Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 5

Talk page template
Is there one? I can't seem to find anything general, nor for the Musical Instruments subproject, only those massive lists of other instruments that go in the article itself. -Bbik 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be . –Unint 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to add that to the main page, so people can actually find it. -Bbik 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like it could use some updating too, to at least include the rating bit, but I'm not going near that part -- I'd destroy it all. -Bbik 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Membership?
Can I join the project? I wasn't sure where to ask or what to do. Thanks, thesublime514 (Talk) 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Feel free to add the project userbox to your user page. Jogers (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just signed up as well, considering that I edit a lot of articles on music.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization for solo artists
How do we normally deal with categorization for artists who did work with a band and solo? I'm looking at Category:No Doubt, and it seems to me that Category:Gwen Stefani should be a subcategory. On top of that Category:No Doubt songs is a subcategory of Category:Gwen Stefani songs. Category:Paul McCartney is set up completely differently, and it includes Category:Wings (of which it is also a subcategory) but not Category:The Beatles. What is the general consensus/convention on how this should be handled? ShadowHalo 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Gwen Stefani should be a subcategory of Category:No Doubt, and Category:Paul McCartney should be a subcat of Category:The Beatles. It only makes sense. --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of doom metal bands
Hi, could someone provide an extra opinion here? An editor keeps insisting on removing certain bands citing they are not doom becuase one website doesn't mention them as such, despite multiple other websites asserting they are (and being provided for him). He has no consensus, has extremely weak arguments (I don't say they are doom, so they must go. This website makes no mention of them at all, so they must go.) and continues to revert edits despite policies and sources supporting keeping the bands on the list. DarkSaber2k 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are definitely more likely to get feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. Jogers (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Musical Instrument Makers - Is there a WikiProject that covers them?
Hello all... I was wondering if there's a WikiProject that covers musical instrument makers. If so, what is it? If not, is there an existing WikiProject that could be expanded? thanks! -RobbyPrather (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My assumption is that they belong with the projects dedicated to the instrument they make; if they make multiple instruments, then multiple projects may tag any articles about them. -- TimNelson 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists of works
There has been an ongoing effort at AfD (articles for deletion) to delete or merge lists of works or bibliographies of authors. If you have an interest in this topic, please join the discussion here. The outcome will inevitably effect many editors of this project. Also, please post this alert anywhere you think it might apply. Thanks. Awadewit Talk 07:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional Reviews?
I'm not sure if this has been discussed or if you could point me to a discussion on Professional Reviews on album pages, but I was wondering why they were included as part of Wikipedia since they are opinion pieces and don't use the unbiased "Neutral Point of View". This is one of the few places I've seen on Wikipedia that has any articles linked to something that's pure opinion. Thoughts or is there a discussion elsewhere? In addition, is there an outline that expresses what exactly a "professional review" is? Thank you. Vacantlips 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:ALBUM addresses this directly. Could be worth discussing. –Unint 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My take on this is that for discussion of any art to proceed past a very superficial level, opinion must enter into that discussion. Citing published opinions is acceptable within WP:NPOV ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."). NPOV actually even uses a musical example. ('Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority).') The requirement that the review be professional (intentionally vaguely defined) is in support of the 'implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority'; a professional reviewer is generally considered more authoritative than some person on Amazon. NPOV doesn't require us to pretend that opinions don't exists; they do, and sometimes they matter. It simply means that we present conflicting views fairly. Cmadler 11:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's true, why do we disallow reviews from Rate Your Music, which seems to objectify and represent mass opinion better than any professional review could? Torc2 (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Published critics are professionals whose opinions are widely respected. They know what they're talking about. They can describe what's so good (or bad) about music. The average guy's opinion is seldom so well spoken. Nor is it representative by itself. It only becomes important when collected together with thousands of other people who feel the same way. Led Zeppelin Rules! Each member is the greatest musician in his field, ever. Nobody could play or sing like those guys, and after they came along, everybody tried to. Coming from me, that doesn't mean much, does it? You'd require me to find reliable sources to back me up, wouldn't you? On the other hand, if you collect thousands of Rate Your Music reviews that say that, you might be able to make a case for including that in an article. But that might only be able to prove that there are more Led Zeppelin fans there than for other artists. -Freekee (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a regular of that site, I can say you're much more likely to get skewed results for albums that aren't very popular as opposed to albums everybody hears. If we set a minimum threshold for number of votes and explain how the ratings are obtained, it seems like it'd be extremely worthwhile to include them.  Being deigned as a "professional critic" really doesn't seem to mean much to me; ultimately it's still just one person's opinion. I mean, what's the substantive difference between a professional music critic and a blogger who can write well?  Some publisher who doesn't know anything about music writes one of them a check because they sell advertising.  Besides, we're reducing these critics' alleged literacy to a star rating; it doesn't matter how well they can express themselves, since we'll never see a word of it unless it's included in the article body itself. Torc2 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sales
As a non-member of this WikiProject I have a suggestion for a new standard for music related articles. Can we please require a source for album sales and certification and to otherwise have a placed with it? FAR too much do I see editors come on here and boost the sales of their favorite artists or lower the sales of artists they don't like. It has reached near epidemic proportions. This also leads to the problem of having an article on the artist say one thing and the actual album's article saying another. --Ted87 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, WP:CITE already requires this and the problem is simply that people aren't following it. I'm not sure if saying it again here would do much.  ShadowHalo 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. I did not know that. --Ted87 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on eliminating Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre from the categorization guidelines
For those interested in how musicians are classified, but who do not have the WikiProject Musicians/Categorization talk page on your watch list, I have started a discussion here about whether we need the category level of Category:American pianists by genre, etc, and I would appreciate views being expressed (at that location, of course). My (possibly incomplete) list of categories that would be upmerged if the guidelines change as I suggest is here. Bencherlite 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to replace Infobox Guitarist?
There have been a growing number of Wikipedians questioning the need for a separate infobox for guitarists. The Guitarist infobox was created by WikiProject Guitarists, and it easily survived a deletion nomination back in September of last year, but that was before Infobox musical artist (which is supported by WikiProject Musicians) became a widely accepted standard. Both infoboxes are currently endorsed by WikiProject Biography, but recent discussions between some members of the Guitarist and Musician Wikiprojects have concluded that it may be time to deprecate the guitarist infobox, and start replacing it. (Unfortunately, this is not a task for bots, and will have to be done manually.)

Before making any final decision on the matter, we would like to get feedback from the broader community, so I am posting this notice to several Wikiprojects which may be affected. Comments should be posted to Template talk:Guitarist infobox. If you have strong feelings about this infobox, one way or the other, please feel free to let us know. Thanks, Xtifr tälk 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ISO codes
Does anyone have any views (or experience) in eragrd to adding:


 * ISO 15706 International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN)
 * ISO 15707 International Standard Musical Work Code (ISWC)
 * ISO 10957 International Standard Music Number (ISMN)
 * ISO 3901 International Standard Recording Code (ISRC)
 * Project 27729 International Standard Party Identifier (ISPI)

to articles about musical recordings, sheet music or works, in the same way that we use the corresponding ISBN for books? Andy Mabbett 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for 26 "List of songs by topics"
There does not seem to be any participation from this project at Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, which is actually an AfD about a long list of such lists. If you are interested, please come and look at the nomination and weigh in. There seem to be several, perhaps many, users who believe that all List of songs about a topic lists should be deleted. There are some that think that they should (almost) all be kept. And there's a range in the middle--previous arguments have frequently centered on whether the lists are maintainable or verifiable. Some have suggested keeping ones that could support an article (as I would support a list of protest songs in order to clean up the Protest song article). If any of you are interested, it might be good to have a clear guideline statement about such lists, either here or in the MoS, perhaps at Lists (stand-alone lists).--Hjal 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Social Networking" Links
Is it appropriate to link a band's wikipedia article to their virb.com webpage, or something similar, if they don't have an official website? I couldn't find this issue specifically mentioned in the wikiproject: Music guidelines. Thanks --Tman930 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Music External Links
Hey. John recommended coming to WikiProject Music for some help. Artists House is a free, nonprofit, and education-oriented site. All of its material was created exclusively for the site. I'd like to add some of the video interviews as external links to relevant Wikipedia pages. For example, I'd like to add a video interview with Teo Macero to the Bitches Brew page. Here is the interview. However, if you look at the site, you can see that there are a lot of videos that would be extremely relevant to a lot of pages. Would this be something WikiProject Music would be interested in supporting? Ammosh11 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Songwriters
I am confused for terminologies like songwriter, lyricist and composer. Since I am categorizing musicians, I would like to know: a) When someone is called songwriter? b) When a composer can be included to category:X songwriters? c) When a lyricist can be included to category:X songwriters? d) Do all the pop music composer belong to category:Songwriters?? I will appreciate if you help me.--KRBN 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In general: a lyricist writes the words, a composer writes the music, and a songwriter does both. It's not actually that simple, but that's a good first-order approximation.  If you're categorizing musicians (or musical groups), you might want to check out the Musicians Wikiproject, WP:MUSICIANS, and the main categorization scheme for musicians, WP:MUSCAT.  Xtifr tälk 12:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Compulsory Sampling License
The article Compulsory Sampling License, which is relevant to this WikiProject, has been proposed for deletion, on the grounds that the article is primarily original research. The discussion can be found here: Articles for deletion/Compulsory_Sampling_License. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion.

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reggae
Can we get Reggae into the genre list?LBCboyee 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not unless there's a WikiProject Reggae. ShadowHalo 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice
Please take notice of the following CFD nomination which is likely to be of interest to members of this wikiproject: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_29

Tim! 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

some info about songs & albums
I want to find these: 1. Which song is #1? (in all countries and in the world) 2. Which song is #n (#2 or #3, ...) 3. How much selling does an album have? and like these....

In many albums' and singles' article in WP they are mentioned, but what's their reference? And how can I find these informations for article don't have it?-- ♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Billboard charts and follow the external links to the charts. I think that's only the US, though. I don't know how you'd find the number one song in the world, but different countries will have different charts. I assume by #1, you mean popularity. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I didn't get to my destination! -- ♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk 10:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New uncategorised category info
Just wanted to let you know a new category's been created relating to your project, Category:Uncategorised musical groups. Please refine or alter in whatever way would best suit your project. There's already a Uncategorised albums, so figured this would be along the same lines. Hope this helps. :) -Ebyabe 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Musicians and musical groups are more specifically covered by WP:MUSICIANS. Xtifr tälk 12:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Timpani FAR
Timpani has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

requesting help for musical articles in need of expansion
I wonder if within this project there's a section in which help may be solicited to the community or the project members regarding articles in need of expansion. Rosa 02:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MN. 17Drew 02:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Track listings in discographies
I'm bringing the discussion here from Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography/archive1. Basically, most of our discographies are formatted very differently. There's no real standard since up until a month ago, there were none featured to serve as a model and WP:MUSTARD doesn't cover discographies very thoroughly? There's some disagreement at the candidacy over whether or not track listings should be included. One reviewer refused to support without them, and another withdrew support when they were added using the hidden templates. This is really something that affects more than that list, so it'd be nice to see what the consensus is on including the track listings. And add that consensus to WP:MUSTARD since it currently only says that it "should be created using summary style," but not how to apply WP:SUMMARY to discographies. 17Drew 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I was the one who refused to support Gwen's discography without track listings. -- Crzycheetah 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a discography as an overview of what an artist or group has released during their career. The inclusion of track listings, songwriters and producers is just overdoing it. All this information can be found on the article about the album. I think that discography pages should include chart positions and sales data. This listing of extra information just makes them look cluttered and confusing. -- Underneath-it-All 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Track Listings suit the album's article page only. A person who would really like to know the track listing of an album will surely make an effort to go in to the article page. Track Listing is a thing which should not be expected in a discogrpahy as far as my thinking goes. Track Listings come in extra information. But, if we see the dicography of Gwen Stefani on Billboard.com, It includes her albums with all the track Listings. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=239085&aid=814844 User:Luxurious.gaurav
 * Track listings don't harm the article, they enhance instead. Everyone can be picky and say "oh, no, no track listings in the discography", but whenever there is a chance to make an exception that benefits the reader, we have to take it. The most common question that one can have about albums is "what songs are there?", he/she can just click on "show" and take a look then click the "show" button for the other album and compare while being on the same page. Plus, 17Drew has done it perfectly (I tried and couldn't make it as neat), there is a list of songs in the order they appear in the album. There are no songwriters, producers, or lengths of each song, a reader can click on the album if he/she wants to read this secondary info. Underneath-it-All, an artist or group has released many songs, too, why can't they be shown in the discography?

Separate discography articles are a necessary evil that should be avoided unless strictly required, IMO. How Billboard presents their information is irrelevant: we're an enyclopedia, not a music chart listing company. Anyway, of the several music sites I refer to on a regular basis, most do not include the track listings in the discography (e.g. |STEFANI&sql=11:hvfixquhldde~T2), although that's irrelevant for similar reasons. I dislike redundancy, so I dislike the notion of including the track listings in the discography, but not enough to say it should be forbidden. Just enough to say it should be discouraged. Especially for artists with several dozen albums. I would tend to oppose promoting a discography to FA status if it included song listings, but then I would tend to oppose promoting discographies to FA in general. In general, a featured discography makes about as much sense to me as a featured DAB page. :) Xtifr tälk 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the track listings from Gwen Stefani discography. I do want to comment that featuring a discography isn't completely pointless since they generally include guest appearances or unreleased material, which isn't as easily retrievable as the rest of the material.  Based on the discussion here, I recommend rewording WP:MUSTARD to say "If a simple system cannot accommodate an artist's entire discography, a subpage should be created.  Summary style should be used for the discography, and including track listings is generally discouraged."  Any thoughts or comments?  17Drew 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, reword it. User:Luxurious.gaurav

Heads up - Crowded House
Hey guys. I've just set up a new wikiproject for Crowded House.

Feel free to join if you feel you can contribute! --linca linca 07:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

International Charts
Hi everyone!

I would like to know where I can find the non-US or UK charts, as I am trying to save the Ray of Light GA and cannot find a sourcing for those. Any help is greatly appreciated. --SidiLemine 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the one thing I could direct you to is the 10,000 Days article, where nearly every chart entry has been sourced. Some of them link to news articles, but most to the official charts table, where you can probably look for the Ray of Light position as well. Best wishes! Johnny  w   talk  18:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave it a quick shot right now (I got curious ;) the swiss charts entry for ray of light list other countries as well, here, have a look!
 * country code, peak position, duration
 * ch Peak: 1 / weeks: 57
 * at Peak: 2 / weeks: 42
 * fr Peak: 2 / weeks: 93
 * se Peak: 2 / weeks: 60
 * fi Peak: 1 / weeks: 34
 * no Peak: 1 / weeks: 53
 * nz Peak: 12 / weeks: 2
 * hope that helps! Johnny  w   talk  23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! This is truly amazing. Thank you so much! I'll try to get a list of official references at WP:CHARTS for everyone to access.--SidiLemine 10:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that site gives you 16 different charts, though some go back only about a year or two, while others go almost as much as 20 years back. Just click on the top right on "other countries". Most countries provide bilingual info, though some only provide a foreign language, which can be a pain. --linca linca 06:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of covers
What should be done with lists of covers? (You know, the section of the article that grows exponentially if not carefully watched.) I consider them trivia, unless the cover itself is notable, perhaps like Alien Ant Farm's cover of Smooth Criminal (I'm just throwing it out there, not making a serious notability claim. The idea is that every techno remix of a 1960s pop song doesn't need to be listed in the original band's article). The specific article I'm working on is The Kinks, by the way.--Gimme danger 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think something should be done about them, I've seen the list on the article for Muse growing recently and have just brought the issue up on the article's talk page along with some criteria for inclusion adapted from WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Songs but that could probably do with some work. -- M2Ys4U ( talk ) 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession charts
A member of WP:AUSMUS and I have been having a debate at Talk:Back to Bedlam about the relative merits of succession charts. Rather than get into an edit war in the article, I would appreciate it if a few editors with greater knowledge of the Music wikiproject could provide some insight into the current thinking on preferred practices in this regard. Risker 01:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Records WikiProject
--The-G-Unit-Boss 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, people might mistake it for music if we covered it here... :o) Cruftbane 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Drumtar AfD input requested
I have nominated the Drumtar article for deletion. One of the participants in the discussion has suggested that the discussion would benefit from more input from people who are knowledgeable about music. So I mention it here in the interest of getting more input from the project members. Please visit the discussion to weigh in. Thank you. Nick Graves 23:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Bedlam Hour
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Bedlam Hour is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick reference work?
Hey there. Music is not exactly my forte, so I'm asking here. Could anybody dig up a good reference about the use of the expression "dinosaur band" (apparently in punk rock parlance) for Cultural depictions of dinosaurs? (specifically the "Public perception of dinosaurs" section). Circeus 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging/redirecting Electronic Music and Electronica articles
Discussion about redirecting or merging Electronica to Electronic music taking place at this link: on the Electronica talk page. -- Parsifal Hello 06:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion has since been closed with clear consensus to keep the separate article title Electronica. --Parsifal Hello 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Consensus"? Really? And how many editors were involved? 10? 100? 1,000? The case is not closed. there is no "electronica" in serious encyclopedias.There should be no space for business-like labels. in this encyclopedic site. OVER. GOT IT? NO ElLCTRONICA.Doktor Who 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to read the discussion that resulted in keeping Electronica as a separate article, they are welcome to do so, or enter comments if they don't agree.


 * I'm having trouble understanding what's bothering you about the use of the word "Electronica". The article already has 19 references, including seven or eight books, the All Music Guide, several articles in Billboard Magazine and an MIT University journal article.  There are more references available that will be added soon.  The text of the article needs improvement, but it's very clear that the word exists in common usage and there is a place for it in Wikipedia, according to policies and guidelines.   --Parsifal Hello 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That word is a catch all term, as all the sources show. A catch-all term that is almost useless for us, we are here to categorize and explain things, not to report and write-about the "common" use of words. This is not a dictionary. Just please wait to see that whole group of articles in a new perspective. I will be going to explain more within next days. ^_^ Doktor Who 10:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Electronic dance music be renamed to Electronic Music (popular & dance)?
An editor redirected Electronic dance music to a new title Electronic Music (popular & dance) without consensus, along with major changes to the content causing loss of information, and with duplication of information from Electronica

The changes were reverted but there was much confusion, so I don't know which title will be on the page at the time someone is reading this.

I am requesting other editors to take a look and form a consensus about which version is wanted.

I think we need a page about Electronic dance music because it's not the same as other pop music that uses electronic instruments.

Comments are invited at this talk page link. --Parsifal Hello 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above RFC discussion has been closed with consensus to keep the original page name of Electronic dance music. --Parsifal Hello 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As abpove, "Consensus"? Really? How many editors were involved? 10? 100? 1,000? The case is not closed.You just continue to ignore me, yes, we'll see..Doktor Who 02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you don't agree, you are welcome to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article.


 * There is a wider discussion in progress on reorganizing the various top-level electronic music articles to make an easier to navigate system with less duplication of content. If you would like to participate in that discussion, it is happening on Talk:Electronic art music.   --Parsifal Hello 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we have to "make an easier to navigate system with less duplication of content". I'm going to create a new wikiproject that, among other goals, will help to make a great progress on this whole matter.Doktor Who 11:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fathers and mothers of music
Please come and add to and to help fill in this table. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting - Albums and songs
I have created a new deletion sorting page at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs, which emerges from discussions here and here. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(see 2004 in music) vs 2004
Hey everyone in MP Music. Please don't consider me a rude imposter but having completed a few good article reviews of albums and singles, I've come to slightly resent the use of "(see...)" in the text of an article. Piped wikilinks seem to more than adequately cover for this, I was just wondering if the project had a feeling about this as I recently brought it up in my review of the excellent article Underneath It All. The Rambling Man 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The albums project has a position on this (see WP:ALBUM), and recommends exactly the practice which you resent. --PEJL 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he's asking if the position should be reconsidered. I've had people at at least two FACs comment that the link should be piped.  17Drew 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fender WikiProject Proposal
Hi, I have proposed a WikiProject for the Fender company. If you are interested, please add you name here. Izzy007 Talk 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

iTunes link in Infobox Song
I propose that a link to iTunes is added to Infobox Song and Infobox Album, in a similar way that there is a link to IMDb in Infobox Television and Infobox Film. The reason being that a lot of people use iTunes, and if we have an IMDb link in the film templates, then I consider it a double standard not to have an iTunes link in the music templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GallifreyanPostman pwns you 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't iTunes links country-dependent? This seems to suggest so. --PEJL 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, IMDb has information about films. iTunes is solely a sales site.  17Drew 05:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I strongly oppose endorsing a single vendor. Bad enough that we tend to endorse a single commercial information site (AllMusic), but at least that's a relatively valid source of information in most cases.  Xtifr tälk 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No chance, sorry. As there's a little bit of information found there, it's seldom anything other than existent to endorse the song as a product to promote sales. If anything, we should look at things such as AMG or Popmatters or another massive catalogue that lists the songs. Perhaps the location in the Gracenote archive? Though, that may be more appropriately discussed in WP:ALBUMS. --linca linca 09:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope of project
Is the scope of the project defined somewhere, and if so, could someone give it a (more prominent) place on the project website? – Ilse@ 10:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mostly an umbrella project, not unlike WikiProject Biography. I think the scope is obvious from the name, but if you have some more specific suggestions, feel free to post them here for discussion.  Xtifr tälk 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

albumofthemonth.com
Not sure where to post this, but as it is a music related site, I guess this is the right level. This morning a seemingly coordinated attack to add a large number of these links to wikipedia was performed by a significant number of accounts. This has resulted in first blacklisting on User:AntiSpamBot, later on Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. Therefore, these links can not be inserted anymore (and they should be removed from the articles that still have the link). Editors involved in this project might want to have a say about the situation, I am giving some links here: Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (the discussion on the WikiProject Spam)
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/albumofthemonth.com (an automated report showing the linkadditions)
 * (linksearch and tools links).

Concert names?
So, I know that album names should be in italics, and song names in "quotes", but what about concert names? Should we use any special typographic conventions for names like "Woodstock" or "Lollapalooza" or "Not Too Big on the Head"? (Yes, that last is a real concert name.) What about named tours? Many bands give specific names to individual tours. Is there any specific way these should be marked? Should I take this question to the Manual of Style talk page? Xtifr tälk 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that too. Lots of tours share their names with an album by the artist (The Sweet Escape Tour, Bridges to Babylon Tour, Back to Basics Tour).  Do the album titles get italicized in the name of the tour?  17Drew 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:MUSTARD and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Archive 1. --PEJL 10:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Kamien
People here may be interested in the ongoing AfD discussion of the article on the musicologist and performer Roger Kamien at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Kamien DGG (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with 156.x.x.x
Anons in this range have been giving me problems - such as reverting my edits. Now, don't get me wrong, but I don't appreciate when anons undo the work I put into articles. It's just that there are times when I think only registered users should be allowed to edit. FMAFan1990 03:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What articles is this happening on? Sometimes the main music articles get vandalized a lot, and we can request that they be semi-protected for a while.  --Parsifal Hello 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about edits like this: ? That "anon" you speak of is utterly correct in reverting your edit there. Please read WP:ATT as he has recommended. Scar ian Talk  03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That edit looks good to me too, I don't see it as a problem. FMAFan1990, If there are other edits that you feel are a problem, please post some diffs so we can take a look.  --Parsifal Hello 06:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)