Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian music/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is an Archive of the discussion page for WikiProject Canadian music. (May 2007 - November 2008) Please Do not edit!
Archive 1 Archive 2

Sandbox pages

I'm going to create some sandbox pages for the various genre sub-articles, filled in with basic outlines for expansion and development into articles:

Please offer any comments, and/or help to expand these. Bearcat 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't label k.d. lang as country. She is more pop and folk. Also, you forgot Cowboy Junkies as a country-rock band. Treble Charger is more of punk band or so I have heard them called. I guess in a small way they can be considered alternative. I always refered to them as punk. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever heard the first couple of Treble Charger albums? They weren't always punk. Have you ever heard anything k.d. lang recorded before Ingenue? Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Related projects

You may find it useful to transclude {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Related WikiProjects}} at the bottom of your project page

-- TimNelson 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian sources

Figure I can make a personal observation here in the absence of activity. In various Google and Google News searches for articles on (shamefully non-Canadian) bands, useful free sources that keep coming up include ChartAttack and, which are Canadian sources that do a good job of indexing and archiving their articles online, unlike the plethora of other sources that require paid subscription. Eye Weekly and NOW are also good free Toronto newspapers with sections on music, that can help to verify the existence and perhaps popularity of some borderline notable bands. –Pomte 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

LAC provides RPM's charts (1964-2000) on line, which can assist with notability of songs and artists: [1] Dl2000 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


We're obviously not going to copy entire charts over here, but I've set up a template so that we can begin listing #1 singles from the RPM era, similar to what the US contingent have already done at List of number-one hits (United States). Bearcat 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for Talk Page

Hey WP:CanMusic,

I see that you guys have just started out, and to help you guys I've created a Template for Talk pages. It's basically a copy/paste of the one for CanTV, but for you guys. Feel free to change it up as you guys see fit.

Talk pages for articles related to the project should be have the {{Canadian Music project}} template added. It can be added with the text:

{{WikiProject Canada | music=yes

JQFTalkContribs 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the template to talk pages of some articles (many of the Juno pages, some of the magazines). However, plenty more to do, and other project members are encouraged to add the CanMusic project template to article talk pages. Dl2000 02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding the template to talk pages as well. I reckon we ought to discuss some guidelines for assessing the importance of articles as doing so can be fairly subjective without guiding criteria. Thoughts? Strobilus 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Article importance

Been having some second thoughts about the importance field as well. Currently, a rough guide is that high is given to the most prominent subjects, med for reasonably prominent (e.g. artist won a Juno), low for everything else. While we can build something on objective factors such as Junos, Canadian Music Hall of Fame, Order of Canada, sales, charts, volume of secondary sources, etc. even that could be more complication than the project warrants.

Options are:

  1. Base the importance on a checklist of achievements (the aforementioned awards, press, international/national/regional recognition, etc)
  2. Importance level is assigned based on the type of article rather than trying to calculate the prominence of the subject - depends on whether the article is about an artist/band, album/song, genre, event/award, historical narrative (e.g. Music of Canada)?
  3. Some projects don't try to assign an importance level.

I'd lean towards option 2, since it would be fairly clear to maintain and would provide a meaningful distribution on the project page stats chart.

Note that the class field in the assessment seems well-defined in WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ. Dl2000 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've mentioned this I'm reconsidering the whole thing. I certainly don't want to create rigid criteria for the importance rating; the rating is, after all, not terribly important. I brought this up mostly want to avoid raising hackles by slapping a low importance tag on articles that others have invested a lot of time in. That said, I tend to agree with the second option you've proposed as a rough guideline. I reckon all the regional Music of ... articles should be of high importance, along with articles about things like the Junos, MuchMusic, and genres of music. Many of these articles are currently rated mid. I'm disinclined to rate individual artists as high, because it can put us in the position of tagging Corey Hart as more important than Canadian rock or music of Quebec. I think most articles about albums or songs are of low importance, except for say "O Canada" (and maybe "Bud the Spud," or the Hockey Night in Canada theme song, har har). Strobilus 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try this table - the idea is that articles would be assessed with a default importance level based on the article's type or category. However, the importance can be adjusted as warranted (e.g. "O Canada"), preferably with an explanatory note on the article talk page:

Level Types of articles
Top Music of Canada only (should be the premier article, a signature work of the project)
High specific genres, history (narratives, regional "Music of..."); national awards
Mid musicians, bands (people); festivals; regional awards (events)
Low singles, albums, concert DVDs, books (products)

But in the assessment work, we should consider class as more important that importance, at least from an article improvement and project management standpoint. It's more productive to identify articles to improve towards the coveted A/GA/FA zones than debate relative importance. Dl2000 01:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I'd agree with this. While I think it would probably go without saying that not all bands and not all musicians are really of equal importance to each other (The Tragically Hip, frex, are almost certainly vastly more important topic within the scope of this project than, say, Cats Can Fly), but I think you've hit on a very good point: it would be very much a waste of our time to get drawn into debates about the relative importance of artists, and gawd knows that there's a whole class of artists out there for whom that kind of assessment could get very subjective. So let's not do that.
Also, where would we rank books that fall within our scope, such as The Top 100 Canadian Albums, or music magazines such as Chart or Exclaim!? And should we include things like MuchMusic and MusiquePlus in our scope at all (and if so, where?), or should we leave those to the TV project? Bearcat 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Books - these are essentially secondary products of the music itself, so could default as Low importance (books on Canadian music generally don't receive a high profile)
Magazines - again, these tend to be byproducts - would suggest Low by default. RPM had a historic role in promoting CanCon and establishing the Junos, therefore justifies a higher importance (it's already rated Mid).
Music video - MuchMusic and MusiquePlus as national specialty networks have left their mark in Canadian music, so should be in scope for the project. But we should avoid individual radio stations that play music (leave those to appropriate broadcast projects; besides, station formats are variable over time e.g. CFTR (AM)). We might consider Canadian music video TV programs e.g. Good Rockin' Tonite or City Limits (TV series) (the forerunner to Much). Individual music videos themselves would be on the order of albums and singles. Dl2000 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed all around (including the TV shows), though for what it's worth I doubt we'd ever have a separate article just on an individual music video — we'd most likely discuss the video in an article about the song. Music-related DVDs such as Escarpment Blues or Heksenketel, on the other hand, would have articles...but they'd go in the same class as albums and singles too. I took the liberty of adding concert DVDs and books to the table above since their classification level is clear and obvious.
Re: MuchMusic & other music video channels, as well as the programs, I think maybe music media (including magazines, actually) should go to middle importance by default. I tend to view them less as byproducts and more as distribution/promotion venues, which to my mind kicks them up a notch. But I'm not wedded to that view, either. Bearcat 07:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This all sounds great to me; however, it think there is an issue now that the talk page template has been merged with Template:WikiProject Canada. It seems that we're now obliged to follow the importance rating guidelines found here as a result. Strobilus (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be too hard to make them match up, the table above is almost perfectly acceptable under the main WP:CANADA importance ratings. As long as you only have 1-2 top importance articles, 5-10 high-importance articles, and makes sure that all the obscure, specific, or regional stuff in in low-importance, you'll be fine. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Chameleon (Anglo-Canadian Band)

This article, Chameleon (Anglo-Canadian Band) has been written by a very very new user, who has just received a wiki welcome, and no notification of a pending AFD. Does anyone know this band and can help this new user Talk ie regarding notability? SriMesh | talk 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page template merge

I've modified the {{WikiProject Canada}} template so that you can now add an article to both WP:CANADA and this project in one template by using the parameter "music=yes". It will still add the article to the assessment table for this project, though it would use the same rating that it uses for WP:CANADA. Check out Talk:The Tragically Hip to see what this will look like. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bombing Neverland

This new article Bombing Neverland has a tag requesting verification and notability. There has been quite a lot of work put into it, but it may be deleted if tags cannot be addressed. Does anyone know this band and can help this new user Talk ie regarding notability? Thank you and kind regards, SriMesh | talk 19:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick google for the band doesn't turn up much besides a MySpace page and a few show listings with no reviews. The band has not yet released an album and the article seems to have been written by a band member. I don't think much can be done to save this one. Strobilus (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Red River Valley

I added Red River Valley (song) to Canadian Music. Anyone care to expand on this? Pustelnik (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Is it possible to find some more sources of information on this topic Friends of Fiddler's Green, High Life Music, Mineminemine, Everyone Loves Shabbes but the Chickens? It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting anyone to see if the quantity of notability concern articles can be reduced, and quality increased. For more help see this note or the article talk page for a current discussion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Triplicate assessment categories

Category:WikiProject Canadian music articles is currently used for assessment

Paul foord (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin James deleted???

If anyone didn't catch it, Admin Ohnoitsjamie deleted the Colin James article. Not sure what happened there? Just a mistake on the admin's part. I sent hom a note but it looks like he's taking a break. If anyone wants to prompt any admin acquaintances to reverse the blunder that would be great. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I've often found it very hard to assess some articles which fell between the cracks, going beyond start class yet clearly not good enough to merit a B, so this will help a lot. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Winnipeg Singers

This article needs notability citations to be released of its tags. SriMesh | talk 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Canadian music

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 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chartattack website re-organisation

Chart (magazine) has re-organised their website and now all the old links there result in a 404 error. I've made up a page of bad chartattack links as of today at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Chartattack update. If volunteers could please go through a few links, find the new url, and remove it from the list, it would be much appreciated! Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dustin Lee Hiles

This article about a Canadian singer is being discussed at articles for deletion if any members wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia Tyson

I have started a category for Category:Sylvia Tyson songs, and I would appreciate any help in filling it from Sylvia Tyson or Ian and Sylvia fans. (Come on, boomers, I know you can do it!) Pustelnik (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV demands a Category:Ian Tyson songs for balance... (*silly grin*) Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)