Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 18

Work of media that is notable.
There is a suggestion at the notability guideline talk page to remove criterion #10 for musicians/ensembles. Please contribute there if you have an opinion to help determine consensus. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

More feedback at WT:MUSIC?
I was coming by to see if any contributors here might be interested in watchlisting and joining some of the conversation at the music notability guideline talk page, since a change from September was recently challenged on the basis that not enough contributors were involved in the discussion to reach true consensus. Considering how quiet it is here, though, this may not be a fruitful invitation. Lurkers, please join us. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured portal consideration
Portal:The Beatles is being considered for Featured portal status. Comments are appreciated, here: Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:The Beatles. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Music Project on 'The Wikipedia Signpost'
See WikiProject report — an interview I gave. Comments welcome etc. -- Klein zach  23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Within Temptation
There's a genre dispute going on here (which I'm not involved with) - any editors with experience in dealing with these kind of issues feel like helping out? See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian country charts
I have begun a discussion here regarding the use of this singles chart, whose publisher I can find no information on at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming of musician's award lists
See this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Music
I Wish to make a wikiproject that work on pages related to mexican music, Mexican Artist, and bands. --DJ Yung Dre 22:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome to start a group of editors. We already have WikiProject Australian music, WikiProject Canadian music, and WikiProject Irish Music. Maybe these can serve as models? This is probably the best place to advertise, so go ahead and give us some more details! -- Klein zach  01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Genres?
It seems to me that musical genre statements in infoboxes are a quagmire. I am sure there are many clear cases where there is no dispute, but genres are often the subject of minor edit wars, editors invent genres to suit their POV, and genre statements are typically not supported by citations. Am I the only one who grimaces when I see a genre change that adds nothing to the article and is likely to be reverted to an equally pointless uncited entry? Should something be done, and if so, what? Is this the place for a discussion? &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A few months ago there was an attempt to remove the entire field from the infobox, but it did not go over well since it affected the many pages where there were no problems. I usually put the obvious genres, but if there is a disagreement, I would leave them out unless there is a reliable source. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was indeed a long, unstructured discussion here, (see archives 9 to 14). I doubt if there would be anything to be gained by re-running it here, though a proper centralized debate on subjective fields in infoboxes might be worthwhile if it could be set up. -- Klein zach  03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject has been discussed, but the people "fiddling" with genres have never read it. Here are some thoughts:
 * Most edits to articles are supposed to bring the article closer to an "ideal", but genre changes often go in circles. Choice A gets changed to B, then to C, then back to A, and then around again.  Don't stand for genre changes that aren't getting nearer to an ideal.
 * I frequently revert trivial genre changes with edit summary, "Please discuss your reasons for wanting this change on the talk page". The editor rarely bothers to do this.  I presume he thinks about what argument he could make for the change, and realizes he doesn't have one.
 * Everything in the infobox should also be in the body of the article, because the infobox is just a summary of points from the article. If someone wants to add "blues fusion" and there is no mention of this term in the body of the article, that's a good reason to revert.
 * In many cases (the majority, I think), one genre is sufficient.
 * A genre for an album should not attempt to include the genres of every song. Pick one over-all genre that covers the work as a whole.  "Psychedelic" would be a good genre for the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper even though it also contains a piece for chamber orchestra, an Indian raga, and a soft shoe number.
 * Usually there is a genre that covers a lot of others that people would want to add. For example, "progressive rock" covers a lot of ground, including experimental rock, etc.  I often revert attempts to attach extra sub-genres to prog rock, and say, "Prog rock already covers this, one genre is sufficient".
 * I don't mind if the body of the article lists 10 genres, and the infobox just lists one, choosing the one that covers the most ground, as above.
 * Beware of "fusion" genres listed on their own. Meaning, if someone adds "avant garde" to a rock band or rock album, it usually means "a slightly avant garde side of rock" and is completely different from "real" avant garde which is a product of classical music composers.  We see the same thing with "blues" and "jazz" when referring to a rock band that is only a little jazzy, or plays rock arrangements of blues songs, a la Led Zeppelin.  Genres should fit the proper definitions as explained by the articles that describe these terms.
 * Another one to watch out for is "acid rock". I frequently revert this change with edit summary, "It doesn't mean what you think it does; read the article". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The clear consensus was to just get rid of the field we had a gloriously quiet 10 days when the field was turfed but reason and common sense lost out to a very vocal minority ( some of whom were the most frequent of genre warriors ) who wanted the field re-instated with a proposal to create a long convoluted list of guidelines to try and keep the field structured and peaceful. The proposal turned out to be a phantom and the field continues to be a magnet for IPs and pov-push accounts( who would have never followed the rules to begin with ) to keep right on tampering with the field. Everyone is scared to re-open the debate so we are stuck with the spinning edits until all regular editors get back on the right track and unload the subjective field forever. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! The anticipation of a finallized guideline proposal by WesleyDodds was part of the premise expressed by Rodhullandemu as an administrator for reinstating the field "pro tem". The re-write never happened that I saw. The topic was exhausted with no consensus and those of us whose rationale supported deleting the field were probably too worn down to persue the matter. - Steve3849 talk 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My practices often reflect Knight's, in that when someone changes only the genre, and leaves no edit summary, I usually automatically revert with the summary "unexplained genre change". I also revert any genres not mentioned in the body of the article. Those are pretty simple red flags I think. Of course I was one of the persons vocally in support of removing the genre field, and I think I would still be if that debate were re-raised. The field was reinstated pro tem on the premise that consensus-based guidelines would be proposed, but these guidelines never materialized. What happened to WesleyDodds's guideline proposal? Someone should ask him. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still approve wholeheartedly of this particular parameter being removed from the infobox. Yes I know there are many many pages which this problem doesn't exist on, of those, how many don't state the genre in the first line? I would forward that that number is very small indeed and if the reader isn't going to bother to read the first line, I wonder whether they'll get anything usefull out of the encyclopedia at all.--Alf melmac 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still believe this problem could be solved on a Wikipedia-wide basis with a Centralized discussion, but a proper process would be necessary — with management by an impartial mediator. -- Klein zach  03:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With the best will in the world, I doubt that a Wikipedia-wide discussion would add very much to this debate; it is of necessity, a specialised debate. Musical journalists who write about bands, albums, and tracks, tend not to do so in encyclopedic terms, simply because that is not their target audience. Mostly, in my experience, additions or changes to the "genre" field in in infoboxes, have been unsourced, which makes me think that these changes have been made on a purely personal (although not necessarily incorrect) interpretation. However, an encyclopedia is not a vehicle for personal points of view; in the case, specifically, of The Beatles, almost any track you care to mention is open to debate as to its genre; other bands equally; in the absence of a concrete definition of what is meant by "genre", I would suggest, as I have done before, that attempting to limit musicality into narrowly-defined boxes, is supremely unhelpful. Without consensus on what "genre" actually means, this debate is futile. -- Rodhull andemu  04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I still believe User:WesleyDodds's guideline proposal should be given serious consideration. I know he was a bit discouraged by a few people criticizing it before he had a chance to present it, but a wikipedia-wide discussion might actually have some coherience if people are discussing an actual proposal for a solidified guideline. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to consider it & comment on it if he's ready to actually propose it. He said he was going to present it here when he felt it was ready, but never did. I didn't want to comment on it while it was under construction, and he never indicated that he was done prepping it. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my genre guidelines proposal: The reason I haven't completed it is because I mainly became frustrated by editors who wanted to keep the genre field that found my proposal too restrictive and by editors who were editing my userspace, even though I explicitly stated repeatedly when I linked to it a while back that I merely wanted feedback on whether or not it was comprehensible. It all became rather silly because there were people who didn't catch my instructions about the type of feedback I was looking for, or who wandered into the discussion without knowing the background of the propsoal accusing me of forcing it on editors. Frankly, I've got more important things to do, and it might just be better to turn my proposal into a Wikipedia essay, which might be far more helpful to article writers. Dealing with genres in music articles is not impossible (I do it all the time quite painlessly using a methodology similar to that outlined in my proposal), and the genre infobox field has its uses, but on the macro level it's not the biggest issue in the world with music articles. I might still be inclined to proposing this as a formal part of the music guidelines if people still want a genre guideline, but as I said before, it would be a low priority project of mine because at the end of the day I'd rather be writing and researching for articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "it might just be better to turn my proposal into a Wikipedia essay, which might be far more helpful to article writers." indeed: what i saw of it read like a personal essay.
 * the most promising-sounding proposal i saw during that whole discussion was the idea of replacing the "genre" field in single and album infoboxes with a "chart-information field", which would at least be objective data. Sssoul (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a chart field in single and album infoboxes, but it was removed over a year ago. My guess is because of space concerns (even a low-level success can chart in dozens of countries, and that just creates a mess). Also, I don't get the perception that genres aren't objective. As someone who's done a lot of research on the subject and helped save punk rock, heavy metal music, and grunge music at Featured Article Review over the years, I have definite problems with that. By and large I've noticed when people are arguing over the genre in the lead and the infobox, they often aren't using the best sources (if any at all) and they usually ignore the rest of the article (while I've seen a few edit wars over the infobox fields, only once have I seen a debate about the categories at the bottom of the page). I think the most beneficial guideline we could implement is a rather simple one: if there is an edit war about the genre field in an infobox, remove it until consensus has been reached. That's it. Hell, that should go for any infobox field; sometimes it's unclear when or where a piece of music was recorded, or who deserves the proper songwriting credit. WesleyDodds (talk)

(edit conflict) I don't believe this is a problem that can be solved by a set of guidelines, however detailed and however perfect. Guidelines work well at the individual project level where there can be common purpose and a meeting of minds. At the pan/mega project level (we have about 50 active music projects here) they are just not practical. The better they are, the less likely that anyone will actually ever read them. -- Klein zach  08:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the revert wars keeps persisting just delete the field. Anything that would or could be said in the genre field would be explained anyway in the article. Besides which, some infoboxes have become as long as the article themselves, so nothing would be amiss by shortening it by one line. MegX (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, nothing in the article, or infobox would be amiss if the field were deleted. However, speaking from experience what does become amiss are the emotions and concerns of wikipedians flocking to this project talk page confused that their favorite object of editing has suddenly disappeared. Additionally, they will pronounce their opinions as if speaking for untold masses and as if this current debate was of a secret minority... Where are they now? IF it is to be deleted again it needs to be posted on all the appropriate talk pages well in advance to avoid the "stealth minority" debacle. - Steve3849 talk 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To reiterate my point above, we need to keep in mind that the topic of genres in music articles ultimately needs to dealt with differently from article to article. In some articles it's not a problem at all, not to mention all sorts of other types of infoboxes in other mediums use the field just fine. If there's an edit dispute about a genre in an article, that needs to be dealt with in the proper manner, andd removing the genre field from that particular infobox could be a very effective solution. However, not every music page has these problems, so removing the genre field entirely from the template script would simply remove the surface manifestation of these problems without actually solving anything except edit debacles on a tiny piece of an article. And as Steve pointed out, there'd be the rabble emerging all over again over its removal. Anyway, that's a whole can of worms I don't want to get back into at the moment. Can we at the minimum discuss the proposal of removing the genre field in a specific article's infobox as a means of dispute resolution? it's a simple, straightforward guideline that would be easy to follow, and it would treat opposing sides of a content debate fairly. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that the field should be removed the last time we went through this debate. And I stand by that belief. Any proposed guidelines, no matter how well intentioned, will likely be ignored. The one guideline that the field has already for the artist box is "aim for generality." And that guideline has been ignored right from the start. Having a long list of 'if/then' guidelines isn't going to help. Fair Deal (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the generality guideline is ignored is because it's not well-known and because often generality isn't helpful (thus a wholesale invoking of WP:IAR). Guidelines aren't hard and fast; the purpose of them is to help editors, not restrict them. If they don't work, revise them. Once again, I don't see removing the field as a viable option, because it doesn't necessarily solve the debates. The way to address these sorts of debates is via research, discussion, and sharing of knowledge between editors. I for one am willing to assist editors who have trouble tackling the issue of genres in music article, and really it's the best approach because it's constructive and collaborative. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to think that way 5 years ago. But the number of editors willing to follow 'the pillars' is totally smothered by the number of editors who ignore them completely. I have helped build dozens of featured articles. It might have been hundreds had I not been stuck in damage control mode so often. I expect it is the same for all the regular editors here. Subjective content belongs in the article, not the box. It would be OK if the only choices that were allowed were: rock, country, blues, jazz, folk or classical... period... that's it... no more. But Wikipedia is washed under with fairy-tale sub-genres... most of which sound like they were invented during computer lab time or "rain-day recess." Keeping the field for all the reasons stated is an extremely noble and "Wiki-pillar-loyal." But in the end that little field in the artist/album/song box is more determent to productivity on Wikipedia music articles over any other single aspect of the entire project. And this constant return to spinning wheels over it certainly doesn't help either. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a "fairy-tale sub-genre" and why aren't "rock, country, blues, jazz, folk or classical" fairy-tale sub-genres? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, I'll just turn my guideline proposal into an essay, because at the end of the day the guy who started this section wanted help and advice, not to restart a debate he knew nothing about. Been thinking about writing a guide to creating music-related Featured Articles anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for re-opening this can of worms. I should have assumed there was prior discussion, and searched for it. I am skeptical about whether the essay will help, no matter how logical or well-written it is. Still, it won't hurt. I hope the essay includes examples of relevant sources for genres. Without evidence, genre statements are just original research and should be removed. That ties in with the comments above that the genre statement in the infobox should only appear if the genre appears in the article, and it's a given that everything in the article should be sourced... &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Genre in music is complex — more so in relation to historical forms (like opera etc.) than contemporary popular ones. A number of projects work on the simple premise that if the composer called his or her work an 'XYZ' then it is an 'XYZ', leaving any analysis to the so-called 'critical appreciation' sections of articles. -- Klein zach  00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to address with the proposal/future essay. Don't feel bad about asking questions. If you need help and advice, feel free to ask for it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For those interested on this particular subject, if opened an RfC at Talk:Rihanna. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Genre warriors are evil, but there ain't much we can do about it. Think of the peace and quiet we would have had if we just removed the genre field like I said. — R  2  01:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working on this (Note - I didn't know Realist had written his essay before me and I have not read any of his so as not to portray similar ideas) and my general approach to it is: 1. Gentle note 2. Warn 3. Block. It's as simple as that. I also have a page here that several users use to keep tabs on certain regular genre trolls. Feel free to use it and help out etc. Scarian  Call me Pat!  07:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Solutions
Can we start thinking about actual solutions to the problem? Removing the field didn't work because User:Journalist and a handful of others started complaining about getting withdrawl symptoms. I think WP:RBI would be a viable option. See this thing that I just wrote a little while ago. Feel free to criticise and edit etc. (Note: I wrote it before I knew this discussion was ongoing again). Scarian Call me Pat!  08:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus wasn't possible at the Music project level. I suggest trying to get it on Rock, Albums (or whatever project you are on). -- Klein zach  08:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Klein. From what I'm thinking RBI seems to be the simplest method of achieving progress. You see a user like this rapidly adding genres without discussion and/or sources; what do you do? You warn him and then block. That's exactly what happened to that guy. He came back again. He got blocked. I disagree with the above (Can't remember who wrote it) saying that there is no guideline capable of containing the problem. Simply put: New user changing genres 1) Gentle note (with welcome temp. if none) 2) Warning 3) Appropriate block. Would anyone disagree with that? Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are 150,000 music articles (give or take a few thousand). How many on your watchlist? -- Klein zach  10:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I get your point. Okay, how about if we make a noticeboard for users to report the trolls at? User:Utan Vax/Genre troll IPs would be a good start for example. Scarian  Call me Pat!  11:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Page protection is also an effective option if the edit/genre warriors are IPs. -- Klein zach  00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Josh Doyle
Anyone wanna check if this guy Josh Doyle is notable? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Musical instruments Categories
A CFD discussion has been opened regarding the merging of Category:Folk musical instruments into the related Category:Musical instruments by nationality. This is pretty complex and would benefit greatly by input from informed editors. Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Transitive Notability
I'm not sure if this is the best place for this discussion but I thought it would be important to the members of this wiki project. The paragraph below can also be found here.

I'm relatively new the Wiki and I've been watching the New page portal for work to do. I've seen an incredible amount articles created about bands and albums. While checking the notability of these bands/albums, I find very little information about the band online (other than self references). My gut tells me that the band isn't notable (at least not yet) but they still qualify as notable if they're under a notable publisher or label. The problem I see happening is that if a label is considered notable, any bands under that label are considered notable then any albums by those bands are considered notable then any songs on those albums are considrered notable. To continue this streak, members of these bands are considered notable, bands that said members have been in are even considered notable under WP:Band. Where does this streak of transitive notability ever end? In short, my interest is in point 5 and 6 of WP:BAND. I consider this to be a major issue with this guideline and the longer it goes without being fixed, the more myspace bands/albums/musicians will have wikipedia pages. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 07:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing at WP:BAND to say that all members of a notable band are notable and not all songs on a notable album are notable (see WP:NSONGS). --JD554 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If somone is claiming "transitive notability", meaning inferring something that is not actually there in the rules, just say "nonsense" and delete or revert. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I made up the term but its implied meaning is what I'm getting at. Did you read the rest of the paragraph? Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point us to a deletion request where this has been a problem? I see no reason for concern about a hypothetical situation where someone makes a dubious "transitive" claim and nobody can do anything about it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Grave Digger (band). Their entire notability claim comes that one of the labels they're been under is notable (which it is).  Also, a member of their band has a page which links to other bands who claim notability for having him in the band.  I'm not going to research through this, if you have the question, you check it out.  It won't be hard to find.  As for the theoretical situation, do you really think that it's not happening?  Rules are written for theoretical situations.  If they're written for ever situation that comes up, they'd be addressing certain cases instead of issues with an action.  I'd rather continue this issue above in the discussion above.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 16:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like the old concept of "inherited notability" that constantly gets argued over at WP:N, the idea being "subject x is notable enough for an article, ergo related subject y is also notable enough for one". Bottom line, the litmus test is always the basic criteria of WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If an article doesn't pass that test, then it needs to be tagged, improved, and/or nominated for deletion. You can't satisfy those criteria merely by claiming inherited/transitive notability...you've got to back it up with sources. I don't think there's anything in WP:MUSIC that contradicts that basic principle. Of course, notability does not directly limit article content, so there is nothing wrong with discussing individual band members within the band article, nor individual songs within the album article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I already put up an article for deletion and the discussion resulted in an overwhelming keep because, like I said, a label it was under is notable which satisfies WP:BAND under #5. My point in bring up inherited notability is that I think the policy needs to be rewritten to be more clear (namely point 5 and 6).  We seem to be in agreement that the general litmus test should be the main grounds for notability but, as it stands, the policy isn't worded in a way to support that idea.  Inherited notability sounds like it's exactly what I'm experiencing (but just didn't know the accepted name).  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, looking over WP:BAND again I think you are right. The guideline seems to be in conflict with WP:N. We should re-examine the wording and come up with something better. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)