Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Disproving AllMusic

Hello there, AllMusic has been challenged as a reference on Fade into You: an IP editor claims that this song cannot be classified as "Blues" and gives a music theory reason for it. This is, of course WP:OR but let's assume that the claim has merit; can a better source than AllMusic be found to assert that this song cannot be considered "Blues"? I would imagine that the definition of "Blues" is malleable. Of course to my ears that song couldn't be anything but Blues, but if music theory says it's not, well, who am I to judge? Elizium23 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

One of my favourite songs of the 1990s. We've always gone on the basis that if a reliable source calls it that, then it's acceptable as a genre, regardless of personal opinion... if Rolling Stone called this "ambient metal" we would accept that, no matter how ridiculous that sounds. As you say, people are always going to have their own opinion of what constitutes "blues" or any other genre – as a Brit I've never understood why some American critics classify all early 80s synthpop as "new wave", and you will struggle to find any British sources that describe Duran Duran or Howard Jones as this. So as genre definitions are subjective, I don't see what other option we have from accepting the definitions in reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IP's music theory claim is here. And yes, that is definitely OR (and I'm not even sure it's correct) and should be ignored. As for the sourcing question, would there be anything more to it than if an editor finds another source saying "This is note blues" or something to that effect then we remove the tag to avoid the contradiction? It's not like we consider any source infallible, especially not AllMusic with that pernicious sidebar. QuietHere (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard and QuietHere pretty much cover a lot of the points I would have. They are correct. We go by what reliable sources says. Their only realistic policy paced action would be to find source(s) that directly call it "not blues" and amending it to the prose. Something like changing it from "Allmusic described it as a blues song" to "While Allmusic described it as blues, Pitchfork refuted the label, calling it "not blues, but a pop song" (or whatever). I've done that on occasion to paint a fuller picture on some more questionable genre labels from reliable sources in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, are there a lot of other sources that call this song a blues song? You could just make the case that either this is a clearly established majority opinion from a wide array of sources and should stay, or maybe "blues" is just a minority outlier opinion and should be tossed out. We're not required to just blindly repeat what AllMusic says just because the source exists. Second, after looking at the source in question, it's not a page for the song or the album, it's for a compilation album that encompasses many artists across many genres. The way they describe the song is "glorious mope blues," which I don't think the writer is trying to say "this song's genre is 100% blues rock" I think they're being colorful and saying that it's blue as in the vibe is "gloomy" or "melancholy". A case could be made that this source doesn't even directly support the claim in the first place. And third, I've done what Sergecross is describing before. On Crosses (band) the band is described as "witch house" but there's also a fair amount of sources that explicitly state "Crosses is not witch house" and I've combined the two view points. At any rate, I think there should just be more research done before a decision is made—don't go by what the IP is saying but don't discount their point either. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How many sources would we need? Are you saying that there should be a minimum number of sources describing a genre as such before it can be added to the infobox? And you've used personal opinion in your reasoning why this shouldn't be called a blues song. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying we need a minimum, I'm saying we should use common sense. If 50% of published sources call it "alt rock" and 49% call it "dream pop" and only 1% call it "blues", then maybe "blues" shouldn't be included in the article or the infobox at all because it's a minority opinion. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it." But on the flip side, if it's extremely easy to find 100 published sources that say this song is "blues" then just add a couple more to the article to demonstrate that this is exactly what the majority of established publications are saying. Also per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts." Music journalists are not scientists who publish outright peer-reviewed scientific facts, they're just publishing their own subjective opinions based on their owns subjective listening experiences. I don't think editors of music pages on Wikipedia should get in the habit of adding a genre to an infobox just because a single opinion on the entire internet says so. There should be more care and research put into finding and only representing majority opinions on genre in the infobox and having discussion on if minority opinions should be expanded upon in the body or tossed out entirely. And yes, I've used my personal opinion on a talk page as that is what they are for. I personally think the phrase "glorious mope blues" is ambiguous in its meaning and if this song so clearly demonstrates blues music then it should be very easy to find a less ambiguous source that supports this idea so explicitly that it's impossible for IPs and other editors to object to the information provided in the article. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, sure. Minority opinions like that can be ignored, or added as an attributed opinion but kept out of infoboxes per UNDUE. But that's a different question than the "disproving" framing you opened with. There's a difference between a minority opinion and an incorrect/contradicted one, and it helps to keep that in mind when you're framing a question like this so everyone's on the same page regarding what you're wanting to discuss. QuietHere (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't open with "disproving". This is not my thread. I was merely tossing in my two cents. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, misread a name. But, uhh, yeah, still what I said before. UNDUE and whatnot. Makes sense to me. QuietHere (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So I was laboring under the assumption that we editors recognize AllMusic as generally reliable for music genres, but that is not the case. From WP:RSP: Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar. I think it's safe to say that a sidebar mentioning "glorious mope blues" can be safely tossed out in favor of stronger classifications, wherever we may find them. Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not the sidebar, that's from the review. The sidebar is over on the left side of the page where it also lists the release date and whatnot. QuietHere (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. RSP/RSMUSIC is saying don't use all the stuff listed on the side (or top on mobile) - the pop/rock, College Rock, Trad Rock stuff listed. Genre listed in the prose of reviews and biographies are fair game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Music-related source at RSN (musicandhistory.com)

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#musicandhistory.com. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:EXTPROMO vio on Tiny Desk Concerts?

A couple weeks ago, I had a thought which can be seen in the copy edit tag at the top of the Tiny Desk Concerts page and I figured I should actually ask about it since I just found myself back on that page today only to see no changes regarding it. Basically, every entry in that article's list of episodes includes an external link to the respective concert video from NPR's website. WP:EXTPROMO states that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed", leading me to believe this is a clear violation, but I don't wanna jump to conclusions and start wiping every link just yet, in part because there's like a bajillion of 'em and that's a lot of work to do that might just get undone if I'm wrong/someone happens to disagree. So before committing to anything, I come here to confirm/quash my suspicions. QuietHere (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A long time ago a similar issue arose for List of Google Easter eggs where I argued that the links there are simply for convenience. They're not supposed to be references or substitutes thereof, and are not there to promote Google. The discussion is archived. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That article's gone down hill since I last visited :( Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree it's any sort of promotion. It looks more like the election table shows in WP:ELLIST. I feel that if you have a list of performances on Tiny Desk, then a link to the NPR article and performance is not undue. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A fair point to you and the rest of the editors, though I would note that the election example you're pointing to has both links to the hypothetical candidates' WP articles and external links in separate columns. They're not solely directing readers off-site; I can still learn about Alice and Bob without having to go what happens to be a commercial source even if its use here is intended as solely informative. I think those separate columns would help and should at least be standard so this isn't edging so close to a violation.

It's also worth me saying that I was more bothered by not being able to link artist articles from that page initially and the EXTPROMO concern was a secondary thought while I was adding the tag. Figured I should clarify that so you all understand where I'm coming from. QuietHere (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have the artist's name linked to their Wikipedia page and then the link to the article/performance in another column, but the main point is that such an external link is fine. You could also just make each link a properly formatted citation, but I feel like this is more accessible for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why? I Ask (talk • contribs) 23:23, December 10, 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on board with the ELs being fine, I hadn't considered the angle that you and everyone else came from but it all makes sense to me. QuietHere (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Secondary articles exist for many artists who've appeared on TDC though. A ref col could've easily been added and those sources linked instead. It's possible that whoever's been maintaining that list (I haven't checked the edit history to see) doesn't/didn't know about properly sourcing it. The individual entries should def not be linking directly to the performance videos on NPR's YT channel. I can help replace some. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the links in the content; the article should probably be moved to List of Tiny Desk Concerts. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This makes sense to me and I would support it. QuietHere (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly started to reconfigure the tables. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Rodw and I have started work on fixing the artist links. There are still many to fix, but it's coming along. I suggest we move the page (per above), once the links are fixed, if there are no objections. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Techno

I would appreciate the input of others in a content dispute at Talk:Techno#Unencyclopedic tone. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Parental Advisory

Parental Advisory has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone with a little time; please help me deal with this

Talk:The Real Thing (Faith No More album) § Genre summarization Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

What to do with a group that split in two, with neither half seeming to be the direct continuation of the original group

Looking into Racey and it seems that the original lineup broke up in 1985 and two groups formed in the early 90s. one made up of original guitarist and drummer and the other being made up of the original vocalist and their 1980-85 keyboard player. Neither group is more of a continuation of the original group than the other. How are releases from both versions of the group marked out in the discography section? Do both splits recieve pages? MCMax05 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The primary concern would be notability if considering articles for the new groups (i.e. the new groups need to be notable; not that they are formed by notable people or people from a notable group). If they're not the same group then treat them as new groups and explain that the members went on to other projects in the article for the original group, and mention the original group in any new article(s). Artists dissolve and create new groups and move from group to group a lot, so there are probably more examples available than you need to establish a consensus view of what's appropriate. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the notability pages for musicians/bands and I don’t think that either group (both claiming to be a direct successor to the original group) meet the standards. There are numerous releases on here from either group (all marked on the Wikipedia page as compilations but at least some contain original material and re-recordings (eg. Say Wow! Latest and Greatest, which is entirely made up of newly-recorded material and comes from version of the group featuring the original vocalist, Richard Gower) and for those 'compilations' that contain new material (either original or re recorded) would need to be looked into to tell which group it comes from. The other group, featuring Phil Fursdon (guitar) and Clive Wilson (drums) has released two original singles in the last couple of years of which only one is mentioned in the article. MCMax05 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty short article, so I don't see any need to split it. Just cover both in the same article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

How would I distinguish between the two continuation groups in the discography sections of the article. MCMax05 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Describe which members you were referring to, and then spend the rest of the paragraph describing it as "them". When you're ready to start talking about the other group, do the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR for Lightning Bolt (band)

Lightning Bolt (band) has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of acclaimedmusic.net

How do we feel about the widely referenced, self published site, http://acclaimedmusic.net (no SSL; insecure)? Short discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 50 § acclaimedmusic.net and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 99 § acclaimedmusic.net concluded, as I do, that it should not be cited as it is not a reliable source. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't like its use on Wikipedia. As an example, I picked When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? because I knew it would have a very wide listing from countries all over the world [1]. So firstly, how do they calculate their overall score? What happens with the "No Order" lists, does every album on that list get an equal score and how does it compare to the scored lists, or are they ignored for the final overall score? They include some rankings from the likes of Piero Scaruffi and Anthony Fantano, who we have debated numerous times and decided that they should not be used for individual ratings, so how can we include them on an overall rating? Going down the page I see ratings from publications from other countries, but we have no idea if these are RS or not. Mexico's Me Hace Ruido, for example, is a website with no obvious editorial board and articles written by people using aliases. Living in Colombia, I know that Radionica is a radio station, not a magazine or website... it's a national station and a good one, but is their list of best albums chosen by the radio presenters, or a public poll? There are so many unanswered questions about this website I don't see how we can use it as an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Many excellent points. Thanks Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Should probably reopen discussion at the noticeboard... Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: Frankly, despite how short the three discussions have been, they're all unanimous in saying no so far, despite being for different reasons. I think you have your answer already. QuietHere (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that I have an answer, but the wider community doesn't have it in stone; explicit consensus is required to eradicate this trash from the site without a fuss, and pointing doubters to multiple short discussions is unlikely to fly. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My stance is the same as Richards. I think it's ready to be listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Super :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Done please review Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record; we have 214 current uses to clean up(?) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I see 894 results when I add "insource:" to the search so I think you've got even more work ahead. QuietHere (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, technical wizardry FTW ;) I love that "[I've] got even more work" :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, that was more of a general "you" toward anyone participating in this cleanup project. QuietHere (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree on "we" as perhaps being more suitable? <3 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. There's talk now of number of references and cleaning them up, but I'm not sure that Wikipedians have reached a consensus of "deprecate, remove and replace" which is a very drastic step and that's a step that's reserved for very unreliable sources that have had a history of, e.g. falsehoods or misinformation deliberately included. If the source's information has not fundamentally compromised the integrity of articles where it's included, we do not need to go on a seek-and-destroy mission right this moment. And we would need consensus before doing that, at any rate. For now I think it's just a good idea that the word is on the street that the source is never to be cited again. Elizium23 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: A fair observation, but I think there is still concern here when a source is considered untrustworthy. Since this source is apparently self-published by a single person, there is zero guarantee of editorial oversight to catch that person's mistakes. Even if we can't confirm any errors have occurred, the possibility of them having happened/happening in the future is reason enough to deprecate and remove. It's just not worth the risk. QuietHere (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty much up to individual editor's discretion on handling at this point. There's been no counterpoint on its reliability in the Wikipedia context. There's nothing keeping anyone from removing it if they want to. But there's also no burden saddled to any one editor either. It's a volunteer project. No one is obligated to get anything done here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I removed one from David Bowie (a featured article) earlier today. The claim was "According to Acclaimed Music, he is the fourth most celebrated artist in popular music history", and although it may be true that AM have made this claim; so what? We can't trust the claim they made, only that they made it. Whoop-de-doo! Breaking it down: if I'd published that "[world famous artist] is [any claim you can imagine]" on my personal website and added this fact (that I published this claim) to the artist's article with a reference; should we leave it there when it's revealed that I have zero editorial oversight and everything I publish might be utter drivel? I think not. I will work through them like a bull in a china shop and feel good about it as I go :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a good example among the Bowie albums of how it's impossible to judge Acclaimed Music's logic in assessing these rankings. Blackstar is rated number one for its year (2016), with dozens of year-end listings. Ziggy Stardust is rated number two for 1972, but based on only one year-end listing. Even more bizarrely, that one magazine had it at number one for the year, so how is its overall rating number two? Richard3120 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Bot to place better source needed as stop gap?

With nearly 900 insource statements of "acclaimedmusic.net" on high visibility articles, and each of those uses requiring human evaluation, and our establishing that it's unreliable, could we at least employ a bot to tag them all with {{better source needed}} to get the ball rolling? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree these should be rooted out. I'm not the bot guy... I usually do this stuff by hand, which is slow. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What thinkest thou (I love that Chrome just suggested "thou" instead of my erroneous "thee") specifically about slapping a {{better source needed}} on references referencing acclaimedmusic.net while we world weary meat sacks drag our heels? I don't think setting a bot loose to unintelligently remove references would go down well with anyone. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

**Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles**
Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area	Delisted	Kept	Total Reviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62)	Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	10	6	16	0.60	19
Biology	13	41	54	3.15	67
Business, economics and finance	6	1	7	0.17	2
Chemistry and mineralogy	2	1	3	0.50	7
Computing	4	1	5	0.25	0
Culture and society	9	1	10	0.11	8
Education	22	1	23	0.05	3
Engineering and technology	3	3	6	1.00	5
Food and drink	2	0	2	0.00	3
Geography and places	40	6	46	0.15	22
Geology and geophysics	3	2	5	0.67	1
Health and medicine	8	3	11	0.38	5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11	1	12	0.09	6
History	27	14	41	0.52	38
Language and linguistics	3	0	3	0.00	3
Law	11	1	12	0.09	3
Literature and theatre	13	14	27	1.08	24
Mathematics	1	2	3	2.00	3
Media	14	10	24	0.71	40
Meteorology	15	6	21	0.40	31
Music	27	8	35	0.30	55
Philosophy and psychology	0	1	1	–	2
Physics and astronomy	3	7	10	2.33	24
Politics and government	19	4	23	0.21	9
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14	14	28	1.00	8
Royalty and nobility	10	6	16	0.60	44
Sport and recreation	32	12	44	0.38	39
Transport	8	2	10	0.25	11
Video gaming	3	5	8	1.67	23
Warfare	26	49	75	1.88	31
Total	359 ^{Note A}	222 ^{Note B}	581	0.62	536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk.

My apologies for not sorting this list down; please feel free to remove those that aren't actually applicable to this WP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Grammys on the Main Page

A discussion is currently taking place regarding the suitability of The Grammys for regular posting on the main page under the section "In the News." Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Electronic dance music

An article that you have been involved in editing—Electronic dance music—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach

Hello everyone! Sorry in advance if I'm writing this message in the wrong place, but I just wanted to make a needed call to action... : D

Is anyone able to help tidy up the article? It's been nominated for ITN, due to the artist's recent passing, but several issues, most notably the disorganization and lack of sourcing throughout the "Discography" section, are still holding it back from being accepted...

I've also opened a new discussion on the article's talk page, hopefully it's helpful.

Oltrepier (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

ITN decisions are made based on the quality of the article, rather than the importance of the news; here's one vote to change that lamentable protocol, which harms the informative impact of ITN. Bacharach's death should have been made known on the front page of Wikipedia the day it occurred, regardless of the state of the article. Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chubbles That's right. Still, it's a real shame to leave Bacharach disrespected like that, so I'm planning to start this clean-up job soon. : D Oltrepier (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Music pages with inconsistent redirects

I've been doing some work on GA pages, and found a few where the GA is a subpage of an article that has a redirect from both the parent article and parent talk page, but those two redirects go to different places. Below are a few music-related pages. Could someone knowledgeable about these fix them? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

GA page	Talk page redirects to	Article redirects to
Talk:Beatlemania in the UK/GA1	Talk:Beatlemania in the United Kingdom	Beatlemania
Talk:La La Land (song)/GA1	Talk:La La Land (Demi Lovato song)	La La Land (disambiguation)
Talk:Out from Under (song)/GA1	Talk:Out from Under	Circus (Britney Spears album)
Talk:Running with Scissors (album)/GA1	Talk:Running with Scissors	Running with Scissors ("Weird Al" Yankovic album)
Talk:Satisfied (album)/GA1	Talk:Satisfied (DecembeRadio album)	Satisfied
Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA3	Talk:Slipknot (album)	Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.
Talk:The Garth Brooks World Tour with Trisha Yearwood/GA1	Talk:The Garth Brooks World Tour	The Garth Brooks World Tour (2014–2017)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Any help appreciated at Draft:Patricia Taxxon

Hello! I'm writing an article about a music producer/songwriter. It just so happens to be my first article from scratch, so errors inbound. I've currently put the article in draftspace, due to the (relative?) lack of sources: Draft:Patricia Taxxon. I found three music sources that mention Taxxon or her music, which I think covers them significantly. Any help or feedback of any kind is appreciated, even if the improvements aren't enough to make the article mainspace-level. I also have some questions:

Is Taxxon notable enough for the article to be moved into mainspace, even as a stub? I think Taxxon meets WP:GNG but I'm unsure whether she meets WP:NARTIST#3. I remember reading somewhere in Wikipedia that three sources is recommended for an article, which I think Taxxon meets and then some (since not all possible sources in the article are music-related), but I can't find the exact page.
Should the article title be "Patricia Taxxon discography"? The (music) sources tend to focus not on Taxxon herself but on her music, so there's less to write about her personal life than her music and reception to it. The creation of a discography article of an artist before their main article feels unnatural, though.

Thank you! (Assuming it would be helpful to say, I've also requested the help of WikiProject LGBT studies as Taxxon is transgender. Diff here.) LightNightLights ^(talk) 04:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on the present sources, I would definitely not pass this article. In what you have, Taxxon is either not the primary focus of the articles and too little is dedicated to her specifically; or she is the primary focus but it says even less about her than that; or they're just interviews with her mother who says even less than that. Remember that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", and while some of these sources might just barely rise above trivial, there's not enough of those to pass GNG. And I've been following Patricia on and off for a few years so I know she doesn't pass any tenets of WP:MUSICBIO either. I haven't looked for more coverage so I couldn't tell you if it exists or not, but I imagine you have and if this is indeed all you found then I would say the subject is not ready for Wikipedia. QuietHere (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere: Thank you for your reply! Even before naming the article "Patricia Taxxon", I did notice that her music is covered more than her. Would you pass the article if it was named "Patricia Taxxon discography"? I kinda agree that they are trivial mentions of Taxxon, but I disagree that they are trivial mentions of her music in general (at least in the level of the Three Blind Mice example in WP:GNG). To be fair, though, this is my first article, so you most likely know more about notability than I do. I'm also not sure if you could "combine" three sources talking about different albums and songs to pass one article into notable territory. Thank you for your reply, regardless! LightNightLights ^(talk) 10:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Typically, discography pages are reserved for notable acts whose discographies are so large that they would take up too much space in the act's article. I don't think you could have a discography page for a non-notable artist. If you found enough valid coverage for just one of Taxxon's albums, or even just one song, then you could make a separate page for that, but I don't believe the same exists for discographies. And you'd run into the issue of WP:NOTDATABASE anyway. So no, I don't think you'd get anywhere with the name change. QuietHere (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Dang, I guess it would remain a draft for now. While I also want to ask if the article's writing is okay, I might be asking too much. Thanks again! LightNightLights ^(talk) 13:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The writing looks fine to me. WP's house style is straightforward enough to grasp and you seem to have it down already. The one thing is that your choice of writing multiple versions and filling them with footnotes is... well I'll call it unique. I think if you're going to do that it would make more sense to keep the article in your userspace until you've decided on what version you want to be the article you're trying to publish. As it is now, this also couldn't be submitted because of all that. Even if it were acceptable for all the other reasons discussed above, it would require a lot of copyediting work to be prepared for mainspace, and it's possible other editors would reject the draft on those grounds.

And let me be clear about one more thing here: the only major issue with this draft is that it's on a subject who isn't ready for Wikipedia at the moment. I hope you don't let that discourage you; we've all wanted to create articles for subjects who just weren't there notability-wise, but that's no reason to stop. There are many other subjects without articles yet who may be notable where this one isn't, and you've got the opportunity to bring those to life. Who knows, your very next draft could be the one that makes it. QuietHere (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Album with Cult Following

I was about to post this at the musical notability guideline talk page, but it doesn't have much discussion. So my question is whether there should be some provision for musical notability for, and thus for an article about, an album that has a cult following. In looking at the current guideline for recordings, it appears that #1 and #7 may apply if the cult following has been documented in print or broadcast. Can something be added to advise submitters that they should document the existence of the cult following?

I have a specific album in mind, which is sort of a problem because the ultras who belong to the cult and want an article on the cult classic try to game the system and sneak an article in, rather than taking advice about how to satisfy the guidelines properly. But my question is about whether the guidelines can be clarified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what this is asking. If it has a cult following documented (in reliable sources), then it is notable. A new guideline is not needed. What is the album in question? Also, taking a fairly inclusionist stance here to play devil's advocate, but if there are multiple passionate editors about it, then it is likely worthy of being created. Most albums by notable artists that have at least some coverage are usually kept, anyway. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with a sourced mention of "cult following", but I don't particularly think it's important enough to be mentioned a way of proving notability. I don't really put much stock in the term. Its basically saying "Its not that popular but it still has its fans who really like it", which could be applied to virtually every commercial product under the Sun. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there may need to be more context. If there is a source discussing a cult following, then the album has probably been discussed significantly. Not that simply the existence of a cult following makes it notable. Sorry if what I wrote above was unclear. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe me and you are on the same page. My response was more of a response to what Robert said. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I said I had a specific album in mind. It is:

I have listed it with all of those forms because articles are created with all of those forms in order to game the names. The first form is a locked redirect to the duo. I am inclined to think that if its fans are so passionate about it, there must be some documentation. However, this album, like a few web sites and a few actresses, is likely never to have a Wikipedia article, because of the misconduct of its supporters.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I found a couple source: Kerrang and Sputnickmusic (staff review). However, I disagree that it would be because of the supporters that it would stay forever deleted. If it is decided that there are enough sources, past misconduct by good faith editors should not matter for restoring a notable subject. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The album in question has already failed multiple AFDs for being lacking in sources, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I have taken part in some of the AFD's, MFD's, and DRV's. It has been deleted for lack of reliable sources, as noted. Part of my concern is that I see the enthusiasts submitting poorly sourced articles, and discouraging neutral editors from finding better sources, and focusing the attention of the administrators and experienced neutral editors on minimizing the disruption. That is my concern. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your concern is understandable. It'll probably be a bit awkward if ever the coverage comes along that gets that album a notability pass. But that coverage doesn't exist now so I'm not worried about it. If this cult following you mentioned were big enough to be measurable, we would still need reliable sources discussing it. Otherwise, surely any attempt to measure the interested audience would be struck down as OR. And the guidelines we have already cover this quite clearly. QuietHere (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Why? I Ask, User:QuietHere - It appears to me that the two sources that Why found should be sufficient to pass musical notability. Does anyone agree? Does anyone think that there is any point to trying to develop an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd really prefer one more really good source per WP:THREE. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The main substance of the Kerrang! article is entirely from interview quotes with a member of the band so I'm not sure it passes the WP:INTERVIEW test, and the Sputnik review would be good for inclusion but I've always felt weird about that site in general so I don't think it'd do it either. QuietHere (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Any help appreciated at Template:Did you know nominations/No More the Fool

Hello! I created an article for Elkie Books's song "No More the Fool" and nominated it for the DYK. But strangely I haven't been able to find many sources on the song online... I have searched the whole of Google and not found much. Could you help, please? (And I have hit some sort of a writer's block...)
And we perhaps need a better hook. (Isn't Kim Wilde famous? I thought it was interesting that this song was originally written for her. But the reviewer disagrees. Can it be that she is big over here in Europe and not so much in the U.S.?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Can You Duet

I would like to know if anyone here can help me find better sources for Can You Duet. It doesn't seem to be notable per WP:NTV and every time I try to initiate a discussion, it fizzles out immediately. Please see Talk:Can You Duet for further analysis of sources. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

History of Rock taught at Hanscom AFB in early 70s

If anyone attended Hanscom Air Force Base middle school in the early 1970s, and took music from my late mother, they would know that she was the first person to teach the course for her own research that was plagiarized. please contact me if you have any info RadicalDelusion (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This is impossibly vague to follow up on. How would one be able to check for plagiarism between between a 1970s middle school and the entirety of Wikipedia? If this is real, you'd need to narrow things down a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There are currently about 300 biographies of living musicians that have no references. Unreferenced BLPs are a high priority issue, and any help in getting them fully referenced is much appreciated! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Translating foreign lyrics

Is there any policy or guidance on the standard approach to provide an English translation of foreign lyrics? Du gamla, du fria is the de facto national anthem of Sweden (with public domain text), and it would seem desirable to have the text there in English as well. Are we allowed to translate it ourselves? If we must use an existing translation, what quality of source is required? What about the WikiSource translation: that is of course CC-by-SA, but what is the reply to the charge that it is "amateur work" with "no translator identified": is a professional translation actually a requirement, and if so, where is that stated in policy? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, encyclopedias like Wikipedia generally don't host any lyrics. Unless there's some sort of controversy that requires some of the lyrics to be present to understand the situation, I would think all versions of the lyrics should probably be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I can quite see that we wouldn't often need to translate whole lyrics, but there is good reason in an encyclopedia article to provide a sample, to give readers an indication of the character of the song. I'll observe, by the way, that a major reason for not wanting (whole) lyrics is copyright, but since this instance is PD that doesn't apply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTLYRICS, a WP policy, provides some guidance:

An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked from the article. Most song lyrics published after 1928 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of style.

While it doesn't address translations, WP policy clearly allows for a limited inclusion of lyrics and suggestions otherwise are unsupported. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

F Club

Please see the talk page of F Club where a note from the probable original owner of the venue is asking for assistance in page accuracy. This seems an important music page and may benefit from a reading by members here. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

MGG Online Wikidata property discussion

Hi, if you are a Wikidata expert, please feel free to weigh in on this discussion about the MGG Online ID property, which currently points to the item for the 1949 first edition hardbacks, rather than the item for the MGG Online encyclopedia. It seems wrong, and maybe I should just be WP:BOLD but I'm too cautious. — Jon (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for David Lovering

User:Buidhe has nominated David Lovering for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for David Lovering

User:Buidhe has nominated David Lovering for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD notice

Got an AfD here which is ineligible for soft deletion and has gotten no responses. Feedback would be appreciated, please and thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Peter One (musician)

Peter One, a musician from Côte d'Ivoire, has had a career revival in the past year, after 17 years working as a nurse in the US (he was an established musician in his home couontry before then, and his songs are familiar to many West Africans). I've started an article on him, and there are good sources out there, but I just don't have time to work much on adding content -- the only feedback so far for the one-sentence stub is an (apparently automatic) warning that it will be deleted due to lack of sources. I'll keep an eye on the article but would welcome any help. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Clevelander96 I've moved the article to Draft:Peter One (musician) for the time being. Since you say yourself that you don't have the time to work on it now, it's better that it's in draftspace. That gives you plenty of time to work on it whenever you can (and any other editor can jump in as well) and bring it up to article quality. Once it's up to standards then you can submit it and hopefully it'll be good enough to make its way back to article space. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of Guestpectacular as a reliable source

The website itself is being used as a source on Janet Jackson: Together Again, and I believe that it may be WP:UGC, as the site is described as an app that creates playlists based on concerts. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A website like that is 99% guaranteed to be USERG just due to the scope of info which has been added. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Record label discographies

I came across Mau5trap discography while removing an unreliable source. I cannot remember ever seeing a discography for a record label. I looked through the discussion archive but didn't find anything relevant so wondering if this is common or how does the project treat such pages? CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

They exist, though it seems like a lot of editors who have the level of interest in discography that would compel them to make such comprehensive encyclopedia pages often find their energies are better spent on other sites. Mute Records discography is another example; Muse Records has an attempt at a complete discography embedded within it. There are others. Chubbles (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see some after searching but I guess I feel like the discography should go with the artist. Otherwise we could wind up creating an indiscriminate list of all tracks ever released by a label. What's your thought? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think an album discography for a label is fully encyclopedic; that is the bread and butter of what makes a label important. A list of every track ever released is perhaps a bit much - I don't want to go so far as to say indiscriminate, but that level of granularity is perhaps generally better left to e.g. Discogs. Chubbles (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of England, Scotland, etc. vs UK in concert articles

There is currently a discussion at the Project Concert talk page regarding the use of the countries of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) versus the UK in concert articles. Since lists and tables of concerts appear in various music-related articles, interested editors may add comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Music of Italy

Music of Italy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the wording of WP:NBAND #5

I started a discussion over at WP:N Talk. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Concerns_about_NBAND_#5 Graywalls (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

New project idea/looking for editors to join

I am interested in starting WikiProject Singing talent shows. This would encompass all competitions broadcast on television where the focus is singing. This project would help to bring uniformity to all pages that will fall under its care, as well as curate the history of such contests. Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC: Choosing the infobox photo for "Sinéad O'Connor"

In the wake of O'Connor's death, a discussion is underway in the talk page as to the photo that should be used for her article! They are:

Option 1
Option 2

Please vote here!

Holidayruin (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Research?

I've started a discussion about tchaikovsky-research.net as a WP:RS. Please see WP:RSN#Tchaikovsky Research? to contribute to the discussion. RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Is an international K-pop group called a "South Korean group"?

On the page NewJeans, there is dispute about whether a K-pop group with non Korean members can be simply described as a "South Korean" group. In the case of New Jeans, a quintet, there are 3 South Korean and 2 Australian performers, under a South Korean music label. My argument is that it's a K-pop group, rather than a South Korean group. My phrasing was "... K-pop group formed in South Korea". The other view is that all K-pop groups are South Korean groups, because all Wikipedia articles about K-pop groups must be phrased the same. I find such a view is misleading to the reader. My edit is not described as misleading, but it has been repeatedly reverted. Another group with more Japanese and American members than Koreans, but is it simply a "South Korean group". Here, I put this reasonable question to a wider audience. Examples of multinational-membered groups include:

* The_Band
* Fleetwood Mac
* Stereolab

It is not intended to describe NewJeans as being from two countries, but to specify what aspect is South Korean, and to include the useful descriptor K-pop. Regards Travelmite (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

K-pop is a music genre and is considered separately from a group's nationality so I don't think calling them "K-pop girl group" necessarily means you shouldn't include a nationality. As for that, as the article explains, this group is a project formed by a South Korean woman as CEO of a South Korean record label. Most of the members are Korean, and I'm sure the other two are based at least partly in Korea because of their work. I don't see why that wouldn't be considered a South Korean group. Perhaps it reads a bit redundant, but there are non-Korean K-pop groups such as Kaachi to consider there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Kaachi is a good example of the issue and potential for misinformation. Members (bar one) are not British, but Wikipedia implies they are. In contrast, this article with lower standards [2] ensures such matters are clear. Travelmite (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The relevant analog here, I think, is Brazilian jazz; people who aren't from Brazil and who have never been there make music in this style. So it would be perfectly appropriate to write something like "an Algerian K-pop group", or whatever. If the band is multinational, I don't think there should be a parade of nations placed before the genre; the geographic origins can be placed after the definition of the group or in a later sentence in the lede. Chubbles (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

First sentence agree, but there is no suggestion for a "parade of nations". Unlike an evolving genre of music, a group is a collaboration of specific people. Unlike a registered company, groups have no joint national personality. A group can be just friends. To use your example, if someone begins "X is an Algerian K-pop group", then the information communicated to the reader is that the members are Algerian. This is because musical groups hailing from different countries are uncommon. If not all members were Algerian that simple descriptor is incorrect. You'd write "a K-pop group formed in" or "based in Algeria" to avoid misleading the reader. Travelmite (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I said that. So, yeah, agreed. Chubbles (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I searched across Wikipedia guidelines, but have no found anything to answer this question. On the NewJeans page their is a skirting of the underlying issue. I have written a post here seeking specific comments: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music#Multinational_membership_of_music_groups. Please think of an appropriate resolution suggest it there. Travelmite (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Multinational_bands_and_music_groups thanks Travelmite (talk)

Changes to multiple articles

Hello all,

A user with IP 190.172.126.154 has made multiple changes today for which I can't determine if these are relevant / good faith & match the relevant sources for the sections edited (e.g., when reference for a section is a book that I don't have).

Affected articles: Born to Run (Bruce Springsteen song), Hammersmith Odeon London '75, Born to Run, Born to Run (Bruce Springsteen song), Dancing in the Dark (Bruce Springsteen song), Born in the U.S.A.

Thanks and happy editing, Shazback (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor was blocked for a year so I'm guessing you're correct about the bad faith nature of those changes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't have that book, but I found the book from this diff and these pages don't mention personnel at all, the IP editor just copied the ref from the infobox. Page 310 has a small paragraph about the release dates and pages 346–347 give more detailed description of the release dates and promotion. The name "Roy Bittan", for example, is not on any of these pages. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-COVID-19 pandemic concert abuse

Hello, WikiProject Music,

I came across this article and I'm not sure whether it is serious or satirical. I wanted to know what folks here think of it. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't call it satirical. It's been a noted trend the last few weeks; I remember seeing headlines about at least a handful of incidents mentioned in the article, as well as at least a couple commenting on the overall trend. I don't see anything wrong with having an article on it, although I think it could be better organized and I'm not sure the "Post-COVID-19" distinction is entirely necessary given how many incidents are listed in the background section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This article started at Concert abuse in 2023, before I moved it to 2023 concert abuse spate (from Rexha onwards), before recasting the whole article at Viriditas' suggestion. The point I'm trying to get across is that there was some abuse before the pandemic but lots of it after.--Laun chba ller 09:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If I could pipe in as well: recommended sources on the subject include this backgrounder by Timothy McKenry (which briefly mentions, but doesn't cover the post-pandemic angle in depth like other sources in the article), and a large series of articles (The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, etc.) attributing the phenomenon to the end of the lockdowns in the post-pandemic era, with new fans unfamiliar with concert etiquette, as well as the impact of the influencer/social media angle that encourages bad behavior for likes/views. Also, see the talk page, where I've addressed many of the larger issues with more detail and named sources, many of them academic experts. I've asked Launchballer to emphasize the scholarly sources, which they have attempted to do. While there is certainly room for improvement, I think the article is a much better place today than it was a few days ago. Given that this article has caught Liz's attention, I think this is a good thing, as we could use as many critical eyes as we can get. So if you have further criticism, please bring it to the talk page where I can assure you it will be acted upon immediately. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The subject is legitimate, but it definitely should be renamed, e.g., to Concert abuse in the 2020s. The connection between the bad behavior and the downstream social effects of coronavirus is pure speculation and the article should be written in a way that makes it clear that this is a hypothesis and not a proven causal connection. Chubbles (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Chubbles. I think you might have misread the title and misinterpreted the meaning in a way that wasn't intended. The title primarily refers to the new spate of concert abuse and the decline of concert etiquette in a particular era, that is, the post-covid era. Secondarily, it is also true that these so-called "downstream social effects of coronavirus" are due to the re-opening of live music events after the industry was shutdown. I don't see any of this as speculation. What is speculative, and the article only briefly touches upon (there are more unused sources regarding this on the talk page) is the sub-topic that you refer to in your objection to the title, in other words, are the people engaging in these acts of abuse doing this because of the downstream social effects? That's not the meaning of the title. I understand that you see the current title and this sub-topic as ambiguous, but I assure you that it is not. The primary usage here in the title refers only to a historical time frame, not the causes and conditions, which as you say, is speculative, and as the article makes clear, is only one of many different hypotheses for the phenomenon. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the issue may be with the title itself implying that this is directly connected to COVID. I think just a general page called concert abuse would be better. It would remove that implication and allow us to expand on incidents from before the past few months, rather than stuffing at least a century-and-a-half era of popular music into one measly background section. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Just for reference, we have at least three pages now connected to this topic, so if you are thinking of solutions, it might help to keep those in mind. This includes concert etiquette, bottling (concert abuse), and the aforementioned article presently under discussion. I think an ideal solution would somehow merge these three articles together into a coherent whole. However, the bottling article is more of a list at this point, so major changes would need to be made to split that list out. There's also the problem of narrowing or widening the definition of "bottling" (see the list, you'll see what I mean), and deciding whether "bottling" is itself a proper title for concert abuse, and changing that if needed. So I think there's a lot to consider. This is one reason I supported the narrowing of the current subject to a post-covid era time frame, but it didn't occur to me that someone would find it ambiguous. I have no real interest in an outcome, I just hope that whatever title it is moved to (or remains at) is satisfactory for our readers and editors alike. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Viriditas, this article should be about the modern phenomenon (okay, I might have gone a little overboard with the Background section but WP:AUDIENCE says there should at least be one); my suggestion is Concert abuse in the 2020s. (Also note that I am trying to get this to GA, so anything unsourced that goes in from either of the other articles will find itself removed.)--Laun chba ller 11:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the title should not directly reference the "post-COVID era", because that strongly implies a causal connection between something relating to the disease (or its downstream effects) and the behavior. We do not know this is the case; correlation does not imply causation. The article notes that bad behavior at concerts is nothing new, and this might be a case of media refocusing attention than actual increase in incidents. This era can be defined in any number of different ways by historians, and the most neutral way to do it unless and until those historians assess and name the eras is to call this era the 2020s. Chubbles (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The era in question is referred to as the post-covid era in the literature (it refers to the lifting of lockdowns and the resumption of pre-covid activities). The title refers to this historical era. I think that you and I read things altogether differently, as I don't see how a historical era is the same as referring to the impact of a disease. You can search to your heart's content and see that the term "post-covid era" does not mean what you say it means and has entered the popular vernacular. Search Google Scholar and Google Books to see it. I think we are both repeating ourselves at this point, so you can have the last word. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So, yes, the literature (often) does do this, but not with (sufficient) data; it's a plausible but untested hypothesis, and we, as an encyclopedia, should not follow the literature in that presumption. Chubbles (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I can see how one could think it's satirical (prose like "long and inglorious history of naughtiness" is pretty ridiculous) but it's a real thing that seems to even expand beyond music honestly. Definitely could use to rewriting, and the sourcing should be checked to confirm that the concept itself is covered and this isn't some WP:SYNTH concept born out of a editor connecting a bunch of occurrence together, but barring issues there, I don't object. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the prose, but as a reviewer, I try to let the nominator come to that conclusion on their own through guidance, which is why I didn't take a heavier hand and remove it myself. I see that it was finally changed, which is good. I looked for SYNTH and didn't find any, but previously, there were a few instances of misplaced sources that gave the false positive appearance of SYNTH. I fixed at least one instance, there might be more. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't faulting you or anything, just giving a general opinion about the overall situation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 isn't over, so "post COVID-19" anything is utter nonsense, whether stated in sources or not; the behaviour of people after lockdowns and social distancing measures brought in to cerb the spread of COVID-19 is what's really being discussed and both the titles and prose should reflect that. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but covid is endemic. It will never be over. The title doesn’t refer to it being over in any way. It refers to the historical era that came after the lockdowns ended and social distancing dissipated and live concerts resumed. I’m really surprised at how many people are confused by this. I must run in different circles. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Just gonna jump in and cut this off as off-topic, both for this specific discussion and for WP talk pages generally. And besides, as mentioned above, this is likely irrelevant as at least two editors agree the mention of COVID in the title should be removed. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to make a page

With help, i'm requesting the permission to create a page for Five Iron Frenzy's newest album Until This Shakes Apart since its the only album of theirs that we don't have a page for. Is that fine? Someone can come in after and fix it, i just want to add the album. (sorry if i'm asking in the wrong place) Babysharkboss2 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Had a look for sources and nothing turned up. It wasn't the most thorough search possible, but it was enough that I wouldn't personally try to make an article. Feel free to give it your own look though; who knows, maybe you'll find a treasure trove that I somehow missed. I just wouldn't expect it personally. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere "Had a look for sources and nothing turned up" i have no clue what thats supposed to mean. if ur talking about sources that the album is published and exists, its talked about in FIF's page and their discography page. wdym by sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babysharkboss2 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, any articles need to meet the WP:GNG. That's usually done by finding third party sources (publications) writing articles about a subject. So, for example, if I was trying to show that the Foo Fighters album But Here We Are was ready to have its own Wikipedia article, finding sources like https://www.nme.com/reviews/album/foo-fighters-but-here-we-are-review-3448438 would prove that an article was warranted. WP:RSMUSIC has a great list of acceptable publications. It's not exhaustive, but you're generally good to use them if they help. But if you can't find album preview/review type stuff like that, it's likely that an album article would be WP:REDIRECTed, WP:MERGEed, or even deleted, for not being notable. It's not enough for an album to just exist, nor is it enough to link to a band's website, social media, or streaming platform. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 I have links to a buncha reviews of it, and links to the youtube playlist, and links to spotify playlists, and some links to people selling the album online. Would using the reviews be good referances? (once again, idk why it won't let me comment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babysharkboss2 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Reviews are generally good, though they're not if it's just some nobody posting it on their personal blogs or something. Streaming services or retail listings don't really help for anything though. (I've also noticed the "reply" button doesn't work on this talk page. Not sure why.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a technical limitation. I assume it has something to do with the header and the way it creates a table (that never gets closed, so MediaWiki considers it broken) to make this page look fancy. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 13:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've made the draft! It's being reviewed! if its accepted, check it out and edit it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Until_This_Shakes_Apart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babysharkboss2 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As a critique on sources, your draft has three sources, none of which show album notability. Discogs is a user-generated website and should never be used as a reference for an album, not even for track listings. Look for a commercial source first for release dates and track listings, or from the band website, but never Discogs. The Sputnik review is generated by a User, not an Editor, so is not a reliable source. The Jesus Junkyard source, when I click on the About, states that it is written by a single user, Chris Williams, which makes it a blog, not an independent reliable source. If I was reviewing the draft for article submission, I would reject it for inadequate sources. Searching for possible good sources, I found one by CCM Magazine, https://www.ccmmagazine.com/reviews/music/five-iron-frenzy-until-this-shakes-apart/, and one by Christ Pop Culture, https://christandpopculture.com/why-is-grace-now-civil-disobedience-the-prophetic-politics-of-five-iron-frenzys-until-this-shakes-apart/ which would be acceptable reviews. Mburrell (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, yeah, didnt see that. Am currently editing it to give more links with other sites (i've checked, they arent bots or blogs). Thanks a bunch!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babysharkboss2 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Concert's setlist verification?

How exactly does one verify setlists in articles about concerts/tours when it wasn't supported by any inline sources nor does a search bring up any reliable sources suitable for use here? And yet, the setlists is seemingly continuously updated by EC editors to IPs in which neither groups are bothered to provide sources nor do I see anyone policing on such which is rather unusual since we would normally revert unsourced materials. For whatever weird reasons, I would see unsourced materials policing on other areas of the same article like on the Tour date's table, the same doesn't applies to the setlist section as if VERIFY doesn't applies to that section even when added by IPs and newly registered editors (of course AGF) but who would know if the informations added is real or fake other than those that attended the concerts and/or have knowledge from whatever sources (I'm assuming social media since RS is non-existence) that they have obtain such. What is even more absurd is the inclusion of notes that mentions this and that songs wasn't performed on so and so dates/cities which is of course unsourced. I'm speaking on the context of popoular K-pop's artists (I'm not going to provide any examples for neutrality and to avoid any unwanted outside attention) since I only edits on these areas, not sure if this is the "norm" for other popular non-K-pop artists as I got mixbag of results (at least all of the FA and majority of GA are well sourced for that section) when searching around as I also saw unsourced setlists and notes on even GA ones (which is unexpected) with B and below are expected to be incomplete. To me, this falls under NOT and OR and goes against VERIFY, and I believed something should be done. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If it can't be verified by reliable sources, it should be deleted. I don't think you're missing anything, I think its just an under-maintained area. Feel free to go for it! Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Understood, thanks you. Does this happens to require some sort of consensus (local/community) before doing so, or should I reference (wikilink) this discussion in the edit summary? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, you don't need a consensus to enforce WP:V, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an existing consensus that supports ignoring WP:V. My advise would generally be to make sure you do a search to confirm it can't be sourced first, as I've seen people get heat for hastily deleting unsourced content when a source was pretty easily found by someone else, but how you handle that is up to you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Understood, thanks you. Will do extensive search prior to the BOLD removal. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider joining this AfD discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devotchkas. This AfD hasn't had many contributors in the discussion after numerous relistings, if you have time, please have a look. ––– GMH Melbourne 23:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Help please - Notability question

Hi, Project experts.

Stumbled upon the article for Australian Bianca Moon a couple days ago. Did lots of cleanup (very short article, but needed work), including the addition of a long missing (9 years) reference and clarification regarding her nomination for a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Original Song for a Drama Series.

The article has had a Notability (music) hatnote since 2011. The Emmy nomination came in 2013, the proper reference was added yesterday.

A criterion at the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page says: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as (my emphasis) a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."

Does the Emmy nomination provide enough weight to remove the Notability hatnote? If not, should this article be tagged for deletion? (her next biggest notability was a "nomination, to be nominated" for an award in Australia).

Thanks for your guidance. Jmg38 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

An Emmy nomination would meet that criterion I think. — Jon (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The standard of music competition of WP:BAND

Hello. I would like to talk about the major standards of music competition, no. 9 of this section. For example, if it's a really famous competition like Eurovision, of course no one would doubt it, but in the case of less famous competitions, it doesn't say exactly what part of this competition it covers.

This is what I'm talking about in the Decadent (band) deletion debate because I explained EBS Hello Rookie Contest is a major competition, and another user expressed it wasn't. I said about this competition, "It was hosted by national institutions, broadcasted by major broadcasters, and proved its influence and reputation in the South Korea through reliable sources every year in the article," but I think I made this article (EBS Hello Rookie Contest) for the first time and didn't convince another user.

Regarding this, I would like to ask ro you think this competition is a major competition. Of course I definitely think this is a major competition, but it's because other people might think differently. And if not, I'd like to ask about the standards of "major competition". 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but assuming Decadent were a sufficiently notable South Korean band, then their notability also occurs in a regional context too. If the Hello Rookie Contest is a major national competition in South Korea, then surely that satisfies the criterion for "major competition" for a musical group from South Korea. I live in New Zealand, and we have the same discussions with eligibility and notability guidelines for New Zealand subjects. — Jon (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Correcting wrong keys of songs

I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but I am posting it here because this seems to be the place that can draw attention to the largest number of people with absolute pitch.

I recently found that someone has been relying on a certain website to add keys of songs to various articles. But as someone who has absolute pitch, I can tell that the website is not always correct. However, that person (who does not seem to have absolute pitch) is not convinced and is still trusting that website. What should I do to rectify this? 153.242.25.130 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a strong possibility that website is an invalid user-generated source which should be outright removed, as there are unfortunately quite a few of those which regularly pop up on Wikipedia. Otherwise, what you're describing -- being able to tell the website is wrong -- sounds like it would fall under our original research policy and is not allowed. It seems your best bet is to remove that info outright, assuming the source is indeed unreliable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think what key a song in is WP:OR. The vast majority of popular music (in the wider sense of the term) is simple enough harmonically that establishing the key is clear and not a matter of debate to anyone with a basic level of musical ability or skill; this is true both for a song (established in sheet music) and a recording (established by the physical properties of the soundwaves). Falls under WP:SKYISBLUE unless the song is complex enough to necessitate musicological analysis. But I do agree that if the sourcing is USERG, we should junk the citations. Chubbles (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; furthermore, absolute/perfect pitch is not required to determine one way or another what key a piece of music is in.—Jon (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

An example of the edits mentioned by 153.242.25.130 would be helpful. If sources are recordings accessed through the internet, I suspect that people with absolute pitch might actually be at a disadvantage because they sometimes, due to technical circumstances, do not reproduce the song as recorded. Original sheet music is IMO the only permissible primary source. OTOH, songs in popular music, and even some art songs, are sung in any number of keys, so it's not a defining or definite characteristic for most many, or most, songs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

While it could be true that "people with absolute pitch [...] sometimes [...] do not reproduce the song as recorded", it is not as bad as to be unable to determine the correct key of a song.

It looks like this is not about songs that "are sung in any number of keys". If this was about such songs, the OP would not even have posted this.

"Original sheet music is IMO the only permissible primary source." Original sheet music would be most accurate, but someone can argue that even that is not the definite answer for a key either. For example, F major and D minor share the same key signature. Determining whether the key is F or Dm requires "inference"; someone can argue that this is also "original research".

In other words, any kind of key detection (whether it is from listening or from original sheet music) requires inference, which could be original research. So according to the no original research policy on Wikipedia, someone can argue that any key information that is not explicitly stated by songwriters should be removed. 60.246.92.151 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requirements for separate list of songs page

I was wondering what are the requirements for creating a "list of songs recorded by X" article. Can I create one for any notable artist or is there some kind of criteria? Skyshifter ^talk 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Miles Davis chronology (live, etc.)

I recently went through the Miles Davis live albums and added a second live chronology to them by recording date, and I would like some help re: Davis's overall chronology, especially with regards to his 10"s and live albums.

Previously posted elsewhere:

I believe there are issues with the the differentiation between the 10"s, 12"s, live albums, and comps on the Miles Davis discography and on the albums. As Miles has such a large (and important) discography, it probably requires special care. As it stood, in the album page chronology, the only things separated out from the lot are the 8 "Complete" box sets. I separated out the four big live box sets (as done in the discography page itself).

However, rather than mess with the overall chronology by separating out the live recordings, I simply added a second chronology of live albums by recording date. I agree there is an issue with recording date, but I personally find it a convenient way of tracking the ever changing sound he brought from cool through bop to fusion. If we sorted by release date, I feel it would be better to partition the live albums as is typically done in artist discographies, but then the same would have to be done of the Bootleg Series, and compilations, which leaves the big problem of 10"s. His early albums were released on 10" before it lost the format war and all the material was reissued on 12"s. On the discography page and in the album pages, they are considered to be compilations, but they are for all practical purposes the early studio albums of Davis that get reissued (it's very rare for a 10" reissue or even a CD of the 10"s to come out at all).

So, my solution seemed to me to be the least disruptive, without need to solve overall issues.

TlonicChronic (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the Eras Tour be mentioned in the lead of Sabrina Carpenter?

An RfC has been made here regarding whether Carpenter opening Taylor Swift's Eras Tour should be mentioned in the lead of Carpenter's biography article or not. You are invited to participate. ℛonherry☘ 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it and similar Metacritic templates as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Master recordings; anyone up for expanding?

I just wrote a stub about Master recordings. It was previously a redirect from Mastering (audio). It is brief and so much more can be added, particularly by a subject matter/production expert. (I created the article based on the increased use of the term (and misunderstandings of it) on and off Wikipedia.) JSFarman (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Input needed on article

I'd like to seek other editors opinion on Talk:Michael Gira#Allegation dispute RF23 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox: Musical form/practice

I am thinking: there should be an infobox template for musical practices (like akazehe, sacred Harp, hainteny). It would function similarly to the musical genre and UNESCO intangible culture infoboxes. This would be for musical forms that cannot be accurately described as genres. Zanahary (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Concert tour cats for supporting acts

Had a thought just now that since Lizzo was the supporting act for most of Haim's Sister Sister Sister Tour, it might not be entirely inappropriate to include the article in Category:Lizzo concert tours. Do we thing categorization should be reserved to lead acts only, or is anyone else open to this? Obviously we would treat it like Category:Albums by producer where the cat should only be included if they worked on a significant portion, e.g. Lizzo's three dates supporting Florence and the Machine on the High as Hope Tour should not earn the category. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion on Last.fm

There is a discussion on RSN that could use some input some editors with knowledge of the area, see WP:RSN#Sourcing Discography. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Afflicted (American band)

AfD which is ineligible for soft deletion and hasn't gotten much of a response. Could use more eyes, especially anyone with access to relevant magazines that haven't been able to be found through online archives. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion of wallofsoundau.com

There is a discussion on RSN about the reliability of wallofsoundau.com some input would be helpful, see WP:RSN#Wall of Sound website and possible Promotion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Important discussion on overhauling Wikipedia's approach to New Wave, New Romantic, New Pop genres

Hello music Wikipedians, please consider joining this discussion I've started about how Wikipedia gets 'New Wave' music completely wrong (and has effectively written New Pop and the New Romantics out of history). Add your voice to the sound of the crowd! Jinglyjangle (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 in Philippine music

In 2024 in Philippine music, it looks like a directory of every artist and band that's releasing music, concerts, and whatnot and a lot don't have an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and lists need to adhere to WP:LISTCRITERIA. I'm all for removing entries with no articles. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

singersroom.com as a reliable source

I believe this is not a reliable source. Much of the site seems aimed at pointing readers towards commercial lessons ("Best Singing and Voice Lessons Near Me"), using clickbait articles ("15 Best Singers of All Time"). The featured articles are just artist bios with links (see https://singersroom.com/content/2023-02-13/georgia-starnes-releases-i-think-with-my-heart-2-14-2023/).

They also have a "write for us" section where they charge people $100 to do a "guest post". Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doctorhawkes: The fact you noted the "write for us" section and they charge people for a guest spot (their requirements and benefits are is so long that it should turn off writers), the rest of what you said, and they also want people to submit their music rather than seek out music themselves should tell you all you need to know about it. If you check the Reliable Sources archive, you would have seen this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230#Singersroom: question about Source for FAC. It has been brought up with only one response. Go to WP:RSN and start a discussion to try and get it listed as unreliable. Leave a message here when you have created the discussion about said site. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we list singles released in advance of albums?

When listing discographies of musicians/musical groups, what are folks' thoughts on whether or not to include singles that are released shortly before an album containing that song? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You know you're asking if we should do what we already do, right? Why would you wait for an album or EP to be released to add singles? That would be like artists releasing songs to radio after an album is released. Singles are used to hopefully get people interested in an album in hopes they will possibly check it out. Plus, some are non-album singles. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, a list of singles that were released ahead of albums can offer important background and details regarding the album's marketing approach and reception. The singles' notoriety and significance to the album's overall story and reception, however, should determine whether or not they are included.JosephReaves (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course we should, if they're part of the album. Why wouldn't we? Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Goo Goo Dolls Discography - Music Video Section

In the music video section of Goo Goo Dolls discography, it has all this information such as exact date of airing, location(s) the video was filmed, and laundry of list of additional information such as producer, representative, editor, director of photography, commissioner, etc.. Director is fine, but all the rest is WP:FANCRUFT. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's also unsourced, and pretty sparsely filled out. I'd support removal. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, done and done. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)