Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 27

Sockpuppeting case that may be of interest
I have made the sockpuppeting case of 90.209.222.248 recently. This person is known for changing music genres, especially on band and album pages, as a means of fitting his or her own opinion, while violating multiple wikipedia rules in the process. For more information, see the given link.

By the way, for future reference, is it acceptable to share sockpuppeting cases here if they are relevant to any music pages or groups thereof? This sockpuppet report was the first one I submitted. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For myself, on a major case like this it is helpful to have a posting here, as it helps identify sockpuppetry much more quickly.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for the feedback about that. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tracklistings messing up page layout
Certain album pages that use the template completely mess up the layout of the page. I believe this is a conjunction of the width attributes set in the  elements of the table and the tracklisting appearing next to infoboxes on smaller articles. I believe the width attributes are set in a way that assumes the tracklisting will have no content to the left or right of it, and this assumption fails with small album articles that don't have enough content for the tracklisting to appear below the infobox, forcing the tracklisting to create a large gap in order to clear the infobox. Possible solutions (assuming I'm right about the cause) include adding more content prior to the tracklisting or making the width attributes have values that ensure this never happens. I think the latter is more appropriate because, let's be honest, many album pages may never have enough content to avoid this problem.

This occurs for me on Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8 on Gentoo Linux. A couple sample pages include Feeding the Wolves (10 Years album) and S.C.I.E.N.C.E. Since no display bug should be reported without screenshots, here's Feeding the Wolves and S.C.I.E.N.C.E. Since the tracklist template is protected, I can't test or fix the problem myself, and someone in #wikipedia suggested I post here. Thanks. --fow (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The effect you describe and illustrate doesn't happen here, using IE8 or FF 3.6.8 or Chrome 5 under MS Win 5.1 (aka XP) SP-3, so I doubt this is caused by the template Track listing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had mixed results with the effect described. It doesn't happen to me at home (IE8), but it does at work (IE6). I also have a widescreen monitor at home...not sure if screen/window width affects this issue or not. Anyway, it'd be difficult to make the template behave the same way in all browers, I imagine. I think the best practice is to add more content to the article, to push the tracklist below the infobox. I realize that stub articles are going to have problems, but hey, that's why they're stubs. If the problem can be fixed simply by generic article improvement, why bother seeking out a technical solution? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like the problem is more subtle than I originally thought, since it doesn't seem to happen for everyone nor even consistently for me. However, I don't think dismissing this by saying, "We should just write better articles," is the right approach. If there really is a technical problem (and it's not just something weird happening on my computers), I think we should try and find a technical solution.


 * As I indicated when I started this thread, I wasn't sure what the problem was and only offered an educated guess. Honestly, I was hoping I could get some help in testing this to find what the problem really is, ideally in a fashion that wouldn't affect articles currently using the template. I was hoping there would be a way to copy the source of the template to some place where I or anyone else could mess with it to narrow down the problem. --fow (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could copy the source code to the sandbox, or to a user subpage, and mess around with it there. I didn't mean to sound dismissive—I do agree that a technical problem merits a technical solution—but I often find that these things get in the way of simple article improvement, which should really be top priority. Do feel free to copy the source code and let us know if you come up with anything. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move
There is a discussion to move Heavy metal music to Heavy metal (music). —Gendralman (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Title style of these two types of articles
If you compare the articles List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2010 and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (U.S.), the topics that are dealt with are highly similar (top Billboard singles in a particular year), although the naming style is different. There is 'Billboard', '(U.S.)' in one list type but not in the other. Also, in the former, 10 is expressed as a numeral (hence 10); in the latter, 1 is expressed as a word (hence one). Something has to be done to standardise the titles of these articles I suppose? It applies not just to the year 2010 articles, but the preceding ones as well up till a number of years back. Thanks, and back to listening music for me :) A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the top 10 page even necessary? We have a page for the number ones, so why do we need a page that overlaps it and has an arbitrary cut off of number 10? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A relevant sockpuppet case
This person has edited multiple pages by putting in unverifiable and unsourced information about future events. Some of the pages affected involve pages concerning the current pop music scene and musicians/bands in the contemporary Christian rock scene. For more information, see Sockpuppet investigations/66.226.35.187. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found something to undo.  Royal broil  02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Star
I would welcome comments Big Star since there seem to be a small group of editors who insist on listing the three replacement members of the band as current members. The band died with Chilton, they seem to want to wait for some sort official announcement that will most likely never come. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Without Alex Chilton, and only one remaining original member, there is no Big Star. And The Posies were never associated with Big Star. Just because they shared some member, doesn't mean The Posies get to be in the "associated acts" field. -Freekee (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Should have made this clear but I thinks comment should be made here where there is already an active discussion about this. I would like to try to establish a clear consensus on the talk page there. If you look through the edit history there have multiple revisions to keep the article in present tnnse and to keep the three Posises members as "Active Members" There is more I can say on the issue including published interviews where it is clear that even The Posises never really considered themselves part of the band. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly - "three replacement members"? Are you referring to Jody Stephens as a replacement member? He was the only drummer the band ever had, since 1971. Secondly, "the band died with Chilton" - did it? Says who? You, apparently. WP:RS applies to everyone. Plenty of bands continue with only one original member, so that too is not an argument. Regardless of the arguments presented here, Auer and Stringfellow played in every Big Star gig since 1993 and played on the 2005 album - hardly temporary members or side-members. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sugababes still exists with none of the original members - if RS say it's the same band, then it's the same band. We are based on verification not truth. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable source that say it's the same band after the death of Chilton. Waiting for RS to establish the band is no longer active may never happen. The page should at least be changed to reflect the fact that we have no clue if there are any active members and not list active and former members since we have no RS for any active members. Implying active members is also OR. 68.205.211.170 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, making a change to the band's activity or lack thereof, without a RS, that is WP:OR. We have no sources to suggest that the band is finished, but we do have a member quoted as saying they'd like to continue. Therefore we can safely deduce that the band is either active or semi-active, as it was prior to Chilton's death. Taking a member's death to imply that the band is no longer active is OR, no question about it. I would also add that Jody Stephens is quite likely to say if he thinks the band will no longer continue - he is asked rather often. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with years in British music articles
For over a year I have been reverting the chage of Wikitables to HTML tables in articles such as 2010 in British music (the number-one singles and number-one albums tables) because obviously Wikipedia uses Wikitables, not HTML. However, I only had years from about 2006 onwards on my watchlist and I have just discovered that HTML has been applied to many more articles than I knew about. I just found it on 1996 in British music and changed the albums table to Wiki using a revision from early last year. But the singles table is still HTML and I have realised that the majority of these articles (1970s, 80s, 90s and 2000s) have had their Wikitables changed to HTML. I don't have the patience to change them all but they all need to be changed back. Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Anemone Projectors  15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Using "on" with dates in running text
Hi all, quick question. I'm discussing the use of "on" preceding a release date and I can't recall where the MOS on this might be. The question is basically which of the following reads better: It's my view that the use of the word "on" in #2 would necessitate the use of an ordinal suffix (August 31st), which is discouraged per MOS. I seem to recall having come across some section of the MOS at some point which discussed the use of dates in running text, but I can't for the life of me remember where that was or seem to find it. Any help would be appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "...was released August 31, 2010 through Hellcat Records."
 * 2) "...was released on August 31, 2010 through Hellcat Records."


 * I haven't seen it in the MoS, but from general reading I would say no, including "on" produces absolutely no requirement for the ordinal suffix, so we should omit that regardless per the MoS clause you cite. Does the article in question use British or American English? In BrEng, omitting the "on" would be too informal for an encyclopedia, though I suspect that's not the case in AmEng. PL290 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is Devils Brigade (album), which uses American English. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Album titles in italics
I have noticed recently that album titles on the top have been italicized for many articles, and it wasn't like that before. How come the titles have been changed like that? Where would be the discussion that decided this? I'm just wondering, since this affects many pages on wikipedia. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See Template talk:Italic title and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, and probably in the archives of Manual of Style, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 116 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 116 and probably in many other places; if you do, you may need to take some time off work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the latest discussion directly related to album titles. – Ib Leo (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Past Grammy Nominees / Nominations
Is there a reliable source where all the names of past Grammy nominees are listed (e.g. the nominees of the 1970s/1980s/1990s? On the main Grammy.com site there is a "Nominees" link which however only lists the current Grammy nominees. Any idea where I can find all past grammy nominees from previous years? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They are on that site: you need to enter the artist name in the Winners search box. PL290 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the winners I'm asking for, it's the past nominees of the 1970s/1980s/1990s, and they are not on that site neither do they appear after typing the artists name in the Winners search box (at least I can't find them). If you say they are, can you please provide a link leading to the grammy.com site of all the nominees (not winners) of, for instance, the category "Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Performance" of the 25th Grammy Awards in 1983? Thank you.Amsaim (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't realize you meant the non-winning nominees. Haven't tried to find them, but perhaps others have suggestions. PL290 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I found this on the grammy website but that's only for the Album of the Year award. Munci (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation rfc
I am requesting input from interested parties regarding the pronunciation of the musical instrument viola. Your comments welcome at Talk:Viola. Thanks and regards. --Muchness (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability Q
Hi guys, I'm not a WikiProject Music member, but I wonder if Newport (Ymerodraeth State of Mind) was really notable enough. I'm unsure as it did have some coverage on BBC etc. but I can't imagine it will be of any interest to anyone in 1/2/3 years time. Thanks. — Half  Price  17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that I will contest the article's notability. It does seem to have notable coverage from BBC and telegraph.co.uk. As for whether people will be interested in so many years' time, that's not a determinant of whether something should have a wikipedia article. Something decreasing in popularity which already has a notable wikipedia article not worth deletion will keep that article. If this song truly isn't notable, then I'm not one to state something like that at this point. Thanks for your interest. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree that interest in years to come is fairly irrelevant, but the article did strike me as rather unimportant. Thanks for replying. — Half  Price  22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Templates for discussion
Lets have your say for the Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 10. Donnie Park (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes as a summary
Greetings, I would like to see wording added the the relevant project and template pages stating that the purpose of the infoboxes are to summarize the sourced information in the article, as opposed to every instrument that an artist ever touched or the genre that one 'knows' to be correct. What I am specifically referring to are the 'Instrument' parameter in Template:Infobox musical artist and the 'Genre' parameter in Template:Infobox musical artist, Template:Infobox album, Template:Infobox single and Template:Infobox song. These fields are the subject of frequent edit wars and drive-by editing, I believe having wording in place will make reversion of these edits easier and pointing to this wording will seem less arbitrary to new users than merely telling them that this is the way we do things. Any thoughts? I will add messages to the relevant talk pages pointing them to this discussion. Thank you -- J04n(talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see it might help as something to point to. However, it will have an impact on all aspects of these boxes. Legitimatley an editor may point to many points of common sense information in an infobox that are not currently sourced in the text (for example genres of songs are often based on the genre of a band as sources are very hard to find for this). Can we avoid frequent deletions of all the unsource material that currently exists?--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it could be helpful, especially with the genres. Where and how would the words be put into the infoboxes exactly? Would there be a bot putting them in or would it be written in the infobox codes without any edits being made otherwise? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can certainly sympathize with Jo4n, as I frequently deal with the problems he describes. I think this sentiment really strikes at the heart of what infoboxes are all about project-wide, and thus any general wording as to the purpose/function of infoboxes probably ought to go at Manual of Style (infoboxes). I think most of us agree with the description there of an infobox's purpose: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I also think we can agree that, given this stated purpose, the following points are logical:
 * That any information found in an infobox ought to also be found somewhere in the article prose.
 * That per the verifiability policy, the information in the prose ought to be reliably sourced.
 * Ipso facto, the infobox should reflect the sourced content of the article. Ensuring that this standard is followed is the best practice to combating drive-by editing and genre warring. This is one reason that I fell firmly on the side of removing the genre field from music infoboxes, back when that brouhaha took place: I simply couldn't stand the warring any longer, and I felt that field's usage in most cases represented a complete back-asswardness of the sources→cited prose→infobox summary logic. Of course, given the massive backlash to the field's removal, I've tried to deal with it as best I can by building well-sourced "Style" sections in articles, and ensuring that the infobox reflects that prose. It's easy to justify a revert of a genre warrior by simply saying "all genres are sourced in the 'style' section". I've strongly encouraged other editors to follow this approach, as it results in better articles overall.
 * As for the instrument parameter, this clearly falls under the "key facts at a glance" part of the aforementioned infobox purpose. The relevant instructions are at Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox musical artist; do you think they need further clarification? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly...the material in the infobox must be sourced elsewhere within the article. Thus the 'summary' function of the infobox. An infobox does NOT grant 'wishes' to anyone to just put whatever they feel like in there!—Iknow23 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. I have been recently thinking about how wikipedia, and the infobox sections of wikipedia, do not have an anything-goes policy. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is further underlined by the opening words of the verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research [...] This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception". Whatever we put in an infobox should be backed by sourced statements in the article. PL290 (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank you all for your comments, Manual of Style (infoboxes) is a big help, I somehow missed that bit of text, it does say what I was looking for. I do however think that Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox musical artist should reiterate some of that information. For an example of a problem with 'Instrument' take Gene Simmons, the article in its current state lists his instruments as bass, vocals, guitar, keyboards, piano, drums, and percussion, if you are not familiar with him he is the bass player for Kiss and he sings 40% or so of their songs. The article talks about his bass playing and singing but nothing else, I brought it up on his talk page and was pointed to a source saying that he composes his songs on piano and guitar (not added to the article) and that another bassist also has a long list of instruments in his infobox. I think we are all familiar enough with the genre issue without an explanation. So how about we change Template:Infobox musical artist to read: "General class(es) of instrument(s) played by the artist as the primary instrument they are known for, e.g. guitar or violin. Include singing, rapping, beatboxing and/or scat singing if relevant. If the artist is also known for any secondary instruments, as supported in the text of the article, they may also be added. Separate multiple entries with commas."? (bold added to show change) As for the genres similar wording pointing to IllaZilla's 'Style' section described above would be helpful; "The primary genre of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). If an act is known for more than one genre, as supported in the text of the article (such as in a 'Style' section), more may be added. Genres should be ..." I purposely left out the words 'referenced' and 'sourced', because as mentioned above they should be assumed. I think adding the text to the template (and transcluded to the project) pages will prevent having to point to several policy pages. J04n(talk page) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with having just the distinctively notable instruments in the musician infoboxes. An unfamiliarized person arriving on such a page with the instruments listed like that could potentially think that they play the instruments in a roughly equvalent manner, even though that's not true. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the infoboxes, but the administrators need to be more helpful to established users, when they are all dealing with genre war[rior]s.--  C  anniba loki  03:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since an infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears...", I say to ONLY list the primary items. Secondary ones can be discussed in the article text if notable. And regarding the example above of Gene Simmons...just because he may compose his songs on piano and guitar (even if added to the article) Bold change that is not primary and those instruments should not be listed in the infobox. A summary is not a comprehensive list of every instrument an artist has ever touched.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More on the Gene Simmons example...if the material is unreferenced ON THE ARTICLE page it should be summarily (no pun intended) deleted. Readers cannot be expected to sort though TALK pages to find potential sources for material. And oftimes the sources on talk pages are rejected as not verifiable.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. J04n, you probably remember a similar discussion we had back in June. With that in mind, I fully support your proposal. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Awareness of related policies/guidelines. Because this is a perennial issue, as well as changing the template doc along the above lines, we should take the opportunity to improve awareness of the related policies and guidelines. I've created a banner for music-related infoboxes, Music infobox header, which I propose we place at the top of each template doc to give that awareness. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that  "the purpose of the infoboxes are to summarize the sourced information in the article"  because it legitimizes redundancy. IMO a good infobox displays information that is most clearly provided in a box format. Geographical infoboxes are a good example, if you look at Rome the box gives a lot of facts that would less accessible in plain text. I'd suggest that the reason why infoboxes have caused so much trouble for the music projects is because this simple principle has been so consistently overlooked. Thank you! -- Klein zach  06:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Task force proposal - Latin American music
Well I've been thinking for a while about setting up a taskforce dedicated to Latin American music and just wanted to know your thoughts. Magiciandude (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a task force would be something that I would support having enacted. I'm not an avid listener of Latin American music, but if a task force is needed to manage the said type of music, then I would support the task force being implemented. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me. Originally it was meant to be Wikiproject, but I don't think there's enough members for that to happen yet. Magiciandude (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, then. I hope you have good fortune with this potential wikiproject or taskforce. Happy editing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've created the task force right here. Magiciandude (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

An update from the task force: Two articles (Amor Prohibido (song) and Contra La Corriente (Marc Anthony album)) were recently promoted into GA status. The former is the first Latin American song to do so. Right now, we're trying to make the first possible FA album article. If anyone is interested helping out, let know. The album is Segundo Romance. Magiciandude (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)