Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roots music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Roots music (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music:

*Edit this list via the talk page.

BodhranMitKreuzBack.JPG

Folk, Traditional,
and Roots music
WikiProject

General information
Main project page talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Peer Review talk
Outreach talk
Task forces
Electric Violin body.png Electric folk talk
Flag of Chicago, Illinois.svg Chicago folk talk

edit · changes

Shortcuts:

Contents

Woody Guthrie[edit]

The Woody Guthrie article is listed as bening under the umbrella of this project. Gaff ταλκ 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Did you want to say something about that?
-- TimNelson 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, just that the article has a lot of potential. I cleaned it up a bit and got it approved as a Good Article. With a little work, it can very likely reach Featured Article. Gaff ταλκ 09:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie is quite close to being a Featured Article, follow it's progress on the discussion page! --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordon[edit]

I just found you and joined. I could use some help in downloading a Library of Congress image of Robert Winslow Gordon with his Edison disks to the article. I would appreciate a rating, as I wrote most of the article. Pustelnik (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosalie Sorrels[edit]

I just tagged the article on singer/songwriter/storyteller Rosalie Sorrels. This was a stub when added to the Idaho Wikiproject and is now fleshed out. I still need to finish the section covering her career beginning in about 1970. I have the last of the material gathered to write that section. I also created a discography. Any critique or input is welcomed. (Don't even ask me why there are no longer any photos on the discography. I lost that argument with one wicked wikiadmin who loves using the royal we and wielding his mighty keyboard. (Rant off)) I have done some annotation on the discography. I hope you enjoy her story as much as I have in writing it. I did not know how you listed unrated articles, so I used a ? Hope that was correct.

Are you all familiar with OCLC WorldCat? It is a great source for publication information on albums, sheet music, etc. The public catalog is located here. --Robbie Giles 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the class/importance are left blank, it will do the right thing. I've made them like that now. Great to see someone working on these things; thanks. -- TimNelson 05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You've done a lot of work on her music, which is great, but it's well outside of the conventions of discography layout as shown by, for example, "Pentangle". Ogg 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

British folk revival[edit]

Is there an article that chronicles the British folk revival of the 1950s and 60s? I couldn't find one but have maybe just not guessed the right title. Bluewave 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that there's nothing. The information is around (scattered through various articles). Electric folk, for example, includes some of these people, but I agree that doesn't cover it by any means. Pages that may be relevant here are:
Basically, I put together the Electric folk article because this information was scattered everywhere; if there'd been something on the British folk revival, I might not've felt there was any need for the article (but since it's there now, I think it's worth keeping).
-- TimNelson 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The article"Folk Music of England" is almost what you want. Ogg 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Songs[edit]

Another thought....having signed up (with some trepidation!) to this project, I had a good look round the stuff that seems to be in scope. One thing that struck me is that there are loads of folk song articles (eg most of the Child Ballads have individual articles) but not much consistency between them. For instance, some include lyrics (or even several variants of lyrics), but others don't; some list recordings (but probably only some individual's favourite version); some talk about comparisons with other similar songs; some are tagged as stubs, but its not really obvious what needs adding to them, etc. Should we try and come up with a consistent "preferred" style for folk song articles and, if so, is there a really good example of a well-structured, informative one that would serve as a model? Bluewave 12:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it'd be nice to have some kind of co-ordinated approach, but there's also no point duplicating stuff, so we should investigate the following resources:
Having said all that, I don't know of any articles that I would say are great on this sort of thing. Articles that might be worth considering are Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight and Thomas the Rhymer. The Roud Folk Song Index page might link to something relevant too. My suggestion would be that we pick one article (possibly Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight, as it's one of the more extensive ones already), and do some things to improve it.
Actually, my suggestion would be that we could do something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music/Anglo-Celtic electric folk task force#Quick article improvements, but do something for songs, and put it on this page.
What think you?
-- TimNelson 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Just found one more relevant link: s:Child's Ballads -- TimNelson 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was inspired by that last link; I've written up some guidelines. -- TimNelson 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff! Thanks! I think that some of the general work on songs (mainly based on commercial, composed songs) has quite a different emphasis from folk songs. To take your example of From a Distance (which is a great article) - it has gained its importance from the recordings, eg by Bette Midler. On the other hand, a folk song, such as The Three Ravens is of interest as a song, but not really notable (as far as I know) from definitive recorded versions. I guess the Infobox_standard is the best we have available, but its fields such as "Written by", "Music by", "Lyrics by", "Written" and "Original artist" don't apply to, say a Child Ballad. Is there an argument for a specific folk song infobox (which would perhaps include Roude Number, Collected by, Earliest known date...)? I think your guidelines look sensible and helpful. I guess we need to try them out on one or two songs and see how they work out. Bluewave 09:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Enthused by the above, I thought it would be great to pick on a Child ballad with a stub article and have a go at developing it using your guidelines. First of all, I picked Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard and started editing an offline version. However, I had spent some time on it before I realised that there is quite a good Wikipedia article on Matty Groves which is essentially the same song! (Grrr!) Putting my discouragement to one side, I then picked on Andrew Lammie, which was a good candidate for improvement. I did some research and started working on a new version, only to discover that there's quite a good article on The Bonnie Lass o' Fyvie (another variant of Andrew Lammie). This is going to be much more difficult that I thought! Bluewave 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to your comment about a particular template for folk songs, that could be a good idea. But we have to keep in mind:
  • In spite of the participants so far, this WikiProject isn't just about Anglo-Celtic music. If we're lucky, we'll someday need a subproject about Anglo-Celtic music, to differentiate it from eg. Flamenco (and Chinese folk), so we have to think carefully about what we want to do. But an Anglo-Celtic Folk Song box might be worth considering.
  • This might be possible as an expansion of an existing box
  • It might be that we could include a section for "Standard References", which would mean we would have to enter the Roud/Child info separately on each page, but it would be more generally applicable
  • I agree the "Standard" box information is mostly irrelevant, but it could be useful for thinking about things -- for example, there are many songs which are classed as "folk" which have all that information (ie. they've made their way into "the tradition" in spite of being copyright).
I presume you're using Digital Tradition/Mudcat to track down alternative versions, as well as folkinfo.org.
I forgot to mention that, inspired by my guidelines, I did some work to make Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight conform to them. This mostly involved adding more headings and rearranging the existing text around them, but I thought it would be the quickest way to an article that we could point people at and say "Here's what 'good' looks like". I'd originally considered Thomas the Rhymer, but that page documents a legend with an associated folksong, not the song itself.
I hear you about alternative names. Let me know if you find any more -- my role in WIkipedia tends to be an organiser of existing articles, so I'll investigate merging any that you mention.
-- TimNelson 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm also looking at making a Template:Traditional Song boilerplate. If that turns blue, you can use it by putting {{subst:Template:Traditional Song boilerplate}} at the top of the article.
-- TimNelson 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
For the two songs you mentioned, I've merged the articles in with the new boilerplate, but there's still work to be done (for example, the "Textual Variants" sections need more work).
I was also thinking it might be nice to have a specific "Child Ballads" header, like the one at s:Child's Ballads/4 -- the header at the top of that page could be useful on Wikipedia too. But I don't have time for that now. If you don't do it first, though, I might get onto it sometime.
-- TimNelson 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm arguing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Proposed new infobox to replace 4 others in favour of the idea of having series, as shown at User:TimNelson/Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight (please note that this is my example copy, and not the original, and also that it's done as proof-of-concept, not as a final layout recommendation). -- TimNelson 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The Child ballads at Wiksource are only the words; Child of course also collected & printed music for many versions, though I know of no convenient online source for the scores. The traditional musical variations are harder to list in an infobox than the texts, though Bronson's collection is I think considered reliable. There's a variable amount of literary and historical information about the different ballads, so although real standardization would be limited, a specialized infobox would provide the core and make for easy comparison. DGG (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with pretty much what you've said. The Traditional song boilerplate I made has a comment in it that, for the purposes of most of the article, the song is considered to be the words, but there's a section for music at the bottom. The music is more important to me, but it's easier to talk about the words, and they tend to be what people are usually referring to when they say "song".
-- TimNelson 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If we can agree on how to structure a Music section in a song article (what elements? how organized? what wiki-techniques?) then the transcription of music from written sources is just the kind of energy that wiki editors contribute. DrFree (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight was suggested as an exemplar of "what good looks like". I have made some suggestions on that article's talk page about how we could improve it. I'll try and add what I can. (I had intended to do some work on it over the weekend, but this weekend turned out to be what we are likely to get as a "Summer" this year in England, so I made the most of the weather instead!) Bluewave 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Traditional Song boilerplate" and its relevance to early songs[edit]

Interested bystander checking in here. I would have put this as a comment under the previous section, but it's long and did not format well, so I made a new header.

Seeing as this project seems to have taken the Child Ballads and other early songs under its wing, I took a look at the Template:Traditional Song boilerplate and although I agree that it is a very good idea to impose some more regular structure on the relevant articles, it didn't really cover what I felt were the key points for early songs. Part of the problem is that "traditional" covers a whole lot of ground, from 12th century manuscripts to songs written within living memory that have naturalized themselves among the folksinging population.

In my mind, an ideal article about a "traditional" piece would include a set of information that is different from that appropriate for a more recent piece. For instance, many important early ballads have never been recorded, or have been recorded only in much-modified later versions, so a discography for such works is really not that useful. Having an obligate section entitled "Broadsides" is also questionable, since many important songs (especially the older pieces) never appeared in this form.

Tunes present special difficulties, in that few original tunes survive, early music often conformed to rather different tonal and melodic rules, and the most common modern secondary sources generally give somewhat modified versions even when they claim to be a transcription of the original (see here for a case example).

I would suggest an organization more along these lines (by no means complete or ideal):

0. Lead paragraph: type of work (ballad, song, etc), country / region of origin, era of probable origin

  1. Sources and classification:
    1. Standard References (eg, Child / Roud numbers)
    2. Alternate names
    3. List of the most important extant sources, with dates where known; "important" sources would include earliest, most complete, basis of later famous adaptation, etc. Special mention of extant sources which include matching music and / or suggest a suitable tune (if any - these tend to be quite rare for older works)
  2. Description
    1. For ballads, plot summary, for non-ballad songs, song type (eg, vocal, instrumental, round, choral, alliterative vs. rhymed, verse structure, etc); with relevant discussion of related pieces and variants
    2. Prior sources from which the plot / characters / events were drawn, if any (and discussion of known historical connections for songs based on real events)
    3. Geographic and temporal distribution of the work, including versions in other languages; where consistent and significant differences exist between early and late versions, or between versions in different languages, these should be summarized
    4. Extant original tunes and performance details if known; any recordings that can be considered "period-correct" (for any pre-modern period, which should be specified) should be mentioned - very rare for older pieces, since English vocabulary and pronunciation have changed to the point that the original lyrics are unintelligible to modern listeners
  3. References and adaptation
    1. Contemporary and premodern
    2. Modern - a discography would most likely go under this heading if desired

Any comments or responses are appreciated. -- JRBrown (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Adaptions[edit]

It'd also be appreciated if everyone could look at the "Adaptions" discussion on Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight, and chip in if they have any ideas.

-- TimNelson 11:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would propose that the "original" versions of both words and music are those that survive from the pre-modern era (folksongs that originate in the modern era are a completely different kettle of fish). Most traditional songs have multiple versions of the lyrics, which were sung to different tunes in different times and places, so there may be 'many' "originals" for a given song. Nevertheless, for any traditional piece it is important to differentiate between a version from a 1450 manuscript, a 1750 broadside, and a 1950 popular recording. The first two would count as originals, although probably very different ones; the third would be an adaptation. -- JRBrown (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, traditional music lovers. I'm a long-time folk music lover, but a novice in editing Wikipedia. Please excuse my jumping into the discussion.
What is the significance of publishing "the original"? As you noted in your comments on "Adaptions" on Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight: "Most ballads and folksongs come in many versions, and were sung to different tunes; having a sample of music is completely useless unless you specify which version of the lyrics the music corresponds to." For example, I know of two different versions of "Golden Vanity". There is strong similarity between the lyrics and between the tunes, but the lyrics to one cannot be sung to the tune of the other. Which should be included in Wikipedia? Why do we have to choose? There seems to be no valid reason to limit the Wikipedia entry to a single version, and much value to documenting the evolution of the tunes. The only limiting factor is the energy of Wikipedia contributors. We need to discuss what information needs to be provided for each version, and the recommended format for that information.
Many users (myself included) come to Wikipedia to music to sing or play. We're tired of paying exorbitant prices to publishers for a handful of tunes that are in the public domain. Those users to my mind need several elements:
  1. A Score. Musicians need a rendition of the music in modern notation. Of course such a score will be an anachronism: when the tune was composed, it might not have been written down at all, let alone in modern notation. But for the tune to be accessible to the modern musician, a score is essential. If a manuscript can be found that specifies the key used in an historical version, using that key in a published version would provide an increased level of authenticity; but folk musicians have always transposed music to fit their instrument or voices. Given the ease with which modern software can transpose music, I suggest that including several different keys would be helpful to users who play different instruments.
  2. A MIDI-File. Well-trained musicians will be able to hear in their "mind's ear" the music represented by the score. The rest of us need assistance: we need to listen to the tune. It is relatively easy these days to generate a midi file from the software used to produce a score.
  3. Lyrics. Having the words and the scores visible on the same page is essential for someone to learn the song. Moreover, the music and the words must be compatible. The words must scan, i.e., fit well with the music. Too many times have I found an interesting song on the internet only to find that the lyrics could not be sung with the tune provided. (Of course not all traditional music comes with lyrics. Most of tunes of O'Carolan and John Playford have no extant lyrics.)
  4. ABC Transcription. ABC is a way of rendering tunes in purely textual format without losing (much of) the information contained in a score. This element needs some discussion. Not all music software currently supports ABC, but I am inclined to think it should be an encouraged option. The inclusion of an ABC rendition would be valuable to users that have ABC software. It would also facilitate the comparison of different versions of a tune, since textual comparison is much easier than midi comparison.
I suggest we discuss how to organize the traditional song boilerplate to promote the inclusion of these elements. DrFree (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Finding Songs[edit]

What Wiki facilities can be used to make it easy for a user to find a piece of traditional music? The challenge is huge: the Roud Folk Song Index lists over 21,000 distinct songs, and that does not include dance tunes without words! Moreover, many of these songs have multiple names and multiple versions both of the lyrics and of the tunes. Obviously, no single list will suffice. Nor will having the user type in some portion of the name in the Wikipedia search box: such a search produces too many false positives, and the user may not know enough about the tune to refine the search.

One approach would be to use multiple, sortable, interlinked lists:

  • Lists of tunes by composer could be organized as multiply sortable tables. For example, see my User:DrFree/Draft Carolan Catalog, which allows users to sort by name, alternative name, catalog number, or the patron that Carolan was honoring. (Note that this list includes both primary and alternative names in the Name column.) A similar approach could be used for Child Ballads or John Playford dance tunes.
  • More comprehensive tables (e.g., Anglo-Celtic Ballads) would contain far too many entries, and would have to be parceled out into smaller tables, perhaps as AA, AB, AC, etc. However, the work involved in maintain such lists would be formidable.
  • What would be desirable is a search facility that would produce such tables from queries that users could progressively refine. Such queries suggest the use of an SQL database, but that might be beyond the capabilities of Wikipedia.

So the question remains, how do we use Wikipedia to make a large number of traditional tunes accessible to users? (And what will they find when they get there? DrFree (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello from new member[edit]

Wow, I'm happy to have found this new group since it seems to be a perfect fit for my interests/work. Check out my user page to see what I'm working on. Kmzundel 10:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Great to have you! Good to have more representing American folk too.
-- TimNelson 07:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Jack Davy/ Raggy Taggle Gypsies[edit]

After all this time, Roud number one is still written as two separate articles (Black Jack Davy, and The Raggle Taggle Gypsy). Please, please somebody merge these into a single article. Somebody even tried to make a third article, by putting square brackets around the Irish-language title. There is a strong case for enforcing the new ballad template on it, since it is one of the most popular ballads. Ogg 19:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kate Rusby[edit]

I see that Kate Rusby is classified as "low importance". Today I saw that the HMV charts have got her at number one on the "Specialist chart" (i.e. jazz, country, folk music, easy listening etc). Is there any chance that she could be moved up a notch or two? Ogg 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe move her up to "mid". I should probably explain my general Assessment philosophy here, so that people know why things are the way they are. My basic belief is that the assessment system is to help people find articles to work on.
  1. Few at the top. My point here is that the majority of articles should be in the Mid and Low importance categories.
  2. Individuals/groups towards the bottom. I regard general articles (ie. "Folk music", or "Iranian folk music") to be of more importance than specific articles (eg. articles about specific people). Then again, there are some people that are more important than others (eg. Bob Dylan is more important (ie. influential -- like him or loathe him) than Kate Rusby)
If you go it Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music/Assessment and click on the links to see what's already in each importance level, you'll get a feel for what I think. Naturally, if you want to realign the importance levels, that's fine, but it's something we should discuss here.
If there's something specific you think needs to be addressed, though, there are lists of things to do on the main project page -- feel free to alther those.
-- TimNelson 07:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have minded about Kusby's status, except that "Filk music" is high, and "Broadside Electric" is high, and I have never encountered them in any context other than Wikipedia. Ogg 17:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as Broadside Electric goes, I agree. The problem here is that I need to alter the Article Scope template so that it puts stuff for the Electric Folk taskforce into a separate category to other Roots music.
As far as Filk goes, it's a subgenre, so I think it deserves a high-ish rating. I'm under the impression that it's American, so maybe that's why you and I (I assume you're UK, and I'm in Australia) are less familiar with it.
-- TimNelson 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Still unhappy. "Filk music" is classed as "high importance", but "War song" is classed as "Low importance". The category "Filk song" has only four entries, but the category "Category:Patriotic songs" has over 50 entries. It is classed as so very very low that it does even get into the classification system. What gives? If almost every country has war songs and patriotic songs, they have got to be important. Only one country has filk songs, and only four of them are described, yet it is high. Ogg (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You can change importance ratings you don't agree with, they are an internal metric. I would check before changing things to or from high if you're uncertian. I don't think Filk should be high as an American I've never heard of it, plus it seems to be a portmanteaux of things rather than a traditional genere, but hey whatever, if somebody's working on it keep it high otherwise I'd say mid. Like Tim mentioned the rating should reflect importantce relevant to the topic of Folk and Roots music. So abstract topics about the music should be rated higher than people except in the case of very notable people interms of their scope towards the genere rather than a ranking of popularity, like dylan, guthrie or seeger are rightly highs. I usually rate individual artists as mid or low and individual songs as low. I think Kate Rusby should be mid. War Songs should be mid or high depending on the scope. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannygutters (talkcontribs)
I have no quarrel with the ratings for individual artists (not any more). None of the four acknowledge Filk songs can be described as related to "Traditional Music". I have unilaterally decided that "List of Patriotic Songs" is a roots music article of start class and mid importance. It's very suspicious that none of the filk music supporters are prepared to contribute to this debate. They are a breed unto themselves. Ogg (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are the top 111?[edit]

You might all be interested to see this list of the top 111 folk artists of all time: http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/essays/FOLK111.htm Ogg 13:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Folk Task Force[edit]

Hi, I have a group of a few editors who would like to focus on Chicago Traditional and Current folk/roots artists (specifically those revolving around the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago) as well as enhancing existing articles with chicago relevant material and providing more background for Traditional Songs. We have access to the considerable archives at the Old Town School that we can gather data from (and hopefully get some of the photos released under the CC license). Can I create a task force page for this? I think it would be useful for us as well as allow us to use the peer review features of the roots project. Personally I was working on the woody guthrie page earlier this year so I know the good help you guys are. :) (also, the Task Force help page suggested I ask first) I could jointly register this task force with the chicago project as well if appropriate. Dannygutters 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to go ahead with this since I didn't get any comments against. It seems to me to be within the scope of the project. Dannygutters 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, good call. I'm happy for people to do this if they can do it properly. Unfortunately I don't have the Wikipedia time that I used to. -- TimNelson 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fellside Records[edit]

The evil deletionists within the Wikipedia hierarchy are trying to delete "Fellside Records". Rally round the flag boys! Go to the page where this issue is debated and say strongly that you want this article to be kept. Ogg 08:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the most snied comments on that page is from Dannygutters (see above) who wants to form his own Chicago project. Hey, it would be a good start if you TRIED to support an article on folk music instead of risking the deletion of one that tells the world about a good record label. Which side are you on? Ogg 10:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed snide, but I was trying to point out what probably were the points of contention and my suggestions were things that would definatly increase the notability. I would have been happy to do them myself if I knew anything about this label. You'll also notice I voted keep. Also, does this discussion about me belong here or on my talk page? Dannygutters 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've updated my suggestion to Strong Keep based on the changes you made to the article since I last looked at it. Good job, it's looking good now. Dannygutters 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Glory be, he's seen the light. Now how about the rest of you? Ogg 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the end they decided not to delete it. Ogg 08:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Liege and Lief(revived)[edit]

Great album, rubbish article. It'a gig listing masquerading as an album. The article "Liege and Lief(revived)" should be deleted.Ogg 08:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment?[edit]

Why hasn't the assessment run since the 14th? shouldn't it run every 3rd day? Dannygutters 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like i was just being impatient. It's run now..:) Dannygutters 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter[edit]

Would anyone be interested in recieving a monthly newsletter regarding the state of the project? The oklahoma project does a nice one : Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma/newsletter/aug07. I'd be willing to put it together if there was interest and submissions. Dannygutters 18:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal[edit]

Roots Music does deserve a portal, but as of now, it doesn't have one. I've updated the project template's portal link to point to the Music portal until we can build a roots portal. Dannygutters 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie Discography[edit]

I could use some help on the Woody Guthrie discography. I am basically citing it from the Hard Travelin' book by recording sessions. If you can lend some time and type up a section from this list please do. If you don't have the book email me and I can send you a pdf of the relevant discography. Thanks. --Dan G. 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

I have just finished "Rod Clements", in case anyone feels like demolishing it. I notice that there are a whole load of comments saying "This article does not cite any references or sources. (September 2006)" plastered all over Steeleye Span, Rick Kemp, etc etc. I made a start by adding references to Anne Briggs, but it's a lot of difficult work to find reliable citations. Any help from you would be great. Ogg (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Patti Reid[edit]

If anyone knows anything about this English folk singer, could they perhaps add it to this newly created article? An attempt to speedy it was made in the first thirty seconds of its life so it could do with some help from those in the know. Nick mallory (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You should add this article to the roots group by pasting the roots template into its discussion page. --Dan G. 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be brutal, but I don't think she's significant. I can uncover nothing more than is already there. Now if it's traditional English singers you want to write about, how about Martin Wyndham-Read. There's an under-rated singer. Ogg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The Topic seems to be ok for notability if she has released albums and is a known festival artist. Though the article is a stub, which is probably why it was nominated for delete. I'd expand it and add some refrences if you're concerned about it's notablity. My rule of thumb is that the more obscure a topic is the stronger it's initial page needs to be at creation. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Albums[edit]

I realize that album articles are not a high priority for many of you. Making the big fixes in the important articles is probably the best goal for this project. And obviously an artist needs to have a bio before it makes sense to write about his/her albums. Still, I like to write album articles though, because one can make a worthwhile add to the encyclopedia without committing much time.

Feel free to check out and/or edit the list I've started here: User:MrFizyx/List of notable folk & roots music albums this is still a project in a formative stage. Regards, -MrFizyx 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have connected Rachael Unthank's album "The Bairns" to Falkirk Football club, nicknamed "The Bairns". Shooting's too good for the likes of you! Ogg (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Ogg: Yeah, there are a number of poorly linked titles. Not really worth getting too worried about yet. In this case there is no page for Unthank, never mind that her album title has already found another use on the 'pedia. I'm not sure that I get your last comment, but I have a feeling that just accentuates your point to those that do. -MrFizyx (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not clear what's going on. Conspicuously absent from your criteria of notableness, is commercial success. There is no mention of chart hits. Is this meant to be a "critial choice"? I have added commercial successes from the UK, going back to 1956, giving chart positions for albums. I am also not sure whether this is supposed to be a list of articles that needs to be improved. Several of the album articles that I have added are pretty comprehensive, and not in need of any improvement. If I have got it all wrong, it's easy enough to delete some or all that I have added. I have included "Mike Oldfield" who is a little bit "New Age". Maybe they should be deleted. I leave it up to you. Ogg (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Aaagh! Has it come to this? People are adding stuff to your list which have no detectable notability - no awards, no nominations, no chart placings. It's time to become more discriminating or else just give up the ghost. Ogg (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Bagpipers[edit]

Much as I love bagpipes ... I consider these two articles to be ego-trips:

I would like to see them deleted. Does anyone agree with me? Perhaps in 5 years time they will produce a worthwhile body of recorded work, but so far they are not notable. Ogg (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have only just spotted that they have been deleted. Thanks to the person who did it. Ogg (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Folk music of Ireland[edit]

I think there should be a "Folk music of Ireland" article in the same way that there is a "Folk music of England" article. I have mentioned this on the comments page of "Music of Ireland". Please add your thoughts there or here. Ogg (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Wikipedia:BOLD --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's done. No backlash so far, just a couple of corrections to my links. Later today I will probably create an article called "War Songs", and possibly a re-write of "Pub session". Ogg (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"War song" now exists, and I have re-written "Pub session". Ogg (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

nice, add these to the project by adding the template on the discussion page.--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I'm attempting to clean up the project pages, removeing dead links and pointing to new or relevant ones. Does anyone have a better image to use for the roots navigation bar? The bodhran is hard to make out when shrunk. Maybe a photo of a few instruments at a hootenanny or some roots musicians playing together. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a new userbox for the group since the participant one is kind of boring (tho it's still avaliable), you can add it to your page with the template Wikipedia:WikiProject_Roots_music/Outreach#Userboxs. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sporting song[edit]

I have added a few categories within "List of folk music traditions". This includes making a new category "Sporting song". I feel there should be another category: "Occupational song" (the joys and sorrows of being a weaver, a waggoner, a railway worker etc), but I haven't worked out what to say. Ogg (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good articles, start sub ..[edit]

It's about time that the Shirley Collins article received some sort of assessment. Ogg (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has happened. OK, what about Robin Williamson? Both unique figures in the folk scene. Ogg (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and assign an assessment, anything B or lower doesn't need peer review, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Roots_music/Assessment for a guide on picking a category.--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Shirley Collins, if the topic does not have the roots template box on the talk page it won't show up on our unassessed list. I usually add it when I fina a page within the scope.

Six degrees of separation[edit]

If anyone wants to known how to connect Steeleye Span to 1,239 bands, check out this website:

Ogg (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Web radio, podcasts[edit]

I'd like to see an article on folk music web radio/ podcasts. I'm not sure where it belongs - I guess it would be an offshoot of the "folk music" article. If anyone feels like doing this, here are a few sites I have found:-

  • Cool as Folk www.coolasfolk.co.uk
  • Uilleann Obsession www.uilleannobsession.com/links_radio.html
  • Folk Radio www.folkradio.co.uk/component/option,com_magazine/Itemid,1/
  • The Music Well www.themusicwellhome.co.uk/
  • Edinburgh University Folk Society podcasts www.fuzzyhaggis.org.uk/folksoc/freshfolk/downloads.php
  • Celtic Storm www.celticcenter.org/celticstorm.php

Ogg (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC) That would be an interesting article, I like the one at www.downhomeraidoshow.com --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Another one: Whole Wheat Radio: http://wholewheatradio.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Ogg (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie Promoted![edit]

Congrats to everyone here who helped out on getting Woody Guthrie up to Featured Article status. It was tough but it looks great! Go check out the article if you haven't had the pleasure. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tradition bearers[edit]

I have the feeling nobody reads this page anymore, but here goes ... I have started writing a draft of an article on "Voice of the People" - the most important collection of songs by "Traditional singers" from the UK and Ireland. There is no way of avoiding mentioning that special class of people - the tradition bearers. These are the people who learned folk songs in their original context (sea shanties while on board ship, railway songs sung by railway workers, etc), and then went on to be collected by ballad hunters. This implies an article on them, listing a few. But what should the article be called? The obvious candidates are: "Traditional singers"; "Tradition bearers"; "Source singers". In the USA there is some kind of award for "National Heritage singers", but I know almost nothing about it. Is there any agreed name for these people? By implication it includes the people whose versions of songs went into Child's collection. Any suggestions? Ogg (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Revival[edit]

I want to try and revive this, anyone still here? ChaoticReality 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

only the less melodramatic of our editors. The Needs work list is still pretty accurate on things that need work. Feel free to work on anything within the scope tho. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Fast Folk artists[edit]

The CFD discussion about Category:Fast Folk artists would benefit from your knowledgable input. Please join the discussion, which is in its 4th day. Cgingold (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Urban folk[edit]

An editor first attempted to speedy delete and then proposed deletion via {{prod}} the page on Urban folk. He/she has a good point in that there is not much to the page for now. I've declined the prod and converted the article into a disabiguation page. Most links to the page seem to come through the {{Folk music}} template. Is anyone here interested in writing an article (with sources) on "urban folk"? If not we should probably remove it from the template. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the template for now. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan FAR[edit]

Bob Dylan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.


Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Roots music[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Genres in infoboxes[edit]

There's currently an important discussion going on about the removal of genre fields in band and album infoboxes. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? and provide any opinions you may have. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"The BibleCode Sundays" -- worth any attention?[edit]

I'd never heard of The BibleCode Sundays, and discovered the article via "what links here". It's clear that the author of the article is very deeply in love with the Sundays. Call me cruel but I don't have any qualms about smashing the use of Wikipedia to broadcast a love affair such as this. However, just before sticking a "speedy delete" notice on this atrocity, it occurred to me that I didn't know anything about the genre of music in question and that just possibly the band merits an article (but a very different one). Over to you. Morenoodles (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone here?
I guess not.
I found that this article was largely a copyvio and reverted it to the state it had been in before the plagiarism. Morenoodles (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

David D'Or[edit]

Hi. An editor has deleted (see [1]) the inclusion of David D'Or as a subject of this (and a number of other) wikiprojects. I believe that D'Or belongs. Can someone who is involved in this wikiproject please a look? D'Or sings a wide range of music, including Israeli folk/Jewish prayers/Yeminite/etc. I'm not pre-supposing the level of importance of his music to this group, but that can of course be reflected in the assessment. If you have a view, pls feel free to express it on the D'Or talk page. Many thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the D'or article, I say it was absolutely correct to remove him from this project. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm very surprised, but defer to the people on this project. Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie[edit]

I have nominated Woody Guthrie 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Limberjack/Jig doll[edit]

I created Limberjack back in 2006. In 2007, Jig doll was created as a redirect to Limberjack. Two days ago, someone came along and expanded the Jig doll article into a full-fledged essay, and another edit suggested that Limberjack should be merged into that article. I disagree, because Limberjack is the existing article, and Jig doll has a fair number of style issues. Opinions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Discography details[edit]

Some months ago I came across a guideline that basically said that:

In an artist's discography, you should only list the earliest variant for each album; reissues and foreign releases should be confined to the article which deals with the specific album.

I can't find it now - any ideas, anybody? What I want to do is clean up Judy Dyble#Discography - at least, the list of Albums - which IMHO has far too much clutter. In order to clean up, I want to cite a guideline in my edit summary in order to dissuade people from re-adding. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Request for comment on Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people[edit]

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The infobox has just been removed from Folk music; there's discussion on the talk page there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Roots music articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Roots music articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Roud Folk Song Index[edit]

Hey, everybody. I've steadily worked my way through adding a template to the first 100 songs in the Roud Folk Song Index, which can be found here. I thought that a template would help clean up the list, organize it, because it certainly is messy now. I'd like your feedback on it, because I don't want to do all of the other songs if nobody likes the idea. Thanks. The Gates of Eden (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Electric folk task force articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Electric folk task force articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blues#Name discussion (2)[edit]

A discussion is taking place on the most appropriate and helpful name for the article on the musical form the blues. It is currently named Blues. It was moved to The blues, then moved back to blues. A current suggestion is blues music. Wider consensus is welcomed. SilkTork *YES! 12:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodnight Irene lyrics[edit]

Does anybody want to contest or confirm that the lyrics of Lead Belly's Goodnight, Irene, the originals recorded by him during his first LoC session, are in the public domain? If they are, I'd like to add those to Wikisource. I really don't know much about publication information with the LoC; it seems to me that the original lyrics would be in the public domain. But, I don't know. BootleggerWill (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the answer, but just letting you know there's a live body here listening. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

M. J. Hurt, Today![edit]

Hey, guys, I'm working on getting an article about Mississippi John Hurt's 1966 album Today! up to a good standard; tell me what you think of it. BootleggerWill (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed broader project to roll this into[edit]

I have posted the following as a project proposal atWikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Folk_Music_(including_Roots,Traditional_and_World_Music):

I've never proposed a project before so I probably did this wrong. So please correct me, and give me any guidance possible, including telling what I need to do to fix my errors and more this forward. I've done a lot of work in Wikipedia in this area (actually these 4 areas) which includes 4 vague, overlapping musical genres. Of these I think that there is only one existing project (Roots music) which is basically dead because it is too narrow of a topic. (and which IMHO should be rolled or morphed into this new broader project) I think it had about 4 posts in the last year, 3 of which were me.
Rather that expect a rush of people who say they're ready to help right now, I would like to set up a project which has a broader, more viable definition which would eventually collect some followers, more than the dead more narrowly-defined project.
Sincerely,
North8000 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Expand / re-name the project?[edit]

I don't know the wiki-technical points regarding this, but I think that it would be a good idea to have a project for the genre represented by the 90% overlapping names: Folk music, Traditional music, Roots music, and many others. Also for the 1/2 of World music that false within this genre. The term "Roots music" is american-specific and somewhat obscure, hence this project being quieter than a graveyard. I think that the term "Folk music" has the most recognition/prominence in this genre. My idea is to roll this project into a broader one with a more common name so that it can pick up some steam. I had three ideas for a new project name:

  1. Folk music as the most common term for this
  2. Folk, roots and traditional music And let it pick up the portion of World music that falls under this.
  3. Folk, world, roots and traditional music. This includes the whole World music genre, even though a portion of it is a totally different genre.

What do you think?

Sincerely North8000 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bury Me Under the Weeping Willow[edit]

Performed by the Carter Family

Problems playing this file? See media help.

I uploaded a recording of "Bury Me Under the Weeping Willow" but was surprised to find no article for the song. If anyone is interested, there's a redlink there waiting for you to click it :) Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluegrass[edit]

Does bluegrass music fall under your WikiProject? A lot of people think it's a kind of country music, but it's more a combination of Appalachian folk music and blues-style improvisation. I have created two bluegrass-related pages, Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards and Pineridge Bluegrass Folklore Society. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible Bluegrass Wikiproject[edit]

Dear Roots 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 Bluegrass is a rootsy musical style, so I thought that I should check to see if this would present a conflict. It seems that you have at least 1300 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 me discussing Bluegrass. In the short descriptions on the Roots project page I didn't see much interest in Bluegrass music topics, so I'm hoping you won't mind.

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) 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that posting twice per year makes me the most active person here.  :-) You might end up with the same challenge on a Bluegrass project.
But I have been active on folk music / roots music articles, and a bit on the world music article. Speaking just for myself, I have no objection. If we have an overlap, possible we should acknowledge and even use that. Work together or even merge.....the latter might help bolster the long term viability of both projects. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm... if this project is not very active, I guess going around adding the Wikiproject:Roots music banner to various talk pages may not be productive. Is anyone doing any reviewing? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
But it is a worthwhile endeavor. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Eamon McLoughlin[edit]

I decided to join the Roots WikiProject so that I could help with rating articles. Here's the first one: Eamon McLoughlin. I have rated it C - I think it's better than a Start, and has references and everything! Would someone who's more experienced at rating please check this? Thanks —Anne Delong (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I might have even gone B, but what you did is good. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Roots Revival[edit]

There's a very large article, Roots revival, which according to it's banner is of top importance to WikiProject Roots music. This article doesn't have a single citation or reference, and the "Further reading" is almost all off-line. Because it's a cultural article, it has a lot of material that is not obvious facts. It really needs citations. The article is made up of sections about different countries. If all of the members of this WikiProject pick sections that they know about and add a reference or two, the article would look good. I'll start with the Canadian section, since that's where I'm from. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can work on the English & US......I think that those need some editing as well as sources. I can also take the first whack at getting Nueva Canción integrated into Spanish speaking Latin/South America/Spain, and sourced. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Great! The Canadian section is done, although I found so much material it could be an article on its own - as probably is the case with many countries. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Stompin' Tom Connors[edit]

I notice that the Stompin' Tom Connors article has not been given a WikiProject Roots music banner. He's been in the news lately (he died). Connors mostly wrote his own songs (at least 250) and they were either about historical events or everyday life in Canada. His songs while not strictly in a traditional style, definitely reflect his east coast upbringing. Does he fit in the definition of a "roots" musician? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I am not really familiar with his work, but judging by the article content I would say yes. Feel free to put it on the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, done. It's not too many singer/songwriters who earn three honorary doctorates, an Order of Canada, and get their picture on a stamp as well as the usual music awards. Stompin' Tom was so popular that his memorial service had to be held in the City of Peterborough's largest hockey arena. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles[edit]

There is a discussion regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the project occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vernacular Music Center article[edit]

This was speedied (which I contested) and I wrote the main author (looks like a Wikipedia newbie and their user name is the director of the center) on the article talk page and their talk page saying it will probably need suitable sources to survive. I'm not sure how this should end up; this is just a FYI. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ogg wishlist[edit]

Wikimania 2014 will be held in the Barbican Centre in London, a concert venue, one of the ideas we're playing with is a free culture music stream with singers and a scratch orchestra, to be recorded as ogg files and uploaded to Commons. If we do do this would members of this task force like to suggest some songs that they would like to see.--KTo288 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post and invitation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)