Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country Music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notes field in No. 1 songs boxes[edit]

A couple of days ago, on the List of number-one country hits of 2010 (U.S.) page, there was an edit war over whether to include a piece of information about the No. 1 song "Gimmie That Girl" by Joe Nichols. An editor had wished to list one of the song's writers (Rhett Akins), reasoning that he had a previous No. 1 hit as a performer, and that made said information notable. Apparently, some other editors disagreed and tried to have the information removed. An edit war resulted, and the page is currently locked from editing. I understand that this WikiProject is inactive at the moment, but I wanted to turn somewhere to help resolve this debate and set some sort of procedure for handling miscellaneous information in the "notes" section of these No. 1 songs tables. I want to know what you think — should we include "notes" (i.e., truly notable information, as what we have tried to do by indicating whether the song was the first or last No. 1 for a particular artist, the No. 1 song of the year, etc., and exclude other indiscriminate trivia), or do away with this field altogether and just list the song, artist and weeks at No. 1. Myself, I'm not totally against these fields so long as the information is kept under control by including select information (as indicated just a sentence ago — whether the song was the first, last or only No. 1 for an artist, was named the No. 1 song of the year by Billboard magazine, and so forth. I still need to figure out the "so forth," and since I need to get to work here for my job, I'll ponder a list and then try to list my recommendations. However, information such as the songwriter — the issue at the crux of the edit war I referenced above — belongs on that particular song's page in most cases (yes, there are exceptions, and we can discuss them here). Meanwhile, I'm interested in your thoughts and resolving this issue so we can move forward. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)]]

Do we even need a notes section at all? None of the other lists of number-one songs use notes sections, so I don't think the country one should either. If a song held #1 non-contiguously, we can put that in a footnote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I second TenPoundHammer on completely removing the special notes, he uses the same reasoning that I did on Talk:List of number-one country hits of 2010 (U.S.), no other genres' list of number-one songs have these notes and country music shouldn't be treated any differently. I think that footnotes would be perfectly adequate for noting important infomation, like if a song broke any records or was the Billboard song of the year, whereas certain less important information (such as "First No. 1 since ...." or notable co-writers) may be better suited for the specific songs article. NOWucme(NOWudont) talk 2 me 16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The only things that should need footnotes are non-contiguous runs ("Song fell to #2 on the week of x and returned to #1 on the week of Y"), number-one songs of the year, and maybe one or two other things. "First #1 since x," "co-written by x," etc. are too much. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 18:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I kinda liked having the notation that the song is their first number one hit/how long since their last one, but now that you point it out that is something that could be left for the article page. But under no circumstances should there be absolutely useless trivia such as co-writers names. Seriously, who gives a frick if another country artist wrote the song? And limiting that even further to whether they had a #1 hit in the past is pretty lame as well. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
So basically, what I'm reading from TenPoundHammer, NOWucme(NOWudont) is kind of along the lines of waht I'm thinking as well — the "notes" field being reserved for truly notable information, such as whether a song broke a given record, was the Billboard No. 1 song of the year, non-contiguous weeks at No. 1, etc., which is ironically how it began for the most part. I'd probably also add whether the given song was a first, last or only No. 1 hit for the given artist, as has already been the practice; that information should be part of "the year in music" — who had their breakthrough No. 1, their only shining moment atop the chart, or enjoyed their last No. 1 hit. In addition, I think a note might be needed to distinguish two separate songs with an identical title if both were major hits (for example, "How Was I to Know" was the title of different songs by Reba McEntire and John Michael Montgomery in 1997, Reba's a No. 1 hit and John Michael's a top 5 hit), as not everyone who reads these pages may be a country music fan and, absent a note, could easily conclude that one artist or the other covered a song with that name. I had thought about the co-writers, etc., notes a little more, and considered an exception for somone who is not normally involved in country music, or even music for that matter, but that might encourage contributions that led us to this debate and best suited for the song article's page — in other words, keep co-writers out altogether. Other than the few exceptions I've noted, I think the "notes" section should be left blank for the most part. Meanwhile, I'm interested in other thoughts. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)]]
It should look just like this, except for the References column replaced with Notes. Fortunately the scenario that you keep bringing up with John Michael Montgomery & Reba rarely happens, the only recent instance of two major country songs having the same title that comes to mind is "I Told You So" (Keith Urban & Carrie Underwood), so that isn't really a problem. NOWucme(NOWudont) talk 2 me 18:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
And does anyone know if "Consider Me Gone" broke any records? It kinda seems like it could have to me. NOWucme(NOWudont) talk 2 me 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
NOWucme — Songs named "I Told You So" (one by Keith Urban and the other by Carrie Underwood) were released and peaked in different years (Keith's in 2007, Carrie's in 2009), so no notes are needed there. However, it is appropriate for "How Was I to Know" since songs of that title by Reba McEntire and John Michael Montgomery both peaked in 1997 (see the difference), although admittedly a link to each song in this instance could help some readers discern that both songs are different. Then again, there still might be confusion by the reader who decides not to click on to each song link. The only other "notes" that I think would warrant an exception would apply mainly to years where 7-inch vinyl singles were still being released (i.e., prior to the early 1990s), when a flip side sometimes peaked on another Billboard chart. An example: Anne Murray's "He Thinks I Still Care" peaked at No. 1 on the country chart in 1974, while that single's B-side, "You Won't See Me" (no pun intended, NOWucme, but the cover of the Lennon-McCartney song), was a No. 8 hit on the Billboard Hot 100. How often that happened would need to be researched, but I do think it's rare. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]]
I disagree that it should look like that format; the one present looks much better overall. And I agree completely with what Briguy has said; the notes section should contain anything noteworthy including the status of the #1 (their first/last, etc.), but excluding trivial info that doesn't relate to the song's success, such as who wrote it. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as breaking any records with "Consider Me Gone," it was the first time a woman over the age of 50 had reached #1 on the country chart. And its the first time since September 2005 (Sara Evans' "A Real Fine Place to Start") that a solo female other than Taylor Swift & Carrie Underwood reached #1. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
CloversMallRat — The notation about Reba McEntire's "records" with "Consider Me Gone" would be irrelevant since: 1. Dolly Parton (although she provided only harmony vocals on Brad Paisley's "When I Get Where I'm Going") is credited as the oldest female to hit No. 1 (at age 60), and 2. Whether a limited number of solo female vocalists had No. 1's in the 4-year, 3-month interim (October 2005 through January 2010) really didn't have much, if any, bearing on the success of Reba McEntire's "Consider Me Gone." The only time where a note to such effect would be appropriate is if Sara Evans were the last solo female vocalist to have a No. 1 hit before "Consider Me Gone" peaked (i.e., Carrie and Taylor never reached No. 1 with any of their songs), but that didn't hppen. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]]
Oh, and if there was a much longer span between two No. 1 hits by a given artist would a note be relevant — say, at least a 10 years, or if it's a record holder (as would be the case for Elvis Presley's "Moody Blue," which on the Hot Country Singles chart came nearly 19 years after his last No. 1 country hit, "Jailhouse Rock"). Again, it's time to decide what the consensus is and close this out this debate if there aren't any more comments. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)]]

Chart history[edit]


Issue date Song Artist(s) Note(s)
January 2 "Consider Me Gone" Reba [A]
January 9
January 16
January 23
January 30 "Southern Voice" Tim McGraw
February 6 "The Truth" Jason Aldean
February 13
February 20 "Why Don't We Just Dance" Josh Turner
February 27
March 6
March 13
March 20 "That's How Country Boys Roll" Billy Currington
March 27 "Hillbilly Bone" Blake Shelton with Trace Adkins
April 3 "A Little More Country Than That" Easton Corbin
April 10 "Temporary Home" Carrie Underwood [A]
April 17 "Highway 20 Ride" Zac Brown Band
April 24 "American Honey" Lady Antebellum
May 1
May 8 "Gimmie That Girl" Joe Nichols
May 15
  • A ^ Important information blah blah.

Hot 100 peaks[edit]

This is slightly off-topic, but since we're not including a CAN peak column anymore, is it worth including a column for Hot 100 peaks like so (or is that just more trivia)? I also don't think a references column is a bad idea. Eric444 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Date Single Name Artist US Peak Note(s)
January 2 Consider Me Gone Reba 38
January 9
January 16
January 23
January 30 Southern Voice Tim McGraw 49
February 6 The Truth Jason Aldean 40
February 13
February 20 Why Don't We Just Dance Josh Turner 35
February 27
March 6
March 13
March 20 That's How Country Boys Roll Billy Currington 57
March 27 Hillbilly Bone Blake Shelton with Trace Adkins 40
April 3 A Little More Country Than That Easton Corbin 42 [A]
April 10 Temporary Home Carrie Underwood 41
April 17 Highway 20 Ride Zac Brown Band 40
April 24 American Honey Lady Antebellum 25
May 1
May 8 Gimmie That Girl Joe Nichols 34
May 15
I don't think thats directly relevant, being as country singles are specifically released for airplay on the genre chart, crossing over to the Hot 100 based mainly on downloads. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A song's peak on the Billboard Hot 100 — with the possible (and I mean possible) exception of said song reaching No. 1 on that chart — is irrelevant to note in the notes section. Otherwise, I don't know. Anyone for more opinions? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]]
The only other thing I can think of relating to CloversMallRat's comments is, do we know for sure how a given song reached the Billboard Hot 100? While downloads may very well be the main reason for Hot 100 peaks for many of the songs listed, I do know that, for instance, "Need You Now" by Lady Antebellum received substantial airplay on Top 40/CHR/adult contemporary radio stations, so — without looking — I'm sure there are a number of criteria used (other than just airplay or just downloads) that enables a given song to reach the Hot 100 (but then again, that's a topic for another forum). Otherwise, I stand behind my assertion at this time that, unless it reaches No. 1 on the Hot 100, a song's Hot 100 peak isn't all that important. If my mind changes, I'll post it. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)]]

Time to reach a consensus[edit]

Have we come to a consensus on what should and should not be included in the notes field of the table? If not, I think it's about time to come to one, state it, and then apply the appropriate changes to the X-year in country music/No. 1 hits of X-year articles. If anyone wants to comment further, let's hear them. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)]]

  • I suggest including notes only for non-consecutive Number One runs and Number One songs of the year. If a song set some sort of record (e.g. "Find Out Who Your Friends Are"), then that should be noted only in the song's article. Don't include the Hot 100 peaks in the table. Lists such as 2010 in music suggest including only a very small, lean amount of information. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
We should keep the information pertaining to the Number One hit, ie: last #1, first #1, etc. But we should remove any trivial information such as songwriters. CloversMallRat (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with CloversMallRat and some of what TenPoundHammer said. Notes pertaining to truly notable records (such as longevity at No. 1, weeks taken to reach No. 1, etc.), I believe, are part of the "year in music" and can be kept brief in the notes field, although said records can be explained further in the song article. But as far as songwriter info and miscellaneous info, that belongs only in the song article itself. Other extreme examples where notes may be required — such as the example I brought up about "How Was I to Know" having two different songs in the same year — should be handled on a case-by-case basis, although it leans more toward leaving it to the song article only. Otherwise, once final consensus is reached, we should patrol these articles and ensure that editors are adhering to it. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)]]
I think that sums it up pretty well, and the #1 hits of 2010 list looks a lot cleaner now. CloversMallRat (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus on including "1st #1 on chart" under notes section. It's purely trivia and doesn't belong. Instead of a notes section, there should be a references section. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars — OK, what do you consider "consensus", and why do you think including "1st #1 on chart" is "trivia"? Unless I am mistaken, I thought we had reached it regarding "1st #1 on chart." Myself, it is not trivia but an important part of the country music year — i.e., when an artist reached his peak for the first time (or, in some cases, reach what would become his peak). We had also decided that, short of last/only No. 1 for a given artist, non-contiguous weeks at No. 1, the No. 1 song of the year and rare other exceptions, most of the information that was being included in the notes fields was trivia and needed to be excluded (or at least reserved for the song article's page). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)]]
I agree with, and support Briguy52748. Nowyouseemetalk2me 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Singles tables[edit]

Do these tables look the same? If not, which one looks better and why? Eric444 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Table 1[edit]

Year Single Peak chart positions Album
US Country US CAN Country CAN
2009 "Then" 1 28 1 52 American Saturday Night
"Welcome to the Future" 2 42 1 60
"American Saturday Night" 2 67 1 66

Table 2[edit]

Year Single Peak chart positions Album
US Country US CAN Country CAN
2009 "Then" 1 28 1 52 American Saturday Night
"Welcome to the Future" 2 42 1 60
"American Saturday Night" 2 67 1 66
  • They are almost the same, but the second one is better because the US & CAN columns are the same width as US Country & CAN Country. NOWucme(NOWudont) talk 2 me♂♂ 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. Do the column titles in the first table appear left of center too? I'd be interested to hear how others see the two tables, because I think 35 is too narrow for country peaks, but another user maintains that it makes no difference. Eric444 (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Now that I see them both together to compare, I do kind of see a difference. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, I think I prefer Table #2, but either is fine as little difference is visible. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes[edit]

There has been some discussion regarding the use/need of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums that have reached number one on various charts. Since consensus on their removal would affect many country-related articles, I wanted to link to that discussion. Your comments are very much welcome. Go to WP talk:MOS (charts). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think they should stay; they help with navigation and link to articles that list number ones for that year (ex. List of number-one country hits of 2009 (U.S.)). Also many number one country music articles are currently stubs, and removing succession boxes would make those articles even smaller. Nowyouseemetalk2me 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Also you can just imagine the labor and time it would take. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree w/ what Nowyouseeme said. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A stub with or without succession boxes is still a stub. Your concerns should really be taken to the link I directed you to. There are a number of issues with succession boxes for #1's that are discussed there. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding use of succession boxes in song and album articles[edit]

In case you haven't been notified individually, an RFC is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes to discuss the merits of their use. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Decade-End as a parallel to Billboard Year-End[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Billboard_Decade-End_as_a_parallel_to_Billboard_Year-End so that all discussion is in one place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Willie Nelson/GA2[edit]

Willie Nelson is going through a GAN, and is on hold for an initial seven days to allow issues, mainly prose, to be addressed. Help is requested and welcome. SilkTork *Tea time 17:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for review blogs?[edit]

In articles about singles, many times blogs like The9513, Roughstock, and Country Universe are referenced. Would it be worthwhile to make articles for the bloges/websites since they come up in the critical reception portion of articles for recent singles? Gilliganfanatic 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics for "Curly Joe from Idaho"[edit]

anybody know the lyrics for "Curly Joe from Idaho"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Try a search engine. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sons of the Pioneers[edit]

On the The Sons of the Pioneers[1] page, paragraph 2 currently starts off rather 'out-of-the-blue' with "When Rogers began his film career," and paragraph 10 states that he was the last survivor of the original group, but Roy Rogers is not listed as an original member in paragraph 1. The discussion page there states it's within the scope of the WikiProject Country Music collaboration, so I brought my concern here. Thanks. Darr247 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception Section For Albums/Singles[edit]

As someone that has written some scholarly papers, I am often appalled at what is deemed to be credible information on some of the country music pages. The biggest issue I have is with the "Critical Reception" section for albums and singles. Specifically, why are blogs included in this section? For example, I have noticed that the blog "The 9513" is referenced heavily throughout the country music pages. What credibility does that site have? It is a blog. I love the internet, but the fact is that everyone and anyone on the internet can get a blog going, subsequently creating a ridiculous number of wannabe reporters. I strongly believe that blog reviews need to be removed--or at a bare minimum, used at an absolute minimum--because they do no provide any credible substance to the album and singles pages. If the goal is to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia, more credible information--and not the opinion of bloggers--should be the goal. Hldc1 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not good referances and I would recomend deleting any info derived from them on the count of original research or simply due to lack of a reliable source.Moxy (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Boudleaux Bryant - Felice Bryant[edit]

 I believe they also wrote 'Tina' recorded by THE EASY RIDERS in aboout 1957.

T. Hunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Country Music to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnny & Jonie Article[edit]

The article on Johnny & Jonie Mosby does, to the best of my knowledge, accurately state they were a Country Music husband and wife performing team. The article goes on to say "they split" in 1971 and follows by identifying the recordings Jonie released without Johnny following that. I am not going to dispute that either. However, my concern is in the broader interpretation of "they split in 1971."

Johnny and Jonie bought a nightclub in Ventura known as the Ban-Dar. It was originally opened sometime around 1931, when Ventura County was active as an oil producing area, as well as an agricultural center. The Ban-Dar had a long history as a dance club. while the Mosby's owned the Ban-Dar, Johnny Cash owned a home in Ojai, just north of Ventura off of California Highway 33. Sheb Wooley was also said to own property near that owned by Johnny Cash, as was Desi Arnez. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, and Merle Haggard, along with other Country musicians were all have said to stop in periodically when they were in the area and sit in with the house band. According to an article referenced on-line from the Los Angeles Times about demolition of the building, Richard Pryor also used to occasionally do guest appearances there and try out new material before going on tour with it.

As late as the middle of 1989, and the club was referred to as "Johnny and Jonie Mosby's Ban-Dar". They may have stopped recording together in 1971, but I am not aware of any split in their marriage.

The Ban-Dar building was taken down in September of 2002. On-line archives reference articles dated September 17th, 2002 for both the Ventura Star Free Press and the Los Angeles Times.

It is just a little thing, but out of respect for them as performers and as owners of one of Country Music's legendary old honky-tonks, I would like to see the article reflect the split was as performing act, not as husband and wife.

Thank you. OldGreyBeard47 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


Hey guys. I have done some expansion work on the Stagecoach Festival and Country Thunder pages and wanted to see if that usually falls in the scope of what goes on with this project. I know that I at least enjoy going to concerts and festivals, so that is something I like and would like to get involved. Laundry Week (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this comment, but I figured this place was as good as any. Laundry Week (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Give It Away[edit]

A move discussion is taking place on the page Give It Away. Please give input. Oldag07 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ring of Fire[edit]

The usage of Ring of Fire is under discussion, see talk:Ring of Fire (song) -- (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


The usage of Eagles is up for discussion, see talk:Eagles (band) -- (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bluegrass project[edit]

Dear Country music enthusiasts: I am thinking of starting a Bluegrass music Wikiproject. There are about 500 pages that link to the Bluegrass music page, and there are more bluegrass related articles out there that don't link to this page. Over half of the ones I've looked at need serious improvement in referencing.

I know that there is an overlap among both musicians and tunes between traditional country and bluegrass, so I thought that I should check to see if this would present a conflict. It seems that you have at least 2000 articles to monitor; maybe a separate Bluegrass project could take a few of these off your hands. I looked through this project's talk page and found only one bluegrass discussion and a couple of announcements, so I presume that your current project participants are mainly interested in mainstream Country music topics.

I've been starting to categorize some of the Bluegrass topics on this page: User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. I haven't started on the bands or musicians yet.

If you have an opinion, yes or no, about whether I should start this project, or if you would like to take part, please leave a note on this talk page: User talk:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics.

Looking forward to hearing from you. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles[edit]

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about "Mary Was the Marrying Kind" by singer Kip Moore[edit]

Dear All: There is a discussion about whether or not to split "Mary Was the Marrying Kind" from Up All Night by Kip Moore into a brand new article. Please visit Talk:Up_All_Night_(Kip_Moore_album)#Split to contribute. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chet Flippo[edit]

His passing caused me to look him up here, and was very surprised there's no article. I hope someone with the requisite expertise puts one together.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Controversial racist song by Johnny Rebel[edit]

I did research to find out what release the racist song "Alabama Nigger" by Johnny Rebel (Clifford Joseph Trahan) appears on, but I haven't found anything reliable. He recorded the song with a group of singers. It's the only song he recorded with a group of other singers. I noticed that some download torrents have said the release is known as "Racist Songs", but not from any reliable sources. Torrents are not reliable sources, and it's likely that this alleged album doesn't exist. Does anyone know what actual release it appears on, who wrote it, or when it was released? (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Bluegrass Music[edit]

Johnny Cash[edit]

Extra eyes are needed on the Johnny Cash article, as Opus88888 has taken it upon himself to repeatedly blank out the referenced claim that Cash is "one of the most important artists of the 20th century", simply because Opus regards this as "exaggeration". My warnings to Opus have not been effective. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sam M. Fleming[edit]

Hello. Would some of you be able to add referenced info about Sam M. Fleming's role in financing the country music industry and attracting country music stars as clients to his bank? Would you be interested in creating a page for Castle Recording as well? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).