Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists/Archive 2

Extended absense
Hey everyone, just letting you know that personal circumstances have necessitated an extended absence from Wikipedia for me. I will not be able to participate in this WikiProject during that time. I trust that consensus will continue to rule this excellent project, and that you will continue the work of improving our guitarist articles. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice to project members
An Admin unfamiliar with the project has nominated ou template-Template:Guitarist infobox for deletion. I have added a vote to keep it...more would help. Anger22 11:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope
Your project overlaps in scope with WP Musicians and WP Biography very considerably. I wonder if it might be best to be a workgroup of WP Musicians, and share their project template with them? (Which will be a form of WPBiography since they're joining us).

The guitar equipment workgroup could be reconstituted as a separate WikiProject, perhaps.

My concern is that we're getting more and more WikiProjects with huge scope overlaps, and if we have a WikiProject template explosion it will cause editor resentment and cause problems for all of us who love WikiProjects. --kingboyk 13:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be argued that the problem is being caused by WikiProjects with huge, overreaching scopes. WikiProject Musicians initially failed because of its huge scope (WikiProject Composers immediately started going, "Yo, too much overlap.") No one could agree on whether all musicians are composers, or all composers are musicians, and how the two should intersect.  Now that people are reviving it (and doing an admirable job) you will notice that our founder attempted to similarly engage them to address the scope creep.


 * WikiProject Musicians does not appear to be mature enough to absorb another project into itself without serious problems. They do not even have established styles or guidelines, or even the entire WikiProject template filled out. I have a problem with integrating a well-defined, well-organized WikiProject (this one) into a less-so project. Thoughts, anyone? --Undead1 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only comment that Admin Aguerriero created the guitarist project after the apparent demise of the musician project in the first place. I am not totally against a merger of projects provided the specific mandate of this one is maintained(including infobox/templates). With Andy on hiatus and a few key project members on wiki-breaks, I'd hate to see this project get absorbed without input from everybody. My 2 cents anyways. Cheers! Anger22 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the points presented by Undead1 and Anger22. I don't see the benefits of a merger...presently. PJM 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with overlap? It's just more people working to improve an article. --Ortzinator 14:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that different WikiProjects establish different style guidelines and so forth, so when multiple project start looking at an article, there can be conflicts. I haven't really seen those conflicts, but there is the potential. --Undead1 15:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think overlaps are avoidable. There are conflicts between individual wikipedians all the time and we deal with them. The same should be done between WikiProjects. --Ortzinator 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the concern is also on multiple templates on a talk page. --plange 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple templates shouldn't be a problem. Many articles fall under multiple projects and for the most part the mandate of one is different than the mandate of the other.(I don't see any WikiCountryProject members rm'ing guitarist project templates and infoboxes from the country guitarists who've been tagged by both projects. One thing that is disturbing is that the Wiki Musician Project instructions for the musician infobox is that it is OK to overwrite guitarist infoboxes with their project's infobox....which is wrong. Certainly if a musician is a notable guitarist...but also notable at another instrument(s) then maybe it could be substituted and the details added in. But it is something that should be discussed on the article talk page first. I just noticed, and corrected a page where a musician project member replaced the guitarist infobox(and the subject was certainly a notable guitarist) with the musician infobox and noted in the edit summary "new and improved infobox". Which, in this case, was neither true nor required. Guitarist project members should be wary of maintaining the project's tagged pages. It's not worth an edit war. I think all project members are open to dialogue and "sharing the load". But, when a musician has gained fame due to his guitar playing abilities...then he is a guitarist first, musician second...plain and simple. Cheers! Anger22 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we just agreed that the musical artist infobox will co-exist with the guitarist infobox as co-equal within this project. (If you disagree, add your comments below where I recently raised this point).  In which case, your revert was just as pointless as the original change (more so, in my opinion as the original changer).  I assume  you're referring to the Rick Nielsen page.  I made that change because he's primarily known as a member of Cheap Trick, and that band (and all its other musicians) use the musical artist infobox.  Maybe my change note was insufficiently explanatory, but I think that consistency between the Cheap Trick articles is a lot more important than any feeling of ownership that a project may have for individual members of a given band.  For someone who's primarily known as a guitarist on his own (as opposed to being associated with a particular band), your objection might be more reasonable.  For Rick Nielsen, though, I think my change was wholy and completely justified, and well within the parameters accepted by this project as I understand them.
 * p.s. I will also admit that I loathe the guitarist infobox. The musical artist infobox is far from perfect, but it doesn't make me cringe anywhere near as much.  So, obviously I have some bias issues.  But I'm trying very hard to make my point without getting into subjective aesthetics.  But if the guitarist and band infoboxes were taken out back and shot, I would stand and applaud!  :)  Xtifr tälk 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point, Xtifr. Your proposal was that the Musical Artist infobox be listed as an alternative, which is fine. But what you did is go into an article and replace the established infobox with your own without obtaining consensus anywhere. That was inappropriate at best - at worst, it is disrespectful to the work done in this WikiProject. If you care to do a bit of research, you will see that design decisions and consensus went into making the Guitarist Infobox. One of them was that visual flourishes were undesirable. I don't happen to agree, but I went with the consensus. See a pattern emerging here?

The goal here needs to be good articles. This WikiProject is specialized, and WikiProject Musicians is less so. It makes sense from a heuristic standpoint to focus our presentation of information on individual articles in the most specialized way possible. In other words, presenting Rick Nielson as a musician is useful - but presenting him as guitarist is even more useful, because being a musician is implied in that way. Don't agree? Fine, but discuss it first and obtain consensus before you reverse the work of a WikiProject. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! I was a little, tiny bit bold and changed one article!  You guys are acting like I've been going through Wikipedia and editing every single guitarist article.  I came here first, I discussed the principle of using this infobox in a case like this, where there's a band and other musicians associated with the guitarist, I got what seemed to me to be concensus that this was ok in such cases (at the very least), and then, when I make one change to one guitarist article, fully in line with what had been discussed, and I get accused of trying to undermine the whole project and destroy people's work!  Can we please get some perspective here?  I'm not even reverting the change Anger22 made, even though I think his change hurts the Cheap Trick articles as a group, because I take consensus seriously.  What more do you want from me?


 * Furthermore: the infobox doesn't say "musician". It's named musical artist, but all it says (in this case) is "guitar".  If that's not presenting him as a guitarist, I don't know what is!  Again, sheesh!  :)  -- Xtifr tälk

I'm sorry if I overreacted. There is history here, though, that you might not be aware of. WikiProject Musicians was around before, several months ago. It died because of most of the same things that are going on right now: The end result was a slew of articles that ended up with Musician Infobox templates on them, but no project to maintain them. I formed WikiProject Guitarists with a narrow scope and defined styles so that wouldn't happen. While I realize your intentions are good, my concern is that the whole Musicians project is going to collapse again and we'll be left to clean up all the articles that got changed over to the new template.
 * Scope creep - its scope overrode the scope of too many other projects, including WikiProject Composers.
 * Poor organization - they developed nifty banners and template, but no actual guidelines for writing and editing articles.

So... I don't disagree with your logic in changing the Rick Nielson template, but I guess my point is that we need more discussion than a handful of people going, "Yeah.. I guess.. whatever." which is just groupthink. I also encourage you to flesh out the WikiProject Musicians before you start editing any articles under its banner. But that's just my opinion, take it or leave it. :) Anyway, peace, and I apologize again if I overreacted. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

adding "notable instruments" to musical artist infobox
I'm going to be adding a "notable_instruments" field to. This should make it fully feature-compatible with the. I'm not suggesting that it replace "guitarist infobox", merely that it be listed as an alternative, much as the "musical artist infobox" is already an alternative to. In fact, I would recommend that guitarists from bands where the band uses "infobox band" continue to use "guitarist infobox", but guitarists from bands that use "musical artist" would now be able to use "musical artist" as well. (There seems to be a big fight between advocates of "band" and "musical artist", and I want to stay out of that, so I'm simply providing more options here.) I've temporarily put an example (linking to my sandbox) on my talk page.  Comments and criticism are welcome. -- Xtifr tälk 09:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: field now added, so "infobox musical artist" should now be a perfectly viable alternative to "guitarist infobox". The example on my talk page is now "live", rather than coming from a sandbox. Unless someone objects, I'd like to mention the infobox as an alternative on the main project page. -- Xtifr tälk 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, good work. Can't say I'm crazy about the color used for non-vocal instrumentalists, though. --Undead1 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to say on the template page that it is OK to replace the Guitarist Infobox with this template. If you are going to say anything like that at all, I think you should say that it is possible, but should only be done with consensus obtained on the article talk page. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That wording was there before (referring to the band infobox), and I did a sloppy, quick edit. Sorry.  It's fixed now.  I don't think an existing template (of either style) should be replaced unless there's a good justification (like consistency between members of a band).  Xtifr tälk 22:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to start any wars here. But, in the case of the Rick Neilson article...yes...he is a member of a group. But, he is a very notable guitarist(a lot of people forget that). And when it comes right down to it...when someone says "Who is Rick Neilson?" the first answer isn't "he's a musician in Cheap Trick" it's "he's the guitarist in Cheap Trick". Beatles members' articles are a good example of project sharing. Paul McCartney...musician box all the way, Ringo...musician box is a given, John Lennon...could have a guitarist box but he has a musician box...and rightly so. BUT...George Harrison...even though he has a very full resume...has a guitarist infobox. And, like Rick Neilson, deserves to be recognized as a gifted, influential guitarist...even if it means a little "infobox-inconsistency" with their fellow bandmates. Brian May, Ritchie Blackmore, Pete Townshend, Jimmy Page, Joe Walsh...there's a pretty long list of artists whose infoboxes will/do/should differ from their famous bandmates. Now, for someone like Dave Grohl...he's the guitarist for Foo Fighters...and...I believe he is even listed as a "notable user" on several guitar model articles. But he was also the drummer in Nirvana, so, musician infobox is perfect for him. Brian Jones, Prince, Mike Oldfield...all guitarists...but like Grohl...all better covered by musician boxes over guitarist boxes. I believe both projects can work together towards a common goal. But I agree with Andy in that we should use the talk pages to there fullest so that, in the end, we're all on the same page. Cheers! Anger22 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that argument makes sense. I don't fully agree, but at least I understand where you're coming from, so we have the basis for some meaningful discussion.  And I certainly don't fully disagree either.  The main point I do disagree with is that using the guitarist infobox somehow labels someone as a guitarist more than as a musician.  Neither infobox does any particular labeling.  In fact, the guitarist infobox says nothing whatsover about the person being a guitarist!  The closest it comes is the presence of the "Notable guitars" field, which only appears if someone adds data to that field.  Otherwise, it's simply a generic-looking musician infobox that happens to be named "guitarist infobox"—something nobody reading the article will even know!  I would argue that the musical artist infobox, by virtue of having an "instrument" field that will contain the string word "guitar", actually does a better job of labeling someone a guitarist than the so-called "guitarist infobox".  At least as far as the readers of the article is concerned.


 * Let me turn this around. I don't want to get rid of the guitarist infobox, because it complements the band infobox quite well.  (My opinions of the band infobox aside.)  What I want is an alternative that can be used for members of a band that don't use the band infobox.   One that complements the "musical artist" infobox (as applied to a band) the way that the guitarist infobox complements the band infobox.  The band and guitarist infoboxes match; the musical artist (band) infobox and guitarist infobox don't.  What can be done about this?  It's a problem, and one that didn't exist when the guitarist infobox was first introduced, and the musical artist infobox was brand new, not widely used, and the musician project was in the process of falling apart.  Now we can see that the musical artist infobox has a life of its own, beyond the collapse of the musicians project, and I think it's valid to ask how this project can come to terms with that.  -- Xtifr tälk 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey All
I was just woundering being a new member, where can members go to to have a general chat about themselves or other stuff, becuase most posts on this disscussion board seem important. cheers --Funkinmonks 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. Project talk pages are for project issues only. Article talk pages are for discussing the articles(and not the subjects about which they're written) And by Wikipedia policy WP:NOT Section 1.6 - Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Hope that helps. Anger22 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Funkinmonks. If ya wanna talk casually about the guitar, then leave a comment on my talk page. I don't see why personal talk pages can't resemble blogs.--Kevin 03:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason why "personal" talk pages can't resemble blogs is because it's against Wikipedia policy, in particular, WP:NOT, which explicitly says, "Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog." If you want to talk about guitars in order to help improve Wikipedia articles, that's fine; if you just want to talk about guitars for fun, that's really not ok.  Just so ya know.  Xtifr tälk 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox discussion
All, Anger22 has started a discussion at our infobox talk page about possible changes. I think this is a great idea to really set our infobox apart from the generic musician infobox. Please comment if you are interested. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Slowhand
I have marked the article Eric Clapton as needing attention, and am also notifying The Beatles WikiProject because they have their banner on that article as well. Recently someone from the good article project came through and left a note that the Eric Clapton article doesn't use enough inline citations for an article its size. They are apparently reevaluating all of the GA articles and this article's GA status could be revoked if that issue isn't fixed. I will try to look at it, but I am also trying to get to John Frusciante and Eddie Van Halen. If anyone can help out, it would be appreciated. Basically we need to convert citations that are just sitting at the bottom of the article to the footnote style. See WP:FOOT for more info. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
There is now a WikiProject Guitarists Peer review department. You can post and respond to requests there - please keep it on your watchlist if you are interested. Eventually, I hope to develop a method to funnel review requests for guitarist articles from the main Peer review page to our project page. It seems that the more organized WikiProjects (which we are one of) are going in that direction. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted...good idea! Anger22 15:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Task forces
I have revamped the page for the Guitar equipment task force and leveraged most of Imoeng's fine work (props!) into a task force page. If you are interested in working on guitar equipment articles (guitars, amps, effects, etc.), visit the page and add your name. There is a special template for guitars, as well as a special userbox, categories, and so on. We still need a template for amps and effects, if anyone is so-inclined.

Thanks to Anger22, many equipment articles have already been tagged to place them in Category:Guitar equipment task force articles. If you want, you can jump into that category and start working on articles, or search around to find untagged equipment articles. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dropal 04:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As of 1/1/07, we have an infobox for amps. I thought I'd give you guys a present to prove my worth.

Lists!
Hey guys, a lot of work needs to be done on various lists of guitarist to get them up to similar standards as List of Telecaster players, which I nominated for Featured List status. I created a new subcategory of Category:Lists of musicians by instrument called Category:Lists of guitarists, where we can place all lists we find and start working on them. Some possible tasks, if anyone is interested: That's all for now! -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is now List of guitarists by genre, but there also exists a few lists of just one genre. We should decide if we want one big list, or separate articles for each genre.
 * List of guitarists is up for deletion, but it looks like the consensus is going to be to keep. At any rate, the list needs attention.
 * If anyone finds other lists of guitarists, please place them in the new subcategory.


 * Since we're talking lists...here's a POV pushing, uncited gem that Wikipedia could probably do without: List of notable rock guitar soloists. I am surprised this article even exists. If the generic "lists" are going to survive their AfD's...it's a safe bet that if this one gets AfD'd it'll go away pretty quick. Thoughts? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stuck a +cat on List of lead guitarists. Probably a redundant list. Maybe? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Just ugh.  List of notable rock guitar soloists really needs to go away.  List of lead guitarists seems worthwhile. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, in case you were wondering, there is also List of rhythm guitarists, which I have also placed in the new subcategory. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
If anyone has time, we really need to go through Category:Guitarist stubs and figure out what's in there. There are a couple of subcategories per country; we need to figure out if more would be useful. Also, I noticed that a lot of the articles in there are really bad - some of them are nonsense, or hoaxes, or aren't guitarists at all. For vanity pages where some local guitarist made a page for himself, it can be speedy deleted. Either tag it with db-band or make a list here and I will delete them. For non-guitarist articles, we need to put them with the correct stub. A lot of them are not in any categories, not tagged with our project banner, all kinds of problems. Anyone want to work on this? -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to take a look at some soon. Note: if the article is about a living person, you should add  to the talk page along with the project banner.  Xtifr tälk 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good idea. Isn't there a bot that does that?  I can't remember who was running it, but I thought there was a bot that scanned for articles in Category:Living people and placed that banner on its talk page. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a bot, but it doesn't seem to be running any more. Maybe it was just done as a one-time thing.  I'm pretty sure it was one of kingboyk's bots.  Anyway, a lot of stubs don't have the category, which is something else to fix  Also, it's good to add Category:Date of birth missing if it is, or "Category:YYYY births" if it's not (e.g. Category:1980 births).  -- Xtifr tälk 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that's supposed to be Category:Year of birth missing; the DOB missing is for articles where the year is specified but not the day. Xtifr tälk 00:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I have been looking through the A's and there are TONS of articles that are no more than "So-and-so is the guitarist from such-and-such band." and then a stub template.  Any opinion on whether these are desirable? --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinions differ. I'm probably overly-generous with such stubs myself.  From what I've seen at AfD discussions, a merge to the band article is probably more appropriate.  On the other hand, if it mentions more than one band, or solo work, then it should probably be kept.  If you really want to get fancy, you can always check google or allmusic guide and see if you can find some information to expand the stub a little, too.  (Just remember, no cut-and-paste copyright violations, please.)  Depends on how much time you want to spend on a single stub, I suppose.  Sometimes I get fancy, sometimes I just categorize, tag, and move on. :)  Xtifr tälk 08:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been spending some time on each one. Copyedit, category, stub, project banner, so on.  If they are obviously bollocks and don't assert notability, I delete them on site.  And since I have your attention, please change the pink color for the infobox.  I promise I'll never say another word about the infobox if you just change the color.  I implore you. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, this is more work than I thought. I'm still in the A's. -- Ars Scriptor 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (formerly Aguerriero)

Virtuoso removal?
Any edits that are made related to naming a guitarist as a virtuoso are instantly deleted. I think there are several guitarists that can be safely named as a virtuoso without breaching the NPOV. Does anyone agree? Heres my list, feel free to add to it.


 * 1) Joe Satriani
 * 2) Steve Vai
 * 3) Yngwie Malmsteen
 * 4) Randy Rhoads
 * 5) John Petrucci
 * 6) Al Di Meola
 * 7) Buckethead
 * "Virtuoso" can't be used as an adjective. In Wiki's history there have been numerous articles/lists created (Guitar Virtuoso, Guitar Virtuosi, List of Guitar Virtuoso, Guitarists Who Are Virtuosos...etc) and all of them have been AfD'd(a couple of them Speedy deleted) because they are unencyclopedic and completely uncitable. AMG has been labeled as a "non-source" as well. So for guitarist articles to remain encyclopedic and avoid making them read like some lame junior high school book report..."X is a virtuoso guitarist" is to be avoided. That being said we have used "virtuoso" in many guitarists articles where a proper cite can be included. Many guitarist articles have a "musical style" or "musical influence" section. And in some of those we have added referenced statements such as "Mr Guitar was been described as a virtuoso by "reputable pro source" magazine". If the ref is valid, like Guitar Player Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine or "insert famous guitar author here", then it can stick. But blogs, chats and fansites and such are poor ref sources and also violate wp:el to boot. For a good example of "virtuoso" being added into an article without making it sound completely stupid or fancrufty read Albert Lee He is ref'd/tagged as a virtuoso and it still reads like an encyclopedia entry and not like it was written by a retarded 13 year old. Hope that helps Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Anger22, those players can and should be defined as Virtuosos. The problem though is that many people have a differnt feeling on what makes a player a virtuoso and what doesn't qualify. &mdash; Seadog_MS  14:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that guitarists of exceptional talent should be labelled as virtuosi on Wikipedia. However; I do agree with Anger22 in his belief that one cannot be described as, for example, "Joe Satriani is a virtuoso guitarist". Here, I shall put a list if guitarists who should be labelled as a virtuoso in the article; not in the first paragraph. It should be properly sourced; not from AMG. Add more guitarists if you wish.


 * 1) Joe Satriani
 * 2) Steve Vai
 * 3) Eddie Van Halen
 * 4) John Petrucci
 * 5) Randy Rhoads

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We didn't have "Guitar" Tagged as relating to us?
That makes absolutely no sense. How did this get past us? Anyway, that's fixed now. Dropal 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Guitars deletion nomination
The article for the Heritage Guitars company has been nominated for deletion. This is the company formed by ex-employees of Gibson after Gibson moved from Michigan to Tennessee. I added two book sources to improve the article in an effort to keep it. The debate seems likely to end with a keep or no consensus outcome (the latter outcome results in a default keep). However, I would like to see the article improved with more sources, if such can be found. One of the persons involved in the debate has asked if there are any reviews of the guitars in magazines that could be used as sources. I don't have access to such magazines, but I'm certain that many of you involved in the project do. Is anyone here able to find one or more reviews of Heritage guitars in a magazine and add this as a source in the article? Thank you. Nick Graves 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guild Guitars article even worse than Heritage!
While the Heritage Guitars article is in more immediate danger and therefore needs more urgent attention, the article on the Guild Guitar Company is probably in even worse shape than the Heritage article was before it was nominated for deletion. It has no structure. I wanted to improve the structure but I couldn't find one to start with.

Perhaps, once the significance of the Heritage article has been established, we could take a look at the Guild article? Respectfully, SamBlob 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Carvin A&I article is also tagged for "non-notability". Like the others it reads like a "quick fix flyer ad" but can surely be turned around with some creative prose and a few Tony Bacon(or others) refs to seam it all in. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Test new addition to infobox
I added a slot in the Guitarist Infobox to accomodate a "solo/guitar sample". This had been discussed before as a "infobox perk" to try and show a sample of the subject guitarist's "signature sound or style". As a test I've uploaded a 29 second solo sound byte for Mark Knopfler and added it to the infobox in that article. If anyone has time could they stop by that article and see the new addition and make some comment either back here or in the appropriate infobox discussion page. Thanks! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the sample be considered breach of copyright, or would fair use cover it? Respectfully, SamBlob 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many music related articles contain sound bytes. Look at Pink Floyd or Rush or etc... Wiki provides a licensing tag for it as well.(you can see it in the sample I uploaded) The key is to keep it under 30 seconds(more than 30 and you get into copyvio area) There are a number of different templates for the audio samples as well. I used the simply for size reasons. There is another...  template but it is much larger and I didn't want to clutter up the box too much. The whole purpose of the audio bit...from earlier discussions...was to make the infobox more "guitarist" flavoured by allowing the opportunity to provide a short audio sample of the guitarists particular style...mainly from a notable/signature solo the guitarist may be well known for. I used a small freeware audio software to chop Knopfler's signature riff from his Sultans of Swing solo and then added a bit a fade in/fade out to keep it clean n neat. Choosing which solo to sample might be a bone of contention with some people depending on which solo they feel is the guitarists most notable. Example...I may sample the first 2 hand tapping bit from Van Halen's Eruption solo. as his most indentified style. But someone else may disagree and want to put in Spanish Fly or Little Guitars or his solo from Michael Jackson's Beai It...ICK!. I am not for the idea of using more than one so 'byte' selection will have to be democratic. But I feel it adds something new/fresh that other infoboxes don't offer. Thoughts? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

High All

I would love to get involved in this project, new to contributing to Wikipedia, help. Great project. Please advise

spaceyaface@hotmail.com

I do hope you'll be including Garcia in here (lol) :0)

Guitar Portal
I've taken it upon myself to get involved in licking the much neglected Guitar Portal into shape. If anyone wants to join in, that's great. If you're busy elsewhere, suggestions for the following would be particularly appreciated: If you don't have the time or inclination to get involved in editing the portal (it's not quite as straightforward as a normal article), you can drop your suggestions here or on my talk page, and I'll do the grunt work. Thanks, CiaranG 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anniversaries - these are organised by month. Previously only August was filled in. I've done a bit for January and February but the rest of the year is blank. Some variation from the theme of X was born, Y died would be nice.
 * Selected articles
 * Selected pictures - these are particularly tricky, because many of the guitar-related images have fair-use terms that mean they should really only be used on the directly related article.
 * Did you know items
 * Quotes - after six months, the existing Hendrix quote is getting a bit stale

Tom Araya
This is on a bassist; plan on getting to GA and would appreciate it if some people would leave some comments on the peer review or here, to help improve the article to meet GA standards. Thanks M3tal H3ad 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable "Brand-X Guitar" Players
We should establish some kind of consensus for guitar articles. Articles about a guitar often include a section listing prominent players of that instrument. I have noticed many instances wherein an otherwise notable guitarist is listed in the article for a guitar he or she is at best peripherally recognized as playing, and at worst, may have picked one up in a guitar store once when he or she was twelve. While it is doubtless that some guitarists become closely identified with their instruments of choice, many others are recognized for the sheer variety of their taste. We should agree on criteria for listing a guitarist as a "notable Brand-X player." JSC ltd 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment script
Hi, maybe you find this script useful for your project? Best regards, BNutzer 08:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Double-necked contra-guitar?
I've just started an article on Schrammelmusik, an Austrian folk style typically played by a small ensenble with a Kontragitarre. I translated it "contra-guitar" but am wondering whether there is a better description in English. There's a picture of the instrument and an article at German Wikipedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the image in Wikimedia Commons. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More below. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect info on Ibanez page?
Hi, Im not an editor here but i use this site alot and I am not sure of the protocol. There is a photo on the Ibanez article that I believe is incorrect info. The photo of the Killers guitar player has a caption that states his is playing an Ibanez Destroyer. Im almost positive its is a Gibson/Epiphone Explorer, per the headstock and the fact that the guitars tail doesnt have that "iceman" point at the end. Like I said over on that page, there is a chance I guess that they made a destroyer that was an exact copy but Ive never seen one. I could be wrong and would like some verification by someone else who can fix it. Sorry if this is a waste of time. Mike Toalston.

Audio
From what I can tell, Guitar, Acoustic guitar, Electric guitar, Bass guitar, and likely all of the other articles have no sound files to show users how these instruments sound. If someone in the project is interested, it may be worthwhile to record some of these instruments (non-copyrighted music, remember) and add it to the articles. ShadowHalo 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

History of the classical guitar
Hi guys. Could someone revert History of the classical guitar back to its original form? Much content has been removed, older versions just seem more complete. I attempted a small cleanup but reverting back seems like a better solution. Let me know.

Thr3ddy 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs-infobox
Hi. Is there any interest in adding a "needs-infobox" parameter to WikiProjectGuitarists? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That parameter already exists in WPBiography, which should appear on all biographical articles, including guitarists. And both the guitarist infobox and the musical artist infobox are on the list of recommended Biographical infoboxes which that template links to.  Xtifr tälk 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then how do you populate Category:Guitar infobox task force articles (which doesn't appear to be linked to WikiProject Guitarists/Infobox task force)? Wouldn't you want a list of Category:Guitarist articles needing infoboxes? How do you determine this? I just added the WPBiography tag to a guitarist article lacking an infobox. I flagged needs-infobox and the musicians workgroup, which categorized the article under Category:Musicians work group articles needing infoboxes. Is someone from the Guitarist infobox task force going to be looking through this cat?  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnny A.
I started an article on Johnny A. today (can't believe there was not already and article there. I would be happy to have people review and improve it. Gekritzl 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Affiliations
I've got a question, in affiliation(s) in the infobox, should you only list the bands which the guitarist has been in as a member, or also made guest appearances in? I've noticed there's some confusion about this. Grinder0-0 10:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this this question really pertains to musicians in general, and not just guitarists, I think it would be better asked at WP:MUSICIAN. It might get a wider audience there too.  My feeling is that they'd have to be awfully notable and frequent guest appearances to justify.  Xtifr tälk 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, thanks. Grinder0-0 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Inter-WikiProject conflict
I ran into an inter-WikiProject dispute involving the Infoboxes Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Guitarist infobox. As User:156.34.215.139 informed me, WikiProject Guitarists has resisted updating to the otherwise common Template:Infobox musical artist. Can the Infobox requirements of WikiProject Musicians and WikiProject Guitarists be deconflicted in such a way as to permit a common Infobox template across multiple WikiProjects in the music field (excepting Theatre)? Please advise. - B.C.Schmerker 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can. -- Spike Wilbury 05:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current status is really that both projects accept both templates. In fact, the colors in the musical artist box were changed largely owing to feedback from the guitarist project, although many musicians project members and third parties endorsed the changes.  It's possible that the guitarist infobox could be deprecated, but a few  people still seem to prefer it, and most of us don't really care.  (I'll continue to support the guitarist infobox as long as there are people willing to speak up for it, but certainly don't want it kept on my behalf.)  So really, what you have is not an inter-project conflict, but a simple editorial dispute.  My suggestion is to discuss it on the talk page of the article in question, and see what other editors of that article think.  That's how Frank Zappa's infobox was finally settled, for example.  And tell User:156.34.215.139 not to presume to speak for entire projects.  Xtifr tälk 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All notes read. Sounds time for me to start a new alpha Infobox for deconfliction purposes.  I'll request feedback at a later date as to a background color scheme. - B.C.Schmerker 04:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Xtifr said, it is just an editorial matter. I see no reason whatever not to combine the two and depreciate one.  Most of the participants in this WikiProject just edit articles and forgo the project discussions.  The most vocal opponents of the original Infobox musical artist were me (I am the founder of this project, formerly known as Aguerriero/Ars Scriptor) and Anger22.  My main problem was that the color was fugly for instrumentalists, and that some editors were going round replacing the templates without even discussing it here.  That is all water under the bridge.  Anger22 had similar concerns, plus he had added one or two additional fields to the Guitarist infobox that didn't end up being used much.  He has been inactive lately but he may want to come in here and comment on the issue.  As I said, I have no interest in debating it further, as I am here to write articles.  Deconflict at will. -- Spike Wilbury  05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Member list
Does anyone want to volunteer to go through the member list and remove inactive participants per the instructions at the bottom of the page? -- Spike Wilbury 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)