Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 10

RfC: Band member timelines
When a band has a "List of X band members" subpage (see this discussion), should the timeline go on the band's main article, the members subpage, or both? - RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC). - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Subpage - If the band has a list of members subpage, then this is the proper place to include a timeline graph.
 * Band's main article - All timeline graphs should be displayed on the band's main article.
 * Both - Timeline graphs are appropriate for both "list of" subpages and the band's main article.

Survey

 * Subpage - When a band has a moderate to high turnover frequency a "List of X band members" is usually created to handle the larger members information. It has been suggested that timelines should be list on both the members subage and the bands main article. In the list of bands in the section above, the "status quo" seems to be, if the member subpage exist then the timelines is displayed there and not on the bands main article, when the bands member changes do not warrant a "list of" subpage, then the timeline, (if warranted) should be displayed on the bands main article. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Band's main article – I am of the opinion that members subpages should only exist if there have been a large number of line-up changes and/or complex circumstances, and I have a recent example as to why having the timeline in a band's main article no matter what would be beneficial to readers. I was sitting in one of my university lectures a few days ago, and my lecturer was looking up a band's timeline on Wikipedia to show the class, and couldn't find it in the main article. "I'm sure there used to be a timeline there," she said. I then had to direct her to the members subpage, which could have been avoided if the timeline was still in the main article. This band (the name escapes me) only had four line-up changes (from memory), and didn't need its own members subpage. If a band has its own members subpage and it's necessary, then I would still prefer to have the timeline in the main article as well (in other words, both). I first brought this argument up at the Linkin Park discussion (linked above) when FlightTime removed the timeline, and another user,, agreed with me (for the most part). I might not be as active in specifically editing timelines as I used to be, but I strongly believe that they should be in the band's main articles no matter what, even if there has been a large number of line-up changes like I said before. This will probably turn into a separate argument later regarding what constitutes having a members subpage, but those are just my views simply on the presence of timelines.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  05:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Subpage with caveats. The first is, to echo 4TheWynne's comments, that there is enough referenced content in the subpage to maintain the stand-alone article. Without references and a substantial discussion of the change in membership, the content should remain in the band article. If there is a subpage, a summary should go into the article, but only prose. Also, timelines are not needed if there's a table of members or vice-versa. Both should not be kept. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * depends on 1. The size of the timeline and 2. The relevance. If the figure isn't too obnoxiously large and the lead singer has changed: both. If the timeline is large, but only because the second guitarist and the first guitarist swapped roles a lot: subpage only. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like the above caveats and "depends" arguments are the typical ones used to decide whether to split any article. Is there a reason to have a new rule that is more explicit than Splitting? What makes band articles with timelines different from any other article that might need to be split? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems silly to make a blanket rule for something like this. This should be something that is decided on an individual article basis. AIR corn (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Apologies if this causes any mass confusion – I've just moved the RfC here from Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards, as I figured that this would be a more appropriate location to discuss music-related standards.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is more appropriate than where it was, I would have notified the user who started it though. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please leave a note at the original page, as the RfC-notifier bot doesn't realize it's been moved. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how your comment echoes mine – just to clarify, I am of the opinion that the members subpage for Linkin Park should not exist, mainly because there haven't been enough line-up changes (nothing to do with "referenced content") and I don't think that that's where you were headed with your comment. With your comment regarding band members sections, if what you're saying is that they should only include one of a list of members and a timeline, and not both, I'm not sure how far you're going to get with that one – combining a list with an infographic of sorts, as these timelines have come to be, makes it extremely easy for readers to understand.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  15:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I agree with your point that "subpages should only exist if there have been a large number of line-up changes and/or complex circumstances". I have seen many articles where there is a table of member names and their positions, indicating which albums (and sometimes tours) in which they have appeared. Then immediately below that is a timeline showing the same thing. The table is more clear, but the timeline is more succinct, but duplication of the information is not required. That's all I'm stating. The table is also more accurate at times. Knowing that Jimmy Keys was with the band on these five albums, but not the ones before or after, and not knowing the exact date he started or left, the creator of the timeline has to assume when Jimmy joined the band and when he left. There is no original research in the case of the table. So which is more appropriate depends on the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are similar RfCs being conducted here and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music? This flies against WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it's just shopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who thinks these timelines a) look terrible and b) are not needed? Every single one I've seen seems to be dumped into the bottom of the article, just because it can. And worst of all, there's no sourcing on the actual timeline and it all feels like a big slice of WP:OR.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I actually think you would be the only one there.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah. I'll jump on this bandwagon. Whats the point of having a relatively easy to follow recording timetable then a confusing mess of colours that virtually add nothing new. AIR corn (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was half-joking, but I don't see how a timeline is a "confusing mess of colours that virtually adds nothing new". Anyway, that's beside the point – this is now starting to deviate from the topic of the discussion.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  09:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that in most cases they're WP:OR. Not sure they look terrible. "Spartan" may be more accurate. In some cases they're not needed, especially when there have only been one or two changes in membership. But back to OR, most of them are created knowing that a "member" (often studio or touring musicians are included, but that's a separate issue) was involved on some recording or at some sourced festival, but no actual date of start is known. Similarly, exiting members are not always announced, and even when an announcement is made, it's usually announcing something that happened at some point in the past. If there could be a way to indicate a vague start or end, that would be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Matt Stahl
Matt Stahl was created in August 2017, but it's currently nothing but a few sentences with citation to IMDb and All Music. The subject's listed as a TV producer/musician, but I'm wondering if anything he's done would help him pass WP:BIO or even WP:MUSICBIO? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Gawker added as source to Kid Rock
Hi. Was wondering if Gawker was a reliable source. TheRealBoognish (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Used as a source for the existence of a sex tape. I don't see why it's not a RS. If they were reviewing his music, that would be another issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

TFAR notice
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in Today's featured article/requests/Lady Gaga. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Philip Sheppard (musician)
Hello. Please could a subject expert take a look at Philip Sheppard (musician)? It's essentially two versions of the same article, and I lack the topic knowledge to merge them properly. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion Family Force 5‎
The band has been reduced to a duo, and they are going by "FF5", and so there is a discussion at Talk:Family Force 5‎ as to whether to move the article to FF5 (duo) or leave it. Other options could be suggested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, a website often cited by this Project, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: What number of line-up changes should constitute a separate "list of members" subpage?
I brought up in a previous discussion that I would probably do this down the track – and pretty much made most of my argument there – so I figured there's no better time than the present. I've seen bands that have had large numbers of line-up changes (e.g. Anthrax, Black Sabbath, Megadeth) and have their own members subpages – this is where I believe it is most appropriate to have them. Others have only had minimal changes or disruptions to their respective line-ups (e.g. Foo Fighters, Linkin Park, Pearl Jam), yet still have these subpages where they, in my opinion, aren't necessary.

I will restate my opinion (from the above discussion) that members subpages should only exist if there have been a large number of line-up changes and/or complex circumstances – does anyone agree with this statement? Please answer "Yes" or "No" in the survey below and, if agreed upon, use the discussion to discuss what number of line-up changes should constitute a members subpage – otherwise, feel free to state your opinion in either section. I would define "large number of line-up changes and/or complex circumstances" as about ten or more former members and/or line-up changes (criteria met by the first three bands that I mentioned, and not by the second three).  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Sergecross73   msg me  13:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes This is essentially what WP:Splitting is about. -Finlayson (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. If there's very little change to the band membership then a separate article is not needed. Any such articles should be merged back into the main band biography. Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes If the members section is too large, then it makes sense to move it. Otherwise, keep it in the band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No Expand below.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No These articles can have some good prose and are better in some cases then individual articles. GuzzyG (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't think it's as simple as just having a cutoff number like ten. Each list should be judged on its own merits and circumstances. Andre666 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No I think it should be treated on a case by case basis. Even with bands with very little lineup changes, they may have had many touring members or temporary fill-ins or session members to mention, or the band’s main article/history may simply be overly long where it is essential to the topic’s organization and readability to break off sections into sub pages as much as possible.  The sub page also provides the opportunity to go into more detail and provide context to the lineup changes or info on temporary or substitute or touring members...detail that may be succinct enough on a band members page but too extraneous for the main article. Abog (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Seems like an appropriate cutoff point as band lineups can often change over time (particularly touring members who don't record with them), and limiting how many warrant their own pages helps avoid being overly repetitive with listing content. Snuggums (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can think of three types of situation which might make calculation difficult.
 * Fairport Convention with the departure of Ashley Hutchings in November 1969, followed by Sandy Denny in December, then the arrival of Dave Pegg (to replace Hutchings) later in December - during these few weeks they recorded nothing and did little concert work, so is that one lineup change, two, or three?
 * People who did no studio work with a particular band yet toured with that band? I'm thinking of bands like Genesis where people like Bill Bruford and Chester Thompson toured with the band (several times in the latter case), yet were never heard on non-live recordings. Would Thompson replacing Bruford count as a lineup change? Would either of them count towards the number of members?
 * Session musicians used by bands in the studio, but who did no concert work with that band. How many lineups did Fairport Convention go through whilst recording Rosie, Rising for the Moon and Gottle O'Geer? Should Cathy Lesurf and Ric Sanders be counted as members on Gladys' Leap? Should the lineup change to include Ric Sanders be counted from before Gladys' Leap or after? In a similar vein, was Dave Swarbrick a member at the time that Unhalfbricking was recorded?
 * As I'm sure you have noticed, these are not cut-and-dried cases, so we can't really impose a rigid ten members/ten changes rule. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Session/touring members don't really form a part of this discussion – they can just be listed at the main articles anyway, regardless of how extensive the list might be (as the general consensus is not to include them in timelines, etc.). This is specifically to do with full-time members of bands. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 11:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with the proposal. Bands like Nine Inch Nails and List of Nine Inch Nails band members are very appropriate - the band has a long history with a ton of lineup changes. There's a lot of changes to document, and lots of third party sources spend time doing so. Conversely, the Linkin Park and List of Linkin Park band members list is extremely unnecessary - they've gone through few noteworthy lineup changes, and most of the content is redundant to their individual member articles. Sergecross73   msg me  13:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I voted "no" above. This is for several reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to count line-up changes for the many reasons already mentioned and others and I don't see that a strict cut-off is useful. (Another problem, as an example, is that there are plenty of situations where one can't make a session/touring vs full member distinction.) More than that, we already have generic Wikipedia guidance about when it's appropriate to spin-out a section into an article (WP:SIZE), or when something should be merged into a main article (WP:MERGEREASON). Why do we need more guidance? But most of all, I looked at List of Foo Fighters members, List of Linkin Park band members and List of Pearl Jam members and I thought all of them are useful as standalone articles. Even with smaller numbers of line-up changes, those articles provide useful biographies of the members and present the data in various forms. They all contain too much to go in their main band articles; all their main band articles are too long under WP:SIZE. is right that there is a danger that the main article loses important information if everything is spun out, so we do need to think about what stays or is duplicated in the main article, and make sure signposting is clear, but I don't think that means we should be purging "List of ... members" articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If we do want to think about removing members subpages for some bands, under the proposed cut-off, we need to think about the three places to put the information (not including that which has already been duplicated, some of which, aside from perhaps sources, can be removed) in these lists so that nothing is wasted:


 * The main band article
 * Already-existing band member articles
 * Potential new articles (e.g. band members, full/session/touring or otherwise, that don't already have an article but have enough information and sources at the subpage to warrant one)


 * Keep in mind that while a lot of this information might seem useful compiled together in a subpage, there are other places that the information can be placed that could be just as or more beneficial. To address your points directly, it is not as difficult to count line-up changes as you may think – sure, a lot of these may have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but I definitely think that it's easier to make the distinction, with enough research into that particular band, than you make it sound. I don't think that WP:SIZE (see WP:HASTE) or WP:MERGEREASON (see my above points) are massive issues, either – granted, the bands that I gave as examples happen to have big articles because they have a lot of coverage/sources, but that doesn't make the members subpages any more useful or necessary as standalone lists if the band has only had minimal line-up changes. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think a particular article is redundant and the information would be better elsewhere, e.g. List of Linkin Park band members, you can start a merge discussion, guided by generic, community-agreed Wikipedia policy. I don't think an arbitrary WikiProject rule is going to help, and it risks falling foul of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
 * WikiProject rules work best when they grow out of Wikipedia-wide rules, but explain how those rules should be applied in a specific context (e.g. we have generic notability rules and then we have rules describing what might count as notable for a musical act). Another good way of developing a WikiProject rule is when you codify common practice: we nearly always do things a certain way, so let's make that clear by turning it into a rule. Here, you haven't shown a link between general policy and your proposal. Nor have you shown that your rule is already common practice. Indeed, the three high profile examples you give (List of Foo Fighters members, List of Linkin Park band members and List of Pearl Jam members) suggest this would be a big change from current practice. Rather, it appears that you're trying to add a WikiProject rule in order to win a local argument. That's bad policymaking, I suggest.
 * I would recommend instead having the local merge discussions and, if you can succeed in several high-profile cases, then it's worth coming back to the WikiProject to say, "I've won this argument in several specific cases. Should we now turn this into a WikiProject rule?" Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that this isn't common practice – I would have otherwise mentioned that at the beginning – and that's not my intention, just to create a rule to win an argument. This isn't "This is what I think, and if you agree, let's create/change a rule/policy" – as this is an RfC, I'm just trying to get an idea of what people involved in the WikiProject think of the idea and see whether it's feasible. We're trying to consider all options and the benefits/ramifications of the idea, not to implement it as soon as we can, but just to look at it and see whether it warrants discussion or taking those extra steps that you mentioned before implementing it (if the general consensus is that it's a good idea). Certainly, if things do turn out that way, we'll try having those individual discussions and see what people think on a case-by-case basis, but while also making mention of this discussion and the proposed cut-off. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 12:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your intent. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people at this RfC – including some of those that I have invited here who are yet (or have chosen not) to have their say – would be involved at some of those individual discussions. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 23:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

While others are free to have their say, I will start merge discussions at the talk pages of the three bands mentioned above. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 23:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. I looked anew at all three and couldn't make up my mind either way, so have declined to comment(!), but wanted you to know I did go and think hard about them. :) Bondegezou (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an arbitrary number is necessary. If the band article is being over-inflated by the member's section, and this relies on common sense, then a separate article could be created. A well-written article on the changes in membership is valuable and informative. That means that if the content is unsourced, remove it. If it's simply based on who played on an album, or there are large tables to represent that, remove it. If there's nothing of encyclopedic value, remove it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a fansite or a repository of info. This information can be created on a fan site somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A well-written article on the changes in membership of a band might be valuable and informative, but only if there are lots of them and certainly not if there are only two or three changes. Most or all of what you mentioned after that tends to apply to most members subpages (even some that are featured lists). <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 22:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. L.A. Guns band members is the type of article that should not exist or be encouraged to exist as a result of this discussion or its outcome.
 * Not a reference in sight.
 * Multiple ways to convey the same information (timeline and lineups).
 * Very little in the way of prose.
 * Violations of WP:REPEATLINK and other manuals of style.
 * If that's the sort of article we can avoid, this discussion will have been worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of these problems appear in a lot of these lists, both the necessary and the unnecessary ones – I just think the concept in general will probably end up having to be looked at as a whole. Personally, I prefer timelines to line-up histories and all the other funny little things that people come up with to convey the information, but that's a separate discussion, and one I know that you're going to want to have – at the end of the day, I reckon we agree on pretty much everything that we need to. I had several other members subpage examples that I wanted to bring to this discussion, most of which are pretty well-known – and I still can, if any of you want me to – but I thought we'd just start with the three at the moment and see how things panned out. So far, there's been little activity in the form of responses and opinions at those merge discussions. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 06:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I find both timelines and line-up histories useful. If pushed, I prefer the latter. However, as per WP:NOTPAPER, Wikipedia is not limited in size (while we should keep individuals articles manageable as per WP:SIZE). Having supplementary articles that act kind of like an appendix is OK. They're not doing any harm (although of course they need to meet WP:V/WP:RS). Presenting notable, well-cited material in different formats is allowed: nothing in WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT or WP:NOTREPOSITORY, as far as I can see, argues against both a timeline and a line-up history.
 * My concern with timelines in particular (but also line-up histories) is a spurious level of precision. You see these timelines with 7 or 8 different colours to track whether someone did backing vocals during a period, or something. They become unreadable. (An old example can be seen here; since simplified.) Timelines need to concentrate on just the main instruments played. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's cross that bridge when we get to it – for now, let's try and get some discussion going at the individual merge discussions, and if I need to propose similar discussions at these other examples which might attract more attention, then I will. Regarding your earlier comment, that's all good, however I will say that saying something (even if you can't make up your mind, as you said) is still better than saying nothing – at last we'll have some sort of perspective. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 13:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In case anyone wanted to comment on them, some other bands that I thought we could look at as examples of pages that have what are, in my opinion, unnecessary members subpages are Aerosmith, Arch Enemy, Avenged Sevenfold, In Flames, Queensrÿche and Slipknot. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as there's been no discussion in the last couple of days, I'll start merge discussions at the aforementioned pages as well and see what happens. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 11:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I got sidetracked with cricket and the Olympics and forgot about your note on my talkpage! I think there's a case-by-case basis rather than a hard and fast rule on what to merge and when. Smaller articles, with say less than 10 members, can still be rich in prose and references and can make a half-decent article for the reader, without loading the main article with minutiae. IMO, this is a good list of small number of band members that does it job. And this is a bad list. But neither should be merged, but can be expanded/cleaned up by those who have the time/interest.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But when you say "does [its] job", that's a job that a members subpage doesn't have to do – the main article can do it just fine, and most of the information found at lists like the ones you've mentioned can be found at their respective main articles anyway (case and point: Pearl Jam). <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 00:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've merged Avenged Sevenfold, Foo Fighters and Linkin Park – does anybody have anything else that they wanted to add or bring to the discussion? It's been a week, so I just wanted to make sure that things didn't fizzle out without us coming to something more concrete. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 23:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , if you read what I said at the beginning of the discussion, I also said that members subpages are better in some cases then individual articles, but only in certain circumstances – what made you vote "no"? The "good prose" argument is irrelevant, as close to all of this prose (as argued) can already be found elsewhere. Per WP:BOLD, I merged some of the aforementioned articles because there was support and otherwise little-to-no discussion in the last week. <b style="font-family:Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)</b> 08:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Review
I made a new article called Proper Einstein (musician), and I was wondering if someone could review it for me. There was a "refimprove" tag placed on it but I went back and made the necessary changes. If you can point me in the right direction, it would be great and also encourage me to create even more. Thanks. The Newbie06 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) The Newbie06 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page back into your user sandbox for you (it's now at User:The Newbie06/Proper Einstein (musician)), but unfortunately, the sourcing isn't where it needs to be yet. As I mentioned in the thread you initiated at MusiKAnimal's user talk page, notability cannot be supported by MusicBrainz, Facebook, Discogs.com, Spotify, IMDb, Amazon, blogs or his own self-published PR — which knocked 14 of the 18 citations in the article out of the running. Literally the only footnotes that I could actually even begin to evaluate as potentially valid support for notability at all are the four AllMusic citations — but none of them actually help in this instance either. AllMusic only counts as support for notability if it publishes a review of the album by one of its professional staff, and not if the album just has a purely WP:ROUTINE track listing — but all of the AllMusic citations here are of the latter type, not the former. So no, unfortunately, the sourcing just wasn't good enough at all. So the first AFD result still holds, but to be fair I moved the page into your sandbox so you can continue to work on it rather than just speedy deleting it. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I should also add that when it comes to charting, we only accept IFPI-certified charts as a valid pass of NMUSIC's charting criterion. The ones that we accept as valid are listed in WP:Record charts, but any chart not listed under "recommended charts" is not accepted even if it hasn't specifically been listed under "deprecated charts" yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Elvis Presley Featured Article Review
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Elvis Presley for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What musician articles should have discographies?
What musician articles should have discographies (or separate discography articles)? And what form should they take? Is there any guidance on this?

We're having a discussion at Fraser T. Smith on the question. Further input would be welcome. You can see my position there with respect to that case. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems obvious. If the artist meets notability criteria and has been a performer on an album, it is not unreasonable to include that work in a discography. If the subject is a guest musician, then less information about the work is needed. Similarly, if the subject has been a producer, audio engineer or technical crew on an album, a brief entry is not unreasonable. (examples; Robert John "Mutt" Lange, George Martin or Leslie Ann Jones). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Article guidelines only an essay
Why are the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines only an essay? Does anyone have any objections to changing it to an actual guideline? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Discord chat
Hello. I just wanted to notify some other WikiProjects of this - a few of the experienced editors and admin of WikiProject Video Games have set up a Wikipedia specific Discord (software) chat up for Wikipedia. Our little sub-community has enjoyed using it to talk about things more tangentially related to direct Wikipedia editing, so we thought we'd spread the word to some other areas and see if they had any interest. Figured I'd start here since music is my other main area of contributions.

Anyways, the invite link is here for a more music-related group, though obviously everyone is welcome everywhere. The "code of conduct" stuff is pretty much like IRC. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Wiki Loves Pride
<div style="padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%; line-height:1.75;"> You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

many industry interviews
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)
 * a Google Search: site:www.celebrityaccess.com/news/profile.html
 * will yield many industry interviews
 * for example: Al Schmitt
 * Google Search: site:www.celebrityaccess.com/news/profile.html Al Schmitt

Down (band)
Down (band), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

New article review
I've been editing St. Chika that was created and apparently owned by another editor. Could a project member or two please take a look to confirm the content? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles Neville died today; sole one of The Neville Brothers without an article
Charles Neville died today; sole one of The Neville Brothers without an article

See Talk page on above article. Currently Charles Neville (musician) simply redirects to The Neville Brothers. All the other Neville Brothers -- Aaron, Art, Cyril, and Ivan - have excellent articles; Charles, the horn player as Aaron called him today in a moving post, has not even a stub.

See Neville Brothers infobox as well as Category:The Neville Brothers members for links to 4 good articles to be mined for sources and used as models.

Hope this is done before closing day of Jazz Fest, which the brothers traditionally closed down with a huge show every year. Thank you! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Per advice at the Teahouse, I'm adding a link here for any competent music / biography editors to dive in:

Peace -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Queen's Birthday Party photographs
There are a lot of photographs from The Queen's Birthday Party here. All are of suitable license and very high quality. They might be useful in biographies, especially of the lesser known musicians. Sadly, I can only identify the most famous. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in discussion re: how we categorize all songs by an artist by genre(s)
Project members may be interested in this discussion re: whether or not we should categorize all songs by an artist by specific genre(s). Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

MusicBrainz at ELN
Whether or not MusicBrainz authority file numbers should be included in authority control is currently discussed at External links/Noticeboard. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Featured Article review
I have nominated Insane Clown Posse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RF23 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Rock's Backpages access now available through The Wikipedia Library!
Rock's Backpages is a database of more than 35,000 music news articles including reviews, interviews, and features, from the 1950s to the present day. They have agreed to provide free access to Wikipedia editors, and you can now sign up for access! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Detailed lists in biographical articles
Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Mary Hopkin, which concerns whether a detailed list of TV shows should be included in the article about the singer. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anna Neale
Another editor has created Draft:Anna Neale. While based in England, she has performed several times in Canada, as confirmed by articles in reliable sources. I would appreciate it if other editors could look at the draft. <b style="font-family: Times;">Eastmain (talk • contribs)</b> 06:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sasha_(Welsh_DJ)
Participation needed at Talk:Sasha_(Welsh_DJ). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">The editor <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> whose username is <u style="color:#7f2ed1">Z0 13:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rule change proposal regarding singles tables
I am proposing that we make an official change to the article guidelines regarding how non-album singles are displayed in discography tables; they are used on musicians' pages when their discography is too small for a separate list. (I will be contacting WP Discographies as well, and, if necessary, moving this proposal there.) Non-album singles are either singles that were intended for an album and were later cancelled/removed from the album, or just released by themselves.

This sprouted from a conflict that, and I were having on NF (rapper). What I would like to change is what we should do when listing them, because as Walter pointed out, there is no guideline on how to typeset it. There is a Non-album single  template available for use to emphasize that singles were not on an album, and combing through various featured-list discographies, I see that the form in which they're displayed varies wildly. Some use it, such as Tinashe, The Strokes, Sugababes, Garbage, and Evanescence (though I admit the latter is my own FL, I believe that template was there before I started editing it). Then again, there are some (which are usually older FLs and less popular groups) which don't use this, such as Deftones. Curiously, the example given in the template documentation doesn't even use it.

All I'm looking for is consistency. I support using the template because certainly it must exist for a reason. I'd still be happy if it's decided that we don't use it (I'll start a deletion discussion of it should that be the case).  danny music editor  oops 21:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this. I kind of started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines as well, which was where I suggested in my revert, but we don't have to continue it there.
 * I had forgotten about that template, but still don't think it's necessary. Prose are all that are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think so? Is it just a personal preference?  danny music editor  oops 21:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In general the project prefers prose. We don't add a lot of detail to infoboxes, and they are only to summarize the prose in the article. We don't try to convey information in images, tables or charts when it can be presented in prose, usually for accessibility reasons. And when we start inserting templates that have to be expanded on the client-side, it adds weight and load-time to the articles. It's better to keep pages light-weight.
 * The reason in favour of non-album single is that it is consistent and when we decide to make a change, it can be applied to all articles.
 * I don't see any reason to use n/a with text piped into it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you're talking about, but think about it... just how much weight does that add? I could understand it if it was something much larger, but a single template shouldn't be a problem.  danny music editor  oops 00:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I have made a mistake. I did not realize n/a was being used. I would oppose that per your idea of weight. Besides, almost no difference is shown. non-album single is much better and is what I was going for.  danny music editor  oops 00:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can name 50 other well edited discography pages where this is the standard. Why would you leave non album songs looking similar to actual album titles when you can separate them and have everything looking more professionally organized. This is just a case of new editor vs guy who's been here forever and doesn't want to concede. Carry on as you will. VanWinkle92 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So this has digressed to a pissing match? How many well edited discography articles would you like me to provide to counter your supposed articles where it's used?
 * That's my point, you wouldn't leave them looking like an album as they use italics and are capitalized. And it's not new vs old. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to create Wikiproject They Might Be Giants
I apologize if the members of this WikiProject were already alerted somehow, but if not, I have proposed the creation of WikiProject/They Might Be Giants~Yogibeera (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Popular article GA nominated - seeking reviewer
I nominated Exo (band) as a Good Article Nominee two months ago and am seeking anyone interested to review the article. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets Good Article criteria. If you are interested, you can find instructions on how to review Good Article Nominees here. I would appreciate anyone's time to review this article, being the #2 most viewed article on Wikipedia. [[User:NicklausAU| <span style="color:
 * 1) 9D57B3;">Nicklaus <span style="color:
 * 2) 5582ba;">AU ]] 03:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated Elaine Paige for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Angelique Francis
New article which needs to be assessed. Not sure if the subject meets WP:BIO or even WP:MUSICBIO. Fair amount of sources cited, but many are just listings so maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There might also be some COI editing involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems promotional. The massive list of "notable" concert performances are not reviews. I have cleaned it up, but I wouldn't complain if it was PRODed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look . Just for reference I prodded Kissed by the Blues creatred by the same editor, but it was de-prodded and is now currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissed by the Blues. Perhaps the same will happen with this, but I give a prod first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I noticed that the singer's article has been PROD'ded but the album article has been AfD'ed. That's an outcome of your discussion above, but it could cause a procedural problem if the singer's article is quickly deleted while a debate on the album's notability drones on. I recommend changing the PROD in the singer's article to a full AfD and putting it up for wider discussion. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Specifically; whether or not to include rock and roll to the list of genres in the infobox for the Led Zeppelin article. Thank you - wolf 08:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Request for InfoBox Inclusion for Samuel Adler (composer)
Hello fellow Wikipedians - If an editor has time, kindly examine the article on the noted conductor and composer Samuel Adler (composer). A request for an "Info Box - person" has been processed and included on the article but appears to be subject to continuous deletion (perhaps because Adler is still alive?) Kindly consider using the "Info Box academic" template to rectify this problem as suggested here Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers, or perhaps assigning an "Infobox -Person" from the WikiProject Musicians Project since Adler was also an active conductor who founded the historic Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra and was awarded the U. S. Army's highest Medal of Honor for services to Music, published several academic books on Orchestra, and Choral conducting, was a member of the faculty at several leading music conservatories including the Eastman School of Music and the Juilliard School for over 60 years, and was recognized by his academic peers by receiving several Honorary Doctorate of Music degrees as well as membership in Sigma Alpha Iota and Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia  Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration and assistance along with my best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia. With warmest regards104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS

Inconsistent age from reliable sources
I came across a case of where the age of a living musician is conflicting. An article from Rolling Stone claims the musician in question (Adonis) was 19 when he recorded "No Way Back", however, going by his birth date sourced from Encyclopedia of Popular Music (article cites All Music Guide to Electronica for the date, which I don't have access to, but it's the same date), he would've been around 22-23.

There's an comment about the date of birth being incorrect on the talk page for the article. However, at the time of the comments being added, there wasn't a birth date on the article (old revision).

How should this be handled? Both sources are surely credible, but RS doesn't give an alternate date of birth. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice
Please see Talk:Buddy Williams (country musician). Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The RfC could use some additional input! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ice Creamusume
I've started a discussion at Talk:Ice Creamusume to merge Wu Si-hsuan, Chung An-chi, Tseng Te-ping, Chao Kuo-jung, Chiu Tsui-ling, Ku Yun, and 1st Zui Bang! to Ice Creamusume. These people do not have any notability beyond being in Ice Creamusume and do not need to have their own article in my opinion. 1st Zui Bang! also holds no notability with no sales and ranking information. Any input on whether the articles should be merged is appreciated! lullabying (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter again
has reverted my change of singer and songwriter to singer-songwriter in a few articles where I made the change earlier. There have been two discussions about this, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 7 and an RfC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 36 the summary was "to follow the definition of singer-songwriter in the reliable sources available. It is also useful to remember the distinction between singer-songwriter and singer and songwriter." Since no sources were provided, I reverted. Has this agreement changed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to what you're suggesting...that consensus is actually defending the use of singer-songwriter as a profession, not saying "only use the hyphenated term when it's as a genre". The summary is to follow what sources refer to them as, and if they say "singer-songwriter", use that. Most editors who contributed there appear to acknowledge it's also a profession.  Ss  112   03:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ping me.
 * So you have reliable sources the subject you're edit warring over is a singer-songwriter and not a singer/songwriter nor a singer and songwriter? Did you read the discussions as well? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you remember the discussions you participated in? You seem to be remembering them as you please and not how they actually were, because the first two clearly have no consensus and are too short to have one, and the last you linked appears to be saying "use the wording sources use", i.e. use the configuration "singer-songwriter" or "singer and songwriter" depending on what published sources say. It does not make a conclusion about what to do when sources say neither, nor does it state "default to using 'singer and songwriter' if a source does not say 'singer-songwriter'". You have clearly stated "singer-songwriter" should not be used in any circumstance to describe what people are because you believe it's solely a genre; those users who participated in the last discussion all appear to be acknowledging "singer-songwriter" is a profession, even if it only pertains to a certain subset of artists.
 * Until there is a consensus that:
 * the hyphenated form "singer-songwriter" should not be used unless sources use it;
 * that it is solely a genre and not a profession;
 * and that all published sources using it are merely "confused", as you seem to want to believe,
 * you should not be disregarding WP:BRD after you are reverted for the first time and beginning edit wars over it by reverting again, or going around and acting like there's consensus on the matter. I will not be participating here any further. Other editors should be contributing their opinions instead of a back-and-forth between two editors who don't really ever agree on anything. Oh, and a cursory Google search gives me "singer-songwriter" for Lewis Capaldi here and here. I'm sure I could find more and better sources if I really needed, but I don't, because there's not a consensus on what you want, as you seem to think. Until there is an established consensus to not use "singer-songwriter" in that form, nobody should be reverting over it anywhere or changing it as they please. If they continue to, I won't hesitate to take it up further with an admin. Thank you.  Ss  112   05:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why thank you you hypocrite. Should you be observing BRD as well? I am the one who started this discussion. You just reverted. Oh, and a cursory search shows that no references supported the term. Thanks for your hard work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

List of music museums
Please note that there is a new music list, see List of music museums. Please give your opinion too whether this list has been referenced enough. See the talk page for that. Ymnes (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not if it has been referenced enough but whether it should only contain museums that have their own pages on Wikipedia. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is a one-time show a reunion
Two question about an upcoming "reunion". Anberlin tweeted that they will play a show December 14, 2018. The questions are: I'm not sure if this is clear-cut. I did struggle with reverting the anon's edit made at 00:10:16‎ (UTC). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this a reunion or not? In other words, can their fans claim 2018 (or 2018–) in their infobox based on this?
 * 2) Is this a reliable source. It's clearly a primary source, and I'd rather see a secondary source to support its notability. Do we dance around WP:NOTADVERTISING in this case?


 * My take: 1) No, not that kind yet. Until a bigger reunion builds up, the most you can do is be like (One-off reunion: 2018) . 2) Yes, but only if you make it clear in the prose that the source was a band Tweet. And the tweet must be from the official band account or that of an otherwise reputable media outlet.


 * And oh my God Anberlin is getting back together send help I'm hyperventilating.  danny music editor  oops 02:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist "origin" field
The documentation for the "origin" field of the musical artist infobox seems a little bit unclear when the infobox is about a specific stage-name. It says "where individual performer started their career" -- should that be where the person lived when they started performing music in general, or where they lived when they started using that stage name?

Bsammon (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with stage names. If the infobox is being used for a band, this field is to be used to describe the sourced location indicating the major city where the band started performing. If the band changed, names, that should be discussed in the article and it's where the band originally started performing. If it's being used for a person, it's the major city where the person started performing. If the person took on a stage name in a city different from where they started performing, that should be discussed in the article. Don't add complexity to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ATTN:EDITORS: RE: Alfredo Antonini - Assessment request
Hello Wikipedia editors: Perhaps if you have some extra time you might assess Alfredo Antonini. It was last assessed in 2008 as a Start-Class article and has been improved to include sections for Discography, Filmography, Awards and External links as well as enhancements to the biographical information and links to orchestra musicians and numerous operatic soloists who collaborated with him. Perhaps an upgrade in the assessment could be considered. Thanks in advance for your outstanding editorial assistance and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia! As always- with warmest regards 104.207.219.150 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)PS

GA reassessment
Chris Field (composer), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Question on nomenclature
I've seen Billboard and other music publications indicate that a single will "impact" on radio on some date (rather than be released to radio), and hip-hop and urban contemporary artists tend to have albums "drop" (rather than have them released). I understand what they mean, but should we avoid this sort of language when writing articles? Should we use more standard prose, such as what I mentioned in parenthesis. I had one editor revert to "will impact", so it's not just an academic question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured article review/Connie Talbot/archive1
I have nominated Connie Talbot, an article in the scope of this project, for featured article review. Feel free to contribute at Featured article review/Connie Talbot/archive1. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Julia Karlsson (songwriter)
Was wondering if someone could take a look at this and assess it for Wikipedia notability. Article was created a few weeks back, but wasn't submitted to AfC. Article states Karlsson helped produce and write Runaway (U & I) which might be enough per WP:MUSICBIO, but I'm not sure if that also applies producers and writers of a hit song. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see https://www.allmusic.com/artist/julia-karlsson-mn0002941314 but not much else, in English. One confounding factor is that there is a cyclist with the same name. Another factor is the subject is Swedish, and I suspect that many of the Swedish-language links are not showing up in my English Gooogle search. On the surface, the award her song received isn't enough to meet notability criteria, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I'll post something at WP:SWEDEN to see whether someone there might be able to help find some sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Bounding Main
Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this article and assess it per WP:BAND. The article has been around for awhile and there appears to have been some COI editing to it over the years. There's quite a number of sources being cited, but many appear to be WP:PRIMARY or otherwise trivial types of mentions, while most of the albums appear to be self-published. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's WP:PROMOTIONal and the references appear to be WP:ROUTINE. The article does not meet GNG or BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Band articles not linked from dab pages
Some help is needed here. There are about 170 band articles that aren't listed on the relevant disambiguation page, for example the article is "Foo (band)" but the disambiguation page at "Foo" doesn't have an entry for it. All that needs to be done in most cases is to simply add the missing entry to the dab page. Sometimes, however, the fact that an article isn't linked from there might indicate that it hasn't received enough attention: it might not be notable, or it might be undercurated. If you take care of any of these, please strike it through from the list below (or add done).


 * Article → Dab page (link to dabfix: this tool can help with editing the dab page, it's very powerful but can be intimidating at first).
 * Abdullah (band) → Abdullah (dabfix)
 * The Accidental (band) → Accidental (dabfix)
 * Airship (band) → Airship (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Angeles (band) → Angeles (dabfix)
 * Anne (band) → Anne (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Athletics (band) → Athletics (dabfix)
 * August (band) → August (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Bad Boy (band) → Bad Boy (dabfix)
 * Bantu (band) → Bantu (dabfix)
 * Barto (band) → Barto (dabfix)
 * Bayonet (band) → Bayonet (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Beams (band) → Beams (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Beckett (band) → Beckett (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * The Bill (band) → Bill (dabfix)
 * Blackbriar (band) → Blackbriar (dabfix)
 * Bleak House (band) → Bleak House (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Bloodshed (band) → Bloodshed (dabfix)
 * Breathing (band) → Breathing (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * The Broadcast (band) → Broadcast (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Brownout (band) → Brownout (dabfix)
 * BUX (band) → Bux (dabfix)
 * Cadet (band) → Cadet (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Carny (band) → Carny (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * The Carrier (band) → Carrier (dabfix)
 * Chester (band) → Chester (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Conveyor (band) → Conveyor (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * COPUS (band) → COPUS (dabfix)
 * Cork (band) → Cork (dabfix)
 * Cowboy (band) → Cowboy (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Crimson (band) → Crimson (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Darshan (band) → Darshan (dabfix)
 * Daybreak (band) → Daybreak (dabfix)
 * Detritus (band) → Detritus (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Dhruva (band) → Dhruva (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Doll (band) → Doll (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Down Below (band) → Down Below (dabfix)
 * Dragonslayer (band) → Dragonslayer (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Drain (band) → Drain (dabfix)
 * The Drift (band) → Drift (dabfix)
 * EAR (band) → Ear (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Elizabeth (band) → Elizabeth (dabfix)
 * Fama (band) → Fama (dabfix)
 * Fatso (band) → Fatso (dabfix)
 * Faux (band) → Faux (dabfix)
 * Favorite (band) → Favorite (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * FKB (band) → FKB (dabfix)
 * The Foundation (band) → Foundation (dabfix)
 * Foundry (band) → Foundry (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Frau (band) → Frau (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Fuze (band) → Fuze (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Gatineau (band) → Gatineau (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * The Gentry (band) → Gentry (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Goldstone (band) → Goldstone (dabfix)
 * The Head (band) → Head (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Header (band) → Header (dabfix)
 * Heavenly Bodies (band) → Heavenly bodies (dabfix)
 * Herzog (band) → Herzog (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Holice (band) → Holice (dabfix)
 * Holy Mountain (band) → Holy Mountain (dabfix)
 * The Id (band) → ID (dabfix)
 * Imperial (band) → Imperial (dabfix)
 * Jack the Ripper (band) → Jack the Ripper (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Jasad (band) → Jasad (dabfix)
 * Julius (band) → Julius (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * LAL (band) → Lal (disambiguation) (dabfix)
 * Last Night (band) → Last Night (dabfix)
 * The Liberty Bell (band) → Liberty Bell (disambiguation) (dabfix)

The list contains about half of the articles. If there's interest, I'll post the remainder. Thanks in advance! – Uanfala (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Stéphane Grappelli
There is an RFC at Talk:Stéphane_Grappelli regarding whether or not the article should state that the subject was gay. Please provide your perspective! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quinnes Parker


The article Quinnes Parker has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * Article appears to have been unsourced since created in July 2015.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Commercialism of major bands
I posted this at 's talk page and welcome comment here:
 * The article Maroon 5 appears to be serving a very commercial purpose with footnotes referring to YouTube videos of their work, such as this. I'm shocked to see this listed as a "good article".  Any recommendation on how to cut out the commercialism in articles like this about big time bands? I see this stuff all the time when I google a band and wonder why we tolerate it.  We almost need a special article to tell us how to get rid of this.  Does that exist, possibly at WikiProject_Musicians? I wonder if it is hopeless?  Please let me know what you think.

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy actually. If you can find references that are not "commercial" (whatever that means to you) that support the same content, replace the references.
 * In some instances, if only primary sources support the claims, it's probably safe to claim that the content isn't notable and after a discussion, it could be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a reference to prove the content as far as I can tell. It's more like an advertisement for the video in my opinion:
 * Farrar co-wrote and co-produced a few of the band's songs on almost all of their studio albums and also remixed their song "Woman" (from the Spider-Man 2 soundtrack) on Call and Response: The Remix Album, released in 2008.
 * Do you agree? The references is filled with stuff like this (8 Youtube videos--probably all to their songs).  I see this all the time for music.  It's hard to know what is and is not good WP:RS for a band as big as Maroon 5.  I was tempted to just start deleting but I wanted to check with others who have seen this before first.  --David Tornheim (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Deeply disagree. It's a reference to the remix. A better source can likely be found though.

Attn: Editors - Re: Howard Hanson - could an "Infobox person" also be included on the article?
Hello fellow Wikipedians - Whenever an Editor has some extra time he or she might take a look at the article about Howard Hanson - the noted American composer and director at the Eastman School of Music. The article was recently upgraded to a B Class and might be enhanced by including an "Infobox person" since it is supported by the Wikiproject Biographies/Musicians. Many thanks in advance for your consideration and assistance72.69.152.90 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)JJ

Throttle (musician) listed at Redirects for discussion
Hello. I am here to inform this WikiProject about the RfD of Throttle (musician) listed here. Any contribution to the discussion is appreciated. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  02:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)