is that the status of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England within the UK is complicated and contentious both in reality and here on Wikipedia in a way that is very different to the status of the federative states or provinces of countries like the US, Germany, Australia, Canada, and so on. Other contentions do exist – Catalonia is one such example – but unsurprisingly these are less prominent to viewers in the Anglosphere. XAM2175  (T) 09:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @XAM2175, The 'individual countries' approach isn't necessarily incompatible with either of these, the title is literally just "England, Scotland, etc. vs UK", while the proposal only provided an example (not only what it should apply to), so very vague which is why I am asking for clarity, is this only applying to text where UK/constituent is used as a locator for a place or on its own in a table or list of sovereign states. If it is not incompatible I am not seeing how. I don't read it as ruling out simple lists, we all read this differently, but it is not stated this will not be affected, plus I am under the impression this would also be changed if tables (which are basically the formatted lists) should not have "United Kingdom" either, as these edits are the reason why this discussion is happening.
 * AFAIAA, without clarity, all I see proposed, is to remove the use of "United Kingdom" as a locator, based on not using it as a locator in text (so Edinburgh, Scotland over Edinburgh, UK in all cases) and a response to its use in tables (where UK should not be used in a "country" column). Demoting the UK to very few specific legal/organisational or secondary scenarios.
 * While yes the UK's situation is contentious, which I why I am open to using the constituents when described individually (or alongside other UK locations), to respect their identities and neutrality, but I find removing the UK in all location instances (unless this is clarified) too much. Also, treating the UK like it doesn't/shouldn't exist is not less contentious either, but oh well. But seems the UK would need to be removed from all concert articles as a locator, as it seems I'm alone on this now.  Dank Jae  18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify a couple of points:
 * There is nothing "so very vague" in what is being proposed, since it makes no difference in concert articles how the individual countries appear. Whether they are in a list or table with other countries (the lists/tables don't specify "sovereign states") or as a locator for a place, they are treated the same. As noted in the 15 July post below, several reliable sources list individual countries the same as WP concert articles, so apparently they do not make any distinction either.
 * Most of the editors in favor of individual countries are aware of exactly how they are being used in concert articles, since they have reverted many of the IP changes to long-standing entries in lists/tables. They have been re-pinged since "context-dependent" was brought up and have not changed their positions. Other interested editors who wish to comment will read through the discussion so far and be aware of the issues.
 * There is no attempt to remove "UK" from concert articles. Rather, this is about retaining the existing practice of using individual countries where they have already appeared for some time. The idea that the intention is to demote or treat the UK as if it doesn't exist is unfounded.
 * This proposal is straightforward and there is nothing to gain by turning this into something that it isn't. *:::—Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries Whether in list or table alongside countries such as France, Germany, etc., with or without cities preceding them, either is acceptable in concert articles. Several reliable sources have used the individual countries next to other countries in listing tour dates, including Billboard, Pitchfork, Official Charts Company,, Cosmopolitan, and Glamour in the same manner as in many WP concert articles. Individual countries have also been used in titles of health and economics articles alongside other countries ("Governing obesity policies from England, France, Germany and Scotland", "Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland",, and "Interviews on the Banking and Currency Systems of England, Scotland, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy". Sources also use "UK", so it appears that either is acceptable and there is no hard and fast rule against using individual countries along with other countries.  Perhaps it is more important in political articles, but I don't see that there is "some substantial reason for the change" to the current practice of using individual countries in concert articles ("Retaining existing styles", MOS:STYLEVAR). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries per BrownHairedGirl and long-standing custom, e.g., ABBA: The Tour, The Recovery Tour, Good Girl Gone Bad Tour, Streisand (concert tour), etc. No RfC needed, IMO. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual countries per BrownHairedGirl and WP:AINTBROKE. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing A month has passed since the last round of comments and the "clear preference so far to oppose a sovereign states-only rule" still prevails. The following is proposed for the project page with a link to this discussion:
 * England, Scotland, etc. vs UK
 * While either United Kingdom (usually as UK) or the individual countries of the United Kingdom are acceptable, there is a preference in concert articles to use England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (see discussion). This includes all uses (in prose, tables, or lists) whether they appear alone or alongside other countries with or without cities. When one style has been established for a particular article, usually through extended use, it should not be changed without a consensus on the article talk page, as per "Retaining existing styles" (see MOS:STYLEVAR). I'll add it as a section between "Formatting" and "Tables", if there are no objections. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I'm happy to see that the idea for the project page I originally came up with when I gave my preference is proposed. (With some changes to it of course.) Still sticking by my stance for individual countries, I have no objections to this. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Alexandre Lopes (businessman)
Hello WikiProject Concerts members! I've created Draft: Alexandre Lopes (businessman), an article about a Brazilian concert businessman in Porto Alegre, Brazil. I'd appreciate your feedback for improvements or suggestions to move it to the mainspace. Thank you kindly! Ldisconzi (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Madonna: The Celebration Tour listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Madonna: The Celebration Tour to be moved to The Celebration Tour. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Performance Tour (PSB)
Just submitted a draft for review - I was surprised that this tour (as well as some other Pet Shop Boys tours) do not have entries. Anybody would like to help out with the article: Draft:Performance Tour ?

It's the second article I've created from scratch and the first one to cover a concert tour. So please be kind!

Leoseliv (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have worked on it a bit, made some fixes and removed an unreliable source. Hope it helps. HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen your edits. Thanks for the improvements. I've tried uploading a cover photo for the infobox and it's proving nigh impossible (I don't remember how I managed to do it last time with a similar case: non-free album cover). I tried manually entering the relevant tag but I get the following message: "The wikitext you entered doesn't contain a valid license template." Any idea how I can upload the image? TIA Leoseliv (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Residencies vs. limited engagements
I’m not sure if anyone has ever brought this up but what are the protocols for residencies and limited engagements? Live at the Pearl, I Am... Yours, 4 Intimate Nights with Beyoncé, Revel Presents: Beyoncé Live, Lady Gaga Live at Roseland Ballroom are referred to as "residencies" but they seem more like limited engagements as they’re all under seven shows. Majority of the sources on their pages don't even refer to them as residencies, although I did find one for Beyoncé's I Am… Yours and Lady Gaga's that calls them a residency. But let me know what anyone's thoughts are on this topic. Pillowdelight (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute at Talk:The Eras Tour
There is a discussion currently going on at Talk:The Eras Tour regarding a statement about the tour. The discussion can found at Talk:The Eras Tour. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute at Talk:The Celebration Tour
There is a discussion currently going on at Talk:The Celebration Tour regarding changes to the set list section. The discussion can be found at Talk:The Celebration Tour. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I Am... (Beyoncé tour) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for I Am... (Beyoncé tour) to be moved to I Am... World Tour. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

What level of setlist detail is appropriate for a tour article?
Don't know whether I'm raising this in the right place. I'm wondering whether there has ever been a discussion to establish consensus about what level of detail is appropriate when listing setlists and songs performed in articles about concert tours. The specific article that has me pondering the issue is Springsteen and E Street Band 2023 Tour, and especially the paragraph listing every darn song performed on the tour. Bruce Springsteen is, perhaps, one of the more difficult artists for whom to address this sort of issue because for most of his career, he has (quite famously) varied the setlist considerably from night to night, making it hard to define a "definitive" setlist for a given tour. On the other hand, I tend to think a paragraph of the sort seen in the article I just linked is "unencyclopedic" and is more appropriate for a fan site whose readers revel in that sort of minutia. (I mean, look, I've been to 16 Springsteen shows over the years and I love it when he plays something obscure that I haven't previously heard live, but that doesn't mean I think it's encyclopedic to catalog all such instances.) The matter came up in the past on the talk page for Springsteen's 2009 Working on a Dream Tour, but there was never really any resolution. I'm just wondering if there is any sort of broader standard that has been applied. Thanks in advance. 1995hoo (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a standard that has been used for a few tour articles in particular, like these ones for example: Guts World Tour and Five Albums. One Night. The World Tour. For the sample set list at the beginning, they have a note on top before the listing that it is from a concert from said tour which is usually at the start of the tour, along with a note that it "may not represent all concerts for the tour". Any changes to the set list, is placed into a sub-section called "Notes", for that specific show, and is sourced. If it is not sourced, then it is promptly removed. I have had many IPs or editors object in the past to reverting "their edits" for the main set list when I explained that they needed to stick to the sources provided from the first used set list before the notes.
 * I did take a look at the 2023 tour article for Bruce Springsteen, and the paragraph for every other song performed is definitely unsourced, so they can be removed. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may not get around to it until tonight, but I think I'm inclined to cite WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTDATABASE, all of which seem to cover the sort of long list about which I've expressed concern. 1995hoo (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll touch on one other thing, that the set list in the Bruce Springsteen 2023 tour article looks to be supported by Setlist.fm. Per WP:NOTRSMUSIC, it is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to know. The user who has been adding the lists of songs has, in the past, cited to Greasy Lake, a Springsteen fansite, to which several of us then objected because Greasy Lake expressly disclaims reliability. It seems self-evident that something that says it does not guarantee its own reliability cannot be deemed a reliable source! I'm going to leave the setlist there for now because I just deleted the other two paragraphs and I don't feel like making another large deletion so quickly, regardless of whether doing so may be justified. 1995hoo (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed Setlist.fm as a source, and changed it to reflect the tour's first show in Tampa. Some of the songs in the changes for the listing are unlinked, so I'll leave that for others to work on. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ferxxocalipsis Tour listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ferxxocalipsis Tour to be moved to Ferxxocalipsis World Tour. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:I Am... (Beyoncé tour)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:I Am... (Beyoncé tour) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)