Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 25

Request for comment
Hello we are looking for comments about an article that is up for miscellany deletion...See-->Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Country Music (3rd nomination) to leave a comment. Pls note in commenting on the deletion, that the  Portal:Country Music that is in question has been updated since the deletion request was made...Thank you !!Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a proofreader
Hello, I just finished translating Denez Prigent from fr:, where it has GA status. I would certainly be very glad if it could also obtain the silver star on en:. It is most likely technically good enough for this, but its main problem is that… well, I wrote it. While I have no problem reading English, I am not that good at writing it. So, would someone care to read the article and check the grammar, spelling, and other potential English issues ? Thanks. Oyp (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Noticed this request, so I just did the first two sections. Your English is near excellent -- great job!  I hope my small contribution is helpful  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks to Akrabbim for this too. Oyp (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Help requested
There is currently a discussion regarding whether the synthpop genre should apply to Pretty Hate Machine, and confusion regarding the application of genres generally. Outside opinions and help from editors with experience in such things is greatly appreciated. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 8:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Certifications, Invite to discussion
Certifications in some countries are for 'shipments' and in others are for ACTUAL Sales. I believe that some improvement/clarificaton is needed at List of music recording sales certifications. To this end I have posted in the Talk there.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Billie Jean black sequin jacket
Hello, Please help by reviewing the following article, and make suggestions in order to improve the Billie Jean black sequin jacket page. Very much appreciated! User:DinhoGauch10/Billie Jean black sequin jacketDinhoGauch10 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD for article Articles for deletion/Billie Jean black sequin jacketDinhoGauch10 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood discography
nominated Carrie Underwood discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Grindcore groups → Category:Grindcore musical groups
You know how a lot of the band sorting by genre categories are phrased "________ musical groups"? The category of Category:Grindcore groups is something of a deviation from that rule. I can't move it myself because the move tab isn't in the mainspace, but can this category be moved to "Category:Grindcore musical groups" for the sake of consistency? Thanks. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK to me. Feel free to start a CFD discussion to get more input and results. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion of yours. I brought this up in two other places, but to no avail. Hopefully there can be some responses activated by doing that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Book clean up
The following books have been identified by as having problems (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book clean up). Any questions, ask Headbomb. Thanks.


 * Book:Louis Armstrong (problems)
 * Book:David Bowie (problems)
 * Book:James Brown (problems)
 * Book:Johnny Cash (problems)

--Jubilee♫ clipman 04:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article layout / Introduction
Hello! I'm sorry if this is explained in intricate detail elsewhere, but I couldn't find the information I was looking for which explains my post here.

Some time ago I created some music-related stubs and was wondering what the particular manual of style was for the introduction of songs/albums. A few years ago it seemed to be common to write Song ; however, these days it seems to be more popular to write "Song" as an introduction to the text body of the article. Take "Lebanese Blonde" by Thievery Corporation for example. The introduction back then read:

"Lebanese Blonde was a 1998 single....."

but now it seems to be that

""Lebanese Blonde" was a 1998 single....."

is the norm. Could anyone be so nice as to clear this up for me? Many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Song titles go in quotes and are not italiziced. You would still bold the title to indicate it as the article's subject. We no longer pipe links to "year in music" as it goes against WP:EGG. So the correct format would be:
 * ""Lebanese Blonde" was a 1998 single....."


 * --IllaZilla (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks for your help IllaZilla! Jared Preston (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeking help re: music standards
Hello. I'm hoping someone here will be able to help me out on some articles I've been working on. I recently did a major redesign of...
 * List of songs in SingStar games (PlayStation 2), and
 * List of songs in SingStar games (PlayStation 3)

The two articles list the entire song discography released on games from the SingStar series. I combined information from various sources, many of which don't follow the WP:MUSTARD guidelines.

In particular, I was wondering if anyone here could help out with the following tasks:
 * Correct the capitalisation of song titles in accordance with WP:MUSTARD
 * Correct mistakes in table sorting using the sort template (so that "The Beatles", for example, sorts under "B" instead of "T")
 * Implement language tags as mentioned at WP:MUSTARD (I only just came across this now)

There are other things which need to be dealt with (detailed referencing, wikilinks, article size) but I can manage those myself later on.

Issues:
 * This is a massive job. Between the two articles there are over 2700 artists and song titles
 * The SingStar games have been localised for many European markets. The lists include artists/songs from the following languages: English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish

According to WP:ALBUMCAPS, each song title is to be written according to the capitalisation scheme of that particular language. I'd be happy to try fixing up the English-language song titles by myself, but am hesitant to edit foreign language titles when I cannot distinguish between words and proper nouns, for example.

For the table sorting, I've been using sort templates to skip the following words when they occur at the start of a artist name or song title: "a", "an", "the", "le", "la", "les", "der", "die", "das", "il", "gli", "el" (based on guidelines for film titles). I don't know how complete this list is, or if there are additional phrases in other languages which I should have been filtering.

(I've also been using the sorting template to remove accented characters from the sorted text. Wikipedia's alphabetic sorting order places accented characters beneath regular text)

So yeah. Like I said, this is a massive job, so any help at all would be very much appreciated. Even if someone here, for example, spoke French and was able to help out with capitalisation/sorting for French titles -- that would be great. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision of the Assessments section
Currently, "Assessments are done by individual music projects, such as Albums, Classical music, Composers etc., not by this Music Project, which is an umbrella project." I think this should be changed, not to step on the good work done by the mentioned subprojects, but to assess articles that are outside of their scope, but very much within the scope of the WikiProject Music. Sample articles that should be assessed include: music (!) or musicology. Or would you say that WikiProject Music theory is enough to take care of all of those? Unfortunately, that wikiproject is classified as semiactive/inactive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything sinister about the Music project deferring to subprojects for assessment. It's just a way of splitting up the work.  People who are interested in a certain area of music, such as music theory, will probably be members of both projects.  If music theory is becoming inactive, I have doubts that shifting its work to the music project will resolve the problem.  You said it's "semiactive"; I presume that means not completely inactive (I have seen edits and questions about terminology in the last few months), and anyone still intested in that area can still join the theory project and work from there, even if they work alone.  If they want to generate discussion that isn't getting a response at that project's page, they can ask on our talk page, or create a pointer to theory's talk page, and the response should be just as good. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Huge lists of nominations for GA
There's a discussion at WT:GAN about how some topics have huge lists of articles waiting for GA reviews - including Music. Some ways to improve this:
 * Ask your descendant WikiProjects to get involved in the discussions and actions below.
 * At the discussion at WT:GAN, let us know how you think the situation can be improved - or whether you're happy with things as they are.
 * Can your members do more GA reviews? This should only be done by members who are interested in doing the job well, as a poorly-produced review will probably need to be re-done at WP:GAR.
 * There's a possible COI if your members review Music articles. However, there's also a backlog at Theatre and Films archives, and if Music review Theatre and Films articles while Theatre and Films review Music articles there's no COI. --Philcha (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This link you have provided goes to an old page that should not be edited (no new comments) I think you mean to link here -->Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations....Moxy (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing musics topics
I've updated my list of missing music topics - Skysmith (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR in need of further commentary
Good article reassessment/Eddie Rabbitt/1 has been open since March 20 and needs more commentary as to whether or not it should be delisted as a GA. Please leave a comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Appraisal of WP:Manual of Style (music) and WP:MUSTARD
My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:
 * WT:Manual of Style (music)

It also contains a summary of my thoughts and recommendations. Thoughts welcome. It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at WT:Manual of Style (music) to begin with. Specific issues surrounding MUSTARD should of course be raised here as usual. Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pleasing improvement in linking practices
Colleagues, I've just been gnoming through articles on new US albums and their groups. There's a definite improvement in what has been a chronic problem: the low-value linking of common words (please see wp:overlink, and inappropriate piping (e.g., that misleads or removes important information contained in the target name). I found only one overlinked common word in 10 articles: airport. Keep up the good work! Older articles are still are a significant problem in this respect, though.

Thank you. Tony  (talk)  08:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting observation. Can't figure out why so many articles about bands and albums would contain the word "airport"...? :-) – Ib Leo (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "airport" doesn't seem like a word to be linked from an album page. Thanks for the improvements. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IbLeo, I had to stare at it for 10 seconds to realise the joke; good one! Tony   (talk)  11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone magazine
It looks like they've revamped their website. Artist bios, which used to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ foo, now appear to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/ foo/ and then some code. It also looks like a lot of album reviews have disappeared. --JD554 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tips section
Moxy here from the Canadian wikiproject,,,,Was wondering if you guys would like a copy of the new tips section we have added to our project ..it links to all the major Wikirules of music ...Pls fell free to use it and or aimed t to your needs..Moxy (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally don't see a problem with that. I find the tips pretty cool. Thanks. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for help concerning Tears for Fears discography at WT:DISCOG
Hello peeps I'm Caden. I started a thread called, "Requesting opinions concerning the Tears for Fears discography" article over at WT:DISCOG. Please join in on the discussion. I'm seeking different opinions in regards to the current intro of the Tears for Fears discography article. I feel the poorly written current intro is not appropriate, is not accurate, and is too short for an intro for a discography. Thanks!  Caden  cool  07:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've waited long enough on this and have gotten zero replies. I'm going to take this as a sign that since nobody has replied, that I have permission to re-insert the preferred intro.  Caden  cool  06:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-writing the rules on WP:BAND
I placed a speedy on Bruce G. Blowers since it clearly does not meet WP:BAND. User:Nyttend removed the tag and stated "Enough sources are present that this really shouldn't be deleted without an AFD". I added the Prod, but I'm concerned that this editor has re-written the rules. WP:BAND clearly defines what is and is not notable. Feel free to comment on the article's talk page, or mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

request music-related category
I don't know if this is the proper place for suggesting a new music-related category, but here goes: I suggest a category for musical groups fronted by women, not including category:All-female bands. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Every Pink Floyd song has an article?
There's an interesting discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd which could use more input. Basically I am wondering why dozens of stubs which seem not to have the potential ever to be expanded have been created, contrary to the advice in WP:NSONGS. I redirected one album's worth of these non-notable and unverifiable album track articles, as the guideline recommends, minus two which arguably seemed more notable, but the only feedback so far has been on procedural grounds. I'd be interested in some thoughtful input on policy and reader utility arguments for keeping these, or for keeping some of them. See what you think. --John (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Chart templates
As most of you are aware, I've been pushing for a standardized template to take care of the sourcing of singles for a while. It's met with some resistance, and I'm trying to get some focus on what it will take to overcome that resistance. Your input is requested at WT:Record charts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Christian music wikia
This wikia is pretty inactive and could use with some more activity. If anybody has an interest in Christian music and/or has an interest in adding articles to or editing existing articles of the Christian music wikia, then feel free to join it. The link is here. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the Christian Music Wikia connected with Wikipedia? -- Klein zach  01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, good question. I was figuring that I post that message here and in other wikiprojects, because it has received sparse activity within the last two months (by sparse, I mean about two or three edits within the last two months, one of which is an edit I have performed). I did not think about whether the Christian Music Wikia was actually connected to wikipedia, as I thought that the wikia format was similar enough to the wikipedia format that I could bring it up on wikiproject talk pages. As for there being an actual connection, I can't really think of one at the moment, other than it being brought up on the Christian metal wikiproject talk page by someone else several months ago, where I signed up. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Split-apart of MUSTARD
Following my audit of MUSTARD a couple of months back and the more recent move over to Wikipedia space, it has been suggested that the page be split apart into the other Music Guidlines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD). Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD) for the full discussions and rationale behind the merge. Some sections were merged into MOS:MUSIC, the rest were left out of the merge.  MUSTARD has been marked as Historical.  Please let me know if I have left anything unresolved; I will clean up the Music MoS as soon as I can.  Thank you to all all those that have helped, encouraged and advised me throughout this long procees  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with marking Manual of Style (MUSTARD) as historical
The whole of the Manual of Style (MUSTARD) has been marked as historical. MUSTARD has fulfilled a useful purpose as an 'all music project' brain-storming forum, so I don't think we should close it down, see the MUSTARD talk page -- Klein zach  00:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * MUSTARD has again been marked as historical (Quote: "Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear."). I think we need to discuss this here, hopefully bringing in some real contributing editors (as opposed to the ubiquitous metapedians), including those who have actually contributed to the guidelines.


 * One of the main reasons for having MUSTARD has been to involve members of different music projects, creatively and collectively in style and standards issues. Various editors have put effort into developing what has become a long document. Unfortunately instead of processing past contributions (moving finished sections as appropriate to the Manual of Style (music) then replacing them in MUSTARD with links to their new location) while leaving other sections for further work here, one or two editors are going for the lazy option of simply abandoning the whole thing with a 'tag', to prevent further work being done on it. Why is this?


 * Last year, when I was interviewed by the Signpost about the work of this project: I wrote: "The Project also has the MUSTARD or 'Music Standards' guidelines. More work is needed to make sure they include editing practices and styles developed by individual projects on the one hand, and are consistent with WP-wide practice, the Manual of Style etc. on the other, but this will become an important resource in the future."


 * That's still my opinion. If MUSTARD is going to be removed we need to consider the purpose of this project. Is it still viable? What is it for? -- Klein  zach  09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted several times inviting people to comment about my reappraisal of the Music MoS and MUSTARD. See Archive 25 for example.  I have also posted in other Wikiprojects, on WP:VPP, WP:VPR, in WP:CD, and took part in discussions over at WT:MOS (now archived, of course).  Perhaps Kleinzach missed all of those posts for some reason?  I take it as a compliment when he called me a Metapedian, BTW: without such people, the Policies and Guidelines would be in a far greater mess than they they are at present.  Please see the talkpage of MUSTARD for more.  Thank you  --Jubilee♫ clipman  11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think Jubilee did a great job here in organizing years of edits to the mustard page..The appraisals were one of the best i have ever seen. This whole process was done in the open and well explained during its process (however this does not mean something is missing or wrong). Perhaps if you could mention what you believe was omitted to the new page, maybe it could be intergraded back into the new page.  Having the page as historical is fine the info is still there and usable. What we have now is much clearer for new people.  As i mentioned before in the talks - I  believe when it comes to individual wikiproject styles there is no need to duplicate the info on multiple pages that is y there is a sub group style page. Moxy (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moxy has now removed all mention of MUSTARD from the project page.
 * To clarify. 1. Information should not be duplicated on multiple pages. This is a linked publication and we should use links. (I don't think there is any disagreement about this.) 2. Marking MUSTARD as 'Historical' (really a tag for projects not guidelines) closes it down and makes it unusable except via (quote) "broader input via a forum such as the village pump proposals page." I oppose this.


 * What is happening here is that censorship and centralization are once again killing creativity, initiative and encyclopedia building. (This is the story all over Wikipedia where the number of encyclopedia-contributing editors is plummeting, while the bureaucracy becomes more and more inflated.) The various Music projects are now largely inactive - will this one soon be as moribund as the others? Does anyone care? -- Klein zach  23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * a) Historical is indeed for Project namespace pages. MUSTARD resides in Wikipedia name space.  b) What exactly is being censored? No one is saying discussion can't carry on as normal: the page is still available for scrutiny and this WikiProject has a talkpage...  c) Moxy removed the link because the page was marked historical. d) The fact that I posted in multiple places over an extended period gave editors plenty of time to engage in discussion.  I ask again: why leave it till the process of merging is complete to start commenting?  My appraisals and comments surrounding them made clear what I felt should happen to MUSTARD: if I had indeed made a full split-apart (as I suggested on the Music MoS talkpage and in the MUSTARD apprasial), it would have lost altogether!  This way we can keep it intact if anyone does feel it might serve some useful purpose in the future.  Perhaps we could move it back to this WikiProject's subpage?  Or move it to WP:Music standards and mark it as an essay?  Or we could userfy to your userspace if you would like to work on it more?  As stated, I personally feel it serves no further useful purpose now that the sections that were not duplicated elsewhere have been moved to the Music MoS.  Which brings up a final thought: since all of MUSTARD is indeed duplicated elsewhere, every section of it should be blanked and linked to those other Guidelines, if we follow your logic!  That probably would not be helpful however... --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have linked the main page back in ..see, this way it is clearly still visible/usable to all and in the appropriate section. However not sure if it should be there. Moxy (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither am I... Also, I am looking at the history of MUSTARD and am not convinced it was ever used as a brainstorming page in any sense.  Even the creator,, agreed we don't need two pages: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)/Archive 3.  I will look into this further and get back to you tomorrow, though.  It is interesting that most of the activity on the actual page has taken place this year, however, the previous edits being merely to add sections and to categorise, i.e. no edits to clarify or change the advice after TUF-KAT moved it to WikiProject space and the lead was added.  Only one edit each in 2007 and 2008.  If this was a brainstorming exercise, it failed to recognise the contradictions, inconsistencies, and redundancies that have remained until this year...  In fact, even TUF-KAT marked it as historical in 2006!  We need other participants in this discussion, however, or we will go around in circles!  More thoughts tomorrow, though  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick thought: we could use superseded as, instead?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  07:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)