Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 29

Chord function
I changed chord function from a redirect to a disambiguation page, quoted below. I don't know anything about the musical topic, so in the relevant bullet point below I simply paraphrased something said at greater length in the article that is linked to. So maybe experts in that topic will want to edit that bullet point further. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

begin quote
The term chord function may refer to:


 * Diatonic function – in music, the role of a chord in relation to a diatonic key
 * in mathematics, the length of a chord of a circle as a trigonometric function of the length of the corresponding arc; see in particular Ptolemy's table of chords

disambig

Table showing productivity/size of the 48 music projects
The table below indicates the relative activity of the 48 current music projects in terms of (talk page) archives and membership (as of 11 March 2011).

Notes: The table is sortable (i.e. you can click on the symbol to rearrange the table). Task forces are excluded, also projects tagged as semi-active, inactive etc. Few membership lists are kept up to date. ''Please let me know if you see any errors and I will correct them. ''

I suggest the data shows that:


 * 1. Activity is concentrated in the top 5 projects.
 * 2. Numbers of members and archives do not correlate. Some low membership projects have been very active.
 * 3. Popular music projects are less consolidated than classical music. (There are no projects for individual classical music performers.)
 * 4. Classical music related projects have generally lower membership and more archives than popular music ones.
 * 5. Among single artists/bands, the only projects that have seen any substantial discussions are The Beatles and Michael Jackson.
 * 6. 17 single artist/band projects have no archives. However there are also many other similar, but inactive, projects not incuded. (39 music projects are listed as inactive here.)

Thank you. -- Klein zach  04:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This table is interesting, but the productivity of a project should not be measured by volume of talk page activity; it should be measured by the changes over time in the number and quality of articles within the scope of the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But not if the project isn't significantly involved. In some cases, the project and the contributors are one and the same group. Some small projects like your own Gilbert and Sullivan are of this type. In other cases, most of the work is done by contributors who are not project participants (e.g. Musicians which probably edits only a small percentage of the articles within its scope).


 * Of course the figures I've given above only show part of the picture. I'd welcome other approaches to quantifying the work of the 48 music projects. -- Klein zach  00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that activity is a good proxy. A WikiProjet is not a content area:  it is a group of editors that want to coordinate their activities.  Articles within their scope are frequently improved without them lifting a finger.  For example, Michael Woodruff, Ryan White, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany, Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa, and Samuel Johnson are all 'within the scope of' WikiProject Medicine, but they are not FAs because of the project.  It would be unfair to credit WPMED with the work done on these articles.
 * Kleinzach, have you considered controlling for the age of the project? A brand-new project will almost always have less cumulative activity than an old one.  Database reports/WikiProjects by changes lets you compare by number of changes to project pages during the last 12 months.  Also, are all of the archives the same size?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll try to add start dates for the projects. That could be useful info. Obviously the archives do vary in size - getting more accurate data (like total size?) would require some kind of special bot programme or whatever. BTW what you mean by "activity is a good proxy"? -- Klein zach  00:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC) ✅ Project start dates added. -- Klein  zach  13:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now made a project statistics sub-page (see top tab), where I (and anybody else interested in compiling) will develop the information. -- Klein zach  07:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Other comments
More usefull data -->Lists of popular pages by WikiProject  - Database reports/WikiProject watchers - Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)


 * A listing by number of tagged and assessed articles would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be a huge listing! In any case some of the main projects (Music, Classical music etc.) don't do assessments, or in the case of WikiProject Musicians only do automatic bot ratings. -- Klein zach  02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music genres
I've suggested this project might be made into a (Music project) taskforce here. It's not really active, but it's a central and it does have some archives. Comments welcome. -- Klein zach  06:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute: Re reporting of Radio dates in infobox....
...in Singles 'Released' field and chronology sections. The crux of the issue is that we are reporting a NON-release date in a PREFORMATTED field titled "Released:". Radio date is NOT a 'Release' (industry terminology). We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date in infobox HERE. Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute to the discussion at the link above so it can all be in one place and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer)
There is a dispute regarding the name of this artist, and I think it would be helpful if some other editors could comment; please see Talk:Jasmine (American_singer). Many thanks,  Chzz  ► 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Andorra
Can anyone on the project help me find out what this song is called or who it is sung by? I'd appreciate any help! Jared Preston (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The italics issue
Up until now, all article titling has been in roman (upright) type. Last year there was a little-noticed Rfc here, in which some editors successfully (though controversially — see the charges of 'improper closure') argued for using italics for certain article titles, including names of musical works. This particularly affects classical music and opera, but other music projects may also be interested, see the Classical music project discussion. -- Klein zach  01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ever since that change was made I have maintained that italic article titles are a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. I have never read another encyclopedia or reference work that italicizes the titles of its own articles at the top of said articles. It would be like italicizing book and film titles on the covers of books and the posters of films. I also believe that the discussion was not nearly widely-advertised enough for a decision that affects literally hundreds of thousands of articles. This is simply extra work for editors and likely a puzzlement for readers when they see it in effect. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe your comment is correct concerning reference works not using italics in titles: both The New Grove Dictionary of Opera and the The New Penguin Opera Guide italicize opera article titles. However, there appear to be problems with using navbox templates to do this. I have been trying it, and have so far not been able to override the italics for Template:Composer navbox and Template:Infobox operas. However, I suggest we leave the italics in for a while and see what kind of feedback we get. Having them there for so many articles should soon attract the attention of other editors, and we'll may get a lot more feedback. But there is a question, will they know where to lookfor making comments? I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera would still be a good location to link to. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Operas may be a special case, like taxonomic names of species are. We once restricted italicized article titles to "special cases" such as these, but now we apply it to anything that would be italicized in running text. This means all titles of publications, films, video games, albums, etc. etc. etc. Personally I think this is stupid. I don't know of any other encyclopedia that italicizes the title of every article about a creative work. Look up Catcher in the Rye on Britannica...the title of Britannica's encyclopedia article about the novel is not italicized. I don't recall ever seeing italicized article titles in Collier's, Funk & Wagnall's, Encarta, or Grolier either. As for a waiting period, the implementation of italic title across a huge portion of Wikipedia (all articles about the aforementioned creative works) happened over 6 months ago. I think enough time has passed to revisit the issue on a more widely-publicized basis so that we can judge if consensus is still in its favor...the discussion that led to it took place in a corner of Wikipedia not watched by the community at large, and was (in my opinion) not well-advertised (I remember hearing about it somewhere but thinking "there's not a snowball's chance in hell of this happening", then being very surprised later when it did). When we suddenly go from "special cases" to literally hundreds of thousands of articles, one has to wonder if what we're doing is really necessary or even an improvement. I doubt that any readers' understanding of our article topics is enhanced or degraded by the use of italictitle. Like I said, a solution in search of a problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO the main problem is the use of disambiguators in parentheses (see for example Riders to the Sea (opera)). (Italics in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera are unobtrusive because of the use of a 'true' italic (and obviously no disambigs).) BTW I don't think operas — a mixture of English and foreign titles — are a special case, and they also have a lot of disambigs. -- Klein zach  02:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now referred this to the Village pump (policy). -- Klein zach  04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the article titles were better before the mass italicizing. It doesn't flow well when there is the italicized title while its potential disambiguation is not italicized. There is not a necessity for the italicized article titles, because the article itself can establish whether or not it is a piece of artwork, an album, a book, etc. In the main body, it then can be italicized. Without the article title italics, the titles would be in default format. That is what I would promote, because there won't need to be a select few which will be picked and chosen to give italics, and the default text is a more efficient option. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Although there are workarounds that enable us to not italicize disambiguators—eg. In Utero (album)—or even to have a mixture of italic and non-italic text—eg. List of Family Guy cast members—doing so requires somewhat specialist knowledge (such as knowing when/how to use DISPLAYTITLE—as in the Family Guy example—or encoding italic title} into a commonly-used infobox—as in the In Utero example—which requires knowledge of template coding) and provides no tangible benefit to readers. And even these solutions sometimes lead to problems...I've seen more than a few titles get screwed up by the forced application of italic title via Infobox album.


 * I also agree with this editor's point that this whole thing seems to forget the fact that the titles of Wikipedia articles are just that...the titles of Wikipedia articles. They are not the titles of the works the articles describe, though they may include (or even consist solely of) those titles. In other words, In Utero is the title of an album whereas "In Utero (album)" is the title of an encyclopedia article. We are confusing the titles of our articles with the titles of the works they describe. Article titles are not running text and don't follow the same style conventions as running text. Doing so is the equivalent of italicizing book titles on the covers of every book, or film titles on the posters of every film. So basically we've imposed a titling system on hundreds of thousands of articles that requires complicated workarounds and specialist knowledge in order to pull off, and is not only unnecessary but technically incorrect. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My general impression is that about three out of every four music (and arts) editors are against this. What should we do? Contribute to building a critical mass at Village pump (policy)? Or make a guideline here? Or something else? -- Klein  zach  09:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia policy currently says that italics should be used in titles if they are used in running text, this is the policy that needs to be reversed. Whatever is decided, I feel it should be consistent across all projects including books, films, etc, so you were right to move the discussion there. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was against the italic titles from the start, the taxonomy and battleship folks were the most in favor of it and ultimately they garnered enough support to get the change. If it was proposed I am fairly confident that we could get consensus to rid the music titles of italics but I'm not sure that is a great idea. Do we want just this one corner of the Wiki to have differently styled titles than the rest of the project? In my opinion, consistency throughout all titles is important. Which means the best course of action is a widely advertised discussion concerning all titles and I'm not sure consensus to change would be reached. J04n(talk page) 10:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Judging by last year's Rfc there really was no real consensus for italics. I can't see that changing. (I agree that basic consistency through WP is important, though taxonomy could be treated in a special way.) -- Klein zach  10:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the village pump discussion is the right start. Once we feel we have enough interested editors we can start an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, which is the relevant policy page. We should then advertise the RfC as widely as possible, certainly to all related Wikiprojects (those that work in the topic areas listed here) and also at the village pump, and probably elsewhere (seeing as this affects somewhere around half a million articles, it might even be worth one of those advertisement banners at the top of watchlists, like the one currently advertising the pending changes discussion & biography sourcing drive). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. A new Rfc would be the right way to go, but I'm concerned that having it at Wikipedia talk:Article titles might result in the same, limited number of people turning up again. It might be better to keep it at Village pump (policy), make a proposal, stick Rfc and Centralized discussion templates on it, and advertise it as you've suggested. What do you think? -- Klein  zach  07:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Either way, really, as long as it's advertised in all the right places it doesn't necessarily matter where the discussion is. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By way of a start, I've notified Wikipedia talk:Article titles of the discussion at Village pump (policy). -- Klein zach  07:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

After some consideration I've decided not to raise this as an Rfc/central issue. Although the majority of editors are against the unnecessary complication of adding italics to article titles, I see no evidence that anyone is willing to spend much time on this issue. These things can be a huge personal time-sink, and I've decided to spend my time on other things. Disappointing, but then Wikipedia is all about collaborations, not one-man campaigns! -- Klein zach  01:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about not stepping up more to get something started. Real life has been very busy and (as often happens) my Wiki-attention quickly fluttered off to other topics. I agree that there's probably a majority of editors opposed to the change, but also that there aren't many editors willing to invest the time & energy into reversing it. Oh well, like most Wiki-issues I doubt this'll be the last time it comes up. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do hope something comes up about it again, because I am willing to donate my opinions and time on the issue. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Could really use some help with music articles at Requests for feedback
Greetings, as of the last month or so I'm the main guy holding down the fort at Requests for feedback, and I could really use some additional help. RfF has been an outstanding experience in providing editing help to new editors who really want help and, in the majority of cases, are quick to incorporate feedback and really add to the value of their articles. A good number of our requests involve bands or songs, though a surprising majority actually to meet WP:Notability (music), and only a few are straight-out Wikipedia talk:No one cares about your garage band.

RfF doesn't require any fixed time commitment, and many feedbacks can be knocked out in literally five minutes or less, so even dropping by once or twice a week for five minutes would aid considerably in answering as many requests as possible, and consequently both encouraging new editors (who may become long-term serious editors) as well as maintaining high Wikipedia standards.

If anyone is willing to step up and drop by even a few times a week for just a few minutes, I would be profoundly grateful, as that would allow me to answer more requests for topics I specialise in (history, art, religion). Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion
Christianity in heavy metal has been nominated for deletion. Comments are welcome at the nomination page Articles for deletion/Christianity in heavy metal. Dragquennom (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Billboard.biz
Do any project members (or any other editors for that matter) have or know someone with a subscription to http://www.billboard.biz? If so, your help would be very much appreciated at Articles for deletion/Yung Ro Hip Hop Artist. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Music Beta by Google
Hi. New article, - would this come under your remit?

The hope is, as more news comes out, to expand it for a DYK at least (over the coming days).

Best,  Chzz  ► 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable musician?
Richie Madisun has been tagged for notability for some time and a prod has recently been contested by the subject himself, at the BLP noticeboard. I'm wondering about the notability too... strongest claim appears to be an award, made by a local online publication. Everything else is currently unverified. Help warmly welcomed. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the prod was removed. I suggest sending it to Articles for deletion and notifying here. -- Klein zach  23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ajl772/AfC/Shame On Me (song)
Moving this conversation to WP:EAR. – AJLtalk 03:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Decade-End as a parallel to Billboard Year-End
Can someone who knows how to research the details create a Billboard Decade-End as a parallel to Billboard Year-End and slap it on Billboard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could start reading Billboard Year-End and see what content is being added on it and what is relevant to the readers, you could also start to check how Year-End is categorized and talk about this division and chart it, but the uttermost part is that Year End is like a reference wheel for you, for citations and sources check Billboard site, if you need assistance ask on R&B Project talk page like you did, right now I'm not so available for help or guidance, but I can't give tips or fix the missing gaps, good luck! Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unable to find anything more than the following (which I have mostly found looking at WP articles):
 * Albums:
 * 2000s No Strings Attached - 'N Sync
 * 1990s Jagged Little Pill - Alanis Morissette
 * 1980s Thriller - Michael Jackson
 * Singles:
 * 2000s We Belong Together - Mariah Carey
 * 1990s One Sweet Day - Mariah Carey & Boyz II Men
 * 1950s Don't Be Cruel / Hound Dog - Elvis Presley
 * N.B. We should have back to the 50s for each.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of music templates
There is a discussion here that may interest some of you, regarding the deletion of templates from music articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Elliott Smith Vertical
I have nominated Elliott Smith Vertical, a non-standard navbox, for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at Templates for discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article nominations
There are currently 75 music-related articles listed at Good article nominations, which is about a time and a half the usual amount. People from WikiProject Music and related groups are likely to be the best placed editors for reviewing these articles. (Please feel free to share this message with any groups that might not have someone watching this page.)

Good article assessment isn't difficult. Any registered user can do it. You just need to read the Good article criteria, follow the simple directions, and make a decision to either list it as a Good article or not. This is "Good article", not "Perfect article"; the process is supposed to be quicker, simpler, and less adversarial than WP:FAC work. Most people find that they can do a complete review in one to four hours (depending on the length of the article and their familiarity with the subject), and it's normal to spread that out over several days or a week, so that the editors at the article have a chance to discuss your views with you and fix anything that you might think is lacking.

It would be really helpful to have a few people here pick an article to review, and I'd love to see some new people trying it out (including anybody thinking about an RFA during the next year; reviewing GA nominations is a way to build your content creds). It's really pretty easy, but if you need help or have any sort of questions, you can ask me personally for advice on my talk page, or find a GA mentor, or leave a note at WT:WikiProject Good articles. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Capital (album)‎
Hello. I afraid my knowledge about music topics is rather limited so I'm hoping someone here might be able to provide some insight. I just prodded the article Capital (album)‎ on the basis that it did not meet WP:NALBUMS. The author has now added some additional references and removed the prod on this basis with an explantion at Talk:Capital (album). Looking at these sources I am not sure they qualify as reliable or imply that the article is notable, however as I feel a bit out of my depth I would be very appreciative of some additional opinions. Perhaps it is best it replies are left at the article talk page. Thank you, France 3470   ( talk ) 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are reliable. The album is, however, by a notable artist, so there may be better alternatives to deletion. There are several books that mention Mick Softley, so some further digging may find some coverage of this album.--Michig (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you. I did do a google search before I prodded it but without much luck. France 3470   ( talk ) 15:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

3rd opinion request on No Average Angel
I am asking for a third opinion at Talk:No Average Angel. There is a disagreement about geographic Heatseekers charts being in the chart listing when it also charted on the national Heatseekers chart. Aspects (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Red links in band lists
FYI, there is a push to include red links in band list articles: Wikipedia talk:Other stuff exists. Wknight94 talk 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rowan Taylor
Can somebody with the knowledge please create an article on Rowan Taylor (composer), in order to justify having a Rowan Taylor disambiguation page? Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 13:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Inspire Records
Comments are requested at Articles for deletion/Inspire Records. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic.com
Question: to what extent is Allmusic considered a reliable source for the purposes of sustaining an article?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Allmusic is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards (reliable, third-party, published, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). They have published several volumes on music and have had internet presence since the early '90s. Of course, if Allmusic is the only source available for the article in question, that might not be enough to sustain it. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My usual answer is, Allmusic is a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, but it is not always right. It is very reliable about facts, but interpretations can be American-centric and are occasionally idiosyncratic. The short answer is that it can sustain an article, but it is better if it can be compared with and supported by other sources.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with above. If you need one or two more sources that are easy to find and reliable just to sustain an article, consider using info from Rolling Stone and Slant Magazine. All three usually have the same basic bios and discographies. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just be careful of sites that are merely mirroring/reprinting from Allmusic. A lot of sites do that, just like a lot of sites mirror/copy from Wikipedia. A quick test is to check for identical sentences or paragraphs. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Associated acts in artist infobox
I have always assumed that this field is for acts with which an artist (or band member) has been in regular association with. I ask because at Thin Lizzy, there are rather a lot of associated acts, and people keep trying to add more. For example, Thin Lizzy guitarist Richard Fortus was once briefly a minor part of Rihanna's touring band (for one tour). Surely Rihanna doesn't count as an associated act? Otherwise we would have dozens and dozens of acts there. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are at: Template:Infobox musical artist. The relevant bit is: "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together; Groups which have spun off from this group or A group from which this group has spun off" and "The following uses of this field should be avoided: Association of groups with members' solo careers". So Fortus playing once on a Rihanna album should definitely not be in the box.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was looking for, but I didn't know where to look - thanks very much. It makes it very clear, and I can remove a few acts from the Thin Lizzy infobox. Much appreciated! Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have have also added it to my watchlist, so will give you a hand with the inevitable undos.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks! Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that if that is the band's only connection to Rihanna, then she should not be mentioned in the associated acts band infobox area. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Template:Infobox musical artist
There has been another request to add a "spouse" field to Infobox musical artist. This time an RfC has been called. Interested editors are invited to voice their opinions at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. A number of previous discussions on the matter are linked to early on. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds Wanted
Hello. I've not edited at all on music topics on Wikipedia, but music is one of my many interests (I'm an amateur violinist). I am also a board member of Wikimedia UK. I was wondering whether there was a list of sounds or music that were needed on Wikipedia (or probably Wikimedia Commons) or anyone had ever thought about getting some made to order... The Land (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)