Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10



The usage of Peculate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Peculate (band) -- (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Casals

There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals in which some users might wish to participate. It concerns the name that should be applied to Casals in articles that link to Pablo Casals. Further information is provided on the talk page. (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Australian Grammy Award winners

Dear music experts: Here's an old draft that was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Soon it's stale and will soon be deleted. Is this a useful list that should be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lou Calabrese/Breese

Hello, I am sort of new to Wiki and I wonder how I ca start a page on the musician and band leader, Lou Calabrese (Breese). He was born in 1900 and after an early career leading bands in the Boston/New York area, he was banjoist/trumpet/assistant conductor for Paul Specht from 1926-1928 (Specht's hottest years IMHO). His career ended in 1969 when he died onstage in Chicago. I have plenty of sound, image and historical information about him, as my wife is his grand daughter and we have almost all of the family's memorabilia, including several scrapbooks of newspaper clippings, photographs. I have been collecting his recorded material, including transcriptions and publicly distributed records. I recently completed a biography that takes us up to the beginning of the depression era, but plan in continuing. If anyone can suggest how I should proceed to get a Wiki page up, please let me know. Mbardenwerper (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
And now considering {{cite music release notes}}. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Demi Lovato proposal

I have proposed a WikiProject to be created for Demi Lovato, would anybody here support it? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Timelines in articles

There is currently a discussion regarding the use of timelines in articles about musical groups going at Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins#Timeline. Weigh in your thoughts, if you care. — MusikAnimal talk 15:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

WikiProject Miley Cyrus proposal

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Miley Cyrus. All comments are welcome and appreciated! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've been working on the Demi Lovato article for a while and am hoping to get this from GA to FA. A peer review I requested can be found here. My goal is to have it be the "Today's featured article" for her 22nd birthday on August 20th. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Tim Lambesis

If there is anyone able and willing to improve this article, it would benefit the project. It's currently a borderline BLP violation as the article is almost entirely about his criminal acts and subsequent trial and conviction. The article has a custodian, but no substantial information about Lamebsis' career has ever been included in the article, which is mind-boggling considering all of his notability rests in it. And said custodian seems to have no interest in the article beyond vandalism patrol. The subject is outside of my realm of knowledge (and interest) and my time quite limited currently. Lara 21:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead picture

Are there any guidelines regarding the lead picture in a musician's article? On Talk:Cher#Lead picture there is an ongoing dispute about whether to use a portrait from the 1970s or a recent tour photo. It would be helpful if someone could provide their opinion. --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. There should be some sort of standardization for these images, if at all possible. My suggestion is that an image be taken from somewhere near the high point of the musician's active career. That would seem to give the most relevent visual information for spotting things like albums, concert posters and photos, etc. -- unlike some of the recent photos of 80-year old musicians who, while still performing, were actually at their public peak 30 or 40 years ago.

Member section

Was there ever a discussion about the member section involving K-pop, J-pop and other pop-related articles?

  • Member section discussion at WikiProject Korea in 2013

Main concern was about the tables (or lists) which included stage and birth name in romanized and hangul with the Date of Birth.

These tables are constantly being edited more than the rest of the article. Usually causing edit wars and fear of turning articles into fan sites. You will find tables where members have their own article and included the same information. Jaewon [Talk] 16:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Musicians At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Mambo Kurt

The article on the German musician Mambo Kurt is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mambo Kurt. There seem to be plenty of sources if someone were willing to put in the time verifying them and updating the article. I'd start with the material cited at the deletion discussion and then from that onto the sources in the de:Mambo Kurt article. It would help if the contributor were reasonably fluent in German, and French would help. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT musicians may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

Requesting input here, please. Snuggums (talkcontributions) 21:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Robert Bonfiglio

Folks, I am posting, with permission, the text of an e-mail we have received at OTRS. May I request that someone take a look at the article with a view to splitting it into two separate articles, one about each musician?

The bio on Robert Bonfiglio has been inadvertently combined to those of two people

Robert M. "Rob" Bonfiglio is the husband of Carnie Wilson. He is a session and touring musician and producer.

I am Robert Bonfiglio and I am a classical harmonica player has performed Harmonica Concerti with the major orchestras of the world in nearly every country on this planet. How do we go about separating these two entries into Robert Bonfiglio, me, and Rob Bonfiglio, the rock musician. I am not married to Carnie Wilson.

harmonically yours,

Robert Bonfiglio

Thanks in advance for the help.--ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ukexpat. What a mess! First I reverted the article to the original subject, the classical harmonica player, before the addition of the material about Carnie Wilson's husband, the "wrong" Robert Bonfiglio. However, even that had to be reverted to the last clean version before the addition of blatant copyvio from See Duplication Detector. The article is now a minimally referenced stub about the "right" Robert Bonfiglio. For more, see Talk:Robert Bonfiglio. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and excellent work! I will let him know that it has been reverted to a previous version about him. I will also ask if he is prepared to release the material on his website under an acceptable license so that the article can be expanded. Job done for now!--ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. That would be a mixed blessing, ukexpat. The material is quite promotional and will require heavy editing. But what the heck. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No harm in asking, and some of it may be useful.--ukexpat (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, ukexpat, I've decided to re-expand the Bonfiglio article, with proper referencing and sans hyperbole. He's actually a fascinating musician, and (to my shame) had never heard of. Ah, the joys of Wikipedia. :). Anyhow, it is no longer a stub. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Five for Fighting

Is Five for Fighting (John Ondrasik) a stage name; or a solo artist performing as a band, like Trent Reznor, who is the only member of Nine Inch Nails? Should a band member template be used or not? (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems Five for Fighting is Ondrasik's stagename and the solo singer background is used correctly in the infobox musical artist because I see no current or former band members. Now, while Reznor is the only "official" band member of Nine Inch Nails, there are other current and former band members, and the 'group or band' background is correctly used there as well. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Womack

Considering his recent death, it probably is a good opportunity to work on the page - it needs quite a lot of referencing. I'll make a start, but would appreciate some help. Even to watch out for possible vandalism. Karst 09:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammy Award templates

Suddenly a raft of less important Grammy Awards templates are being created. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes#Grammy Award templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Babymetal article

I have been in edit wars and huge arguments on Babymetal's talk page, but the main issues are mentioned here: Talk:Babymetal/Archive 1#Fresh discussion. Essentially this discusses:

  1. The infobox genres, although this discussion has gained a conclusion.
  2. The Members section and what information it should include and what information should be removed.
  3. The discography section and what format it should be in.

There are many others but these are the prime discussions at the moment, I have cited guidelines and templates but this editor insists that he is correct, a third opinion of other editor('s) would be appreciated, thank you. SilentDan (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Static has already responded there a number of times. He is an established editor, I would follow his line of thinking in this case and avoid any unfortunate edit war. Karst
Unfortunately despite his comments the user Moscow Connection disagrees, this is why I ask of more editors opinions to see if this will help. SilentDan (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Musician who played bass for Fenix TX

Fenix TX did tour from 2006 to 2013, but it doesn't say who played bass for them at the time. Does anyone know who did? (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Can there be a Radiohead task-force for this? AndrewOne (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


I have nominated John Mayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Planet P Project - stub review

I have added a fair bit to the article Planet P Project. It has a stub rating from this Wikiproject, and I think it can be removed from stub status now, but since I added the bulk of the content, I don't think I should be the one to do it. Anyone wanna have a look? Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Identify Humble Pie band members

Hi, can anyone identify the people in this photograph? (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that is Marriot sitting down and Frampton second from the left? Karst 09:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is Marriott sitting. Someone correct me if I am definitely wrong, but I don't think Frampton is even in that photo. (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree - Frampton is not in the photo. Dcs002 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mention of child sexual abuse cases at the Personal relationships of Michael Jackson article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson#Removal of child sexual abuse cases. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC of general interest to this group.

See Talk:Eagles (band). Thank you in advance for your participation. --Jayron32 23:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Spanish pop charts from the 80s?

Does anybody know of a place to get info about Spanish pop charts in the 80s? Iván (singer) was apparently pretty big in Spain and some Latin American countries, but didnt make it to english press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

a few questions, October 2014

Article: Jessy Lanza (created just a few months ago)
Song in question: Jessy Lanza: 5785021 (Hyperdub 2013)

  1. Is this Nu jazz or Neo soul?
  2. I know little about jazz and soul music, though I'm tempted to put her in one or more of these categories or sub-categories (Category:Soul music, Category:Jazz). If so, which ones?
  3. Also, is this the place to ask this sort of question?

Civic Cat (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Genre path in template

Can we remove the genre path from the musicians template? It's obvious it's not helping any of the articles, only opening them up to cherry picked sources and edit warring. -- (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As I stated at the other place you proposed this, I strongly disagree. It was debated a ways back, and there was no consensus to remove it. While it may certainly be a strong source of grief to maintain/enforce a genre that complies with WP:V, ultimately, it is one of the most defining characteristics of many medium, such as music/TV/Film/video games. Its going to be mentioned somewhere in the article. If it's out of the infobox and into the prose, then all the arguing will just move to there instead. It won't solve anything. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sergecross73. Information such as the genre is valuable to the reader's understanding of the subject. We want that to be front and center with the rest of the facts. It's unique in that it is subject to opinion, which may in turn attract disruption, but we still want users to edit things they're interested in. It can spark discussion and yield a more broad consensus than there was before. The few edit warriors that come with it are just a normal consequence of the wiki — MusikAnimal talk 04:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
given that there is not ever any definitive definition of any genre and any classification of an artist as in or out is purely opinion, placing such content "front and center" seems an invitation to unnecessary bickering. I havent seen one where the info box genre classification provided any meaningful information to the reader whereas they almost always constitute distractions of effort and energy that could be instead be going towards actually meaningful improvement of the article - and no, i have never seen infobox genre "discussions" that came close to "spark discussion and yield a more broad consensus" - they have always merely been the focus of protracted drama mills that never reach any consensus or drive away potential contributors . Leaving the genre identification to the text where multiple opinions can be given appropriate weight would seem the all around better decision. Win for the reader in having more thorough explication, Win for editors in more easily accommodating "unique in that it is subject to opinion" and a Win for less dramahz in fight for the "win" of the prized infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I have argued for the removal of the infobox genre parameter simply because it is a magnet for drive-by edit-warring based on one person's opinion rather than on reliable sources. Since consensus here is historically in favor of keeping the genre parameter (yes, I admit genre is encyclopedic), what we should do is beef up the requirement that genre be sourced. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisit merge for Wednesday (band)

Please see Talk:Wednesday_13#Why_only_one_article.3F. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced bandmember timelines

Can we make a determination about unreferenced bandmember timelines such as here, here and here. I've been trying to remove them based on WP:No original research but I'm getting a lot of pushback. I'd like to find out what the project thinks. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless there's something I'm missing, it seems a little weird to be taking issue with the fact that the timelines in the examples you gave were unreferenced and wanting to remove only the timelines. So like with this edit to Deftones you removed the timeline on the basis of "delete per WP:NOR". However, the timeline was based on the bulleted list just above it, which itself was based on sources presented in the article. In the Deftones example and the three you provided, the entire band members sections are unreferenced, so I guess I'm a bit confused why you're setting your sights specifically on the timelines and not just wanting to delete the entire band members sections. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to repost my previous comment from another talk page... On smaller band articles, a timeline with dates that can be extrapolated from album lineups (as in, using album lineups as references for formulating a band timeline with non-specific to-the-day dates for when members joined) sounds reasonable, as timelines provide a very clear indication of when members were a part of the band, and when they were not. Removing due to the exact date being debatable removes a set of very useful content from the page. If the dates are reasonably supported by album lineups for reference, it should be okay to have the timeline in place even if references do not indicate an exact date, in the case of bands with less third-party information being available. The timelines aren't necessarily made to have to indicate an exact day for a member to start with the band, as they can be month to month, or even year to year in interval length. Instead of removing, use the most reasonable interval that can be supported by available references. It's a valuable graphic for quicker understanding of the band's history after all...What has been said regarding timelines being based on references used in the body of the article is also reasonable. Vortiene (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Personnel discussion for Hi-5 (Australian band)

An RFC is taking place HERE regarding whether succession history and reasons for leaving should be included in the Personnel / Band members section of Hi-5 (Australian band). Would appreciate your feedback. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notification for John Barbirolli

I've nominated a WP:FA quality page related to this WikiProject for "Today's Featured Article" consideration, nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/John Barbirolli. — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The First Edition (band)#Requested move 2014

Page move is proposed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Calvin Eduoard Ward

Could someone who has access to the African American National Biography please verify if Calvin Eduoard Ward is listed in it? There are no other GHits for his full name so this seems fishy to me. Everymorning talk to me 01:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

FAR listing

I have nominated Selena for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


I have put up Darius Rucker for Good Article reassessment. If you're interested in discussing the matter, please look here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Genres for band member articles

Input from other editors on this matter is appreciated. --Lapadite (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unwritten Law members

There are at least 20 musicians who have been in the band Unwritten Law. With the exception of drummer Wade Youman, all the other original members left before the band ever recorded anything. I know that Eric Barth, Craig Winters, Jeff Brehm, Chris Mussey, and Shannon Woods are some of the early members. Does anyone know what instruments they played? If anyone knows the original lineup and what instruments each of the early members played, please add it to the article. (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the terms "clean/unclean vocals" on Wikipedia

I recently went through every Wikipedia article and removed the uses of clean/unclean vocals — there were only about 150 articles. This move was objected by Elizium23 (talk · contribs) who recommended that I achieve consensus first, so here I am.

My objection to the use of the terms clean/unclean vocals is simple: they aren't wide-spread, industry terms, but rather they are used primarily by non-notable metal blogs and kids involved in the heavy metal community. To me, these terms easily fell into the realm of a neologism, which have no place in an encyclopedia or dictionary and various guides/policies here frown upon. According to Words to Watch § Neologisms and New Compounds, "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. (my emphasis added)" As far as I can tell based on some Google searches, the term has been around for at least a decade, but only gets used on non-notable niche blogs. In fact, the majority of GNews searches turn up the metal blog, which is listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as an unreliable source of information.

While Wikipedia Is Not a Dictionary § Neologisms is specifically about articles on neologisms, not use of neologisms in articles, the section does offer further insight into handling neologisms on Wikipedia. According to this section, the terms clean/unclean vocals could never pass for their own articles on Wikipedia. From the section, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." So, if Wikipedia would never consider having an article on these terms because information about these terms cannot be collected through reliable sources, then why on earth should it be acceptable to use them in an article? If tomorrow some blog coins the phrases rocky/watery vocals, should they see widespread use on Wikipedia as well? No. And finally, per WP:JARGON, "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" (my emphasis added). There's a handful of completely appropriate synonyms for clean/unclean vocals that already exist, are already in the dictionary, and are already in use in countless other punk/metal articles — as I said above I only found these terms in just 150 articles out of about 250,000 total band/album articles.

tl;dr – Wikipedia articles should be written for a general audience and should not assume the reader has any degree of familiarity with the topic, and as such, writers should attempt to use as common and as easy to understand language as possible. The terms like clean/unclean vocals are not common (only used in niche circles) and may not be easy to understand for the general reader, and many alternatives do exist, thus neither should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia (barring direct quotes). Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"There's a handful of completely appropriate synonyms for clean/unclean vocals that already exist, are already in the dictionary, and are already in use in countless other punk/metal articles" - which of them would you suggest us to use instead? Unclean vocals currently redirects to Screaming (music), which I don't think is a good replacement because screams are not necessarily "unclean" (I'm not a native speaker of English, I'm assuming screaming, shouting and yelling have similar meanings just like in my native language; if not, do correct me). I'm not a big fan of the terms "clean"/"unclean", but they seem comprehensible for the average reader to me. Victão Lopes Fala! 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
i actually read this thread assuming clean/unclean referred to whether or not the song was ok for radio play. some searching revealed that "unclean vocals" are ostensibly synomous with screaming. (@Victor Lopes: screaming is normally synonymous with yelling, but in the context of music it often basically means screaming melodically in order to sing.) if that's what this thread refers to, i agree—not only is the term an unnecessary neologism, but it is also easily confused with the terms as they are used to describe the apropriateness of lyrics. so, if this thread is referring to using "unclean" to mean screaming or something similar, i'd say it's fine (preferable, even) to remove uses of the term in that context. ~ Boomur [] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is a confusing term. In my limited experience, it appears that the combination of clean and unclean vocals is one of the aspects that defines the melodic metalcore genre, which I presume is why it was introduced. While I was copyediting the A Skylit Drive article I noticed that both on and they are identified as screams. In that context I would not oppose a change, but as this is an aspect that appears to be genre-defining, a distinction has to be made. Karst (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with removing these terms. At best they are jargon, and should be removed so the articles are accessible to a general audience. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a question: how would you guys call what singers do at the beginning of songs like "Misguiding Your Life" by Edguy, "Reach Out for the Light" and "Chalice of Agony" by Avantasia, or at the end of "Eagle Fly Free" by Helloween? I would say they're "screaming", but definitely not in an unclean way. Victão Lopes Fala! 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just listened to "Misguiding Your Life" and "Reach Out for the Light". I would definitely call that "screaming" in casual conversation, but we're writing an encyclopedia. What they're technically doing is falsetto singing, but I think we can safely use Fezmar9's approach. Anyone who makes vocal noises on an album can be credited as "vocals" and we can describe it as "singing" or "vocalizing" in the writing if we need to. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This might be a better example from the melodic metalcore genre; where the lead-vocalist is prominent and the grunts and growls that come with it, apparently constitute that crossover. You can detect it mostly in chorus. I'm not sure if screaming is sufficient in describing what they are doing. It is quite obvious that these are heavily processed vocals, more akin to death metal grunts? Karst (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. I'm all for removing obscure jargon or obscure terminology, but there's a pretty basic wiki-link that solves this, and its all around a pretty basic concept. (unclean=screamed vocals) I didn't know what it meant at one point in time...but I figured it out pretty easily. I have no problem with the use of "screamed vocals" instead, as I do think its a little more clear, but not to the point where we need to banish clean/unclean. I can see it being preferable in some cases, as designating the difference or change in "clean/unclean vocals" may actually be more clear than "screamed/whatever the counter point to it would be" (sung?) Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That is probably something that needs to be discussed on the metalcore Talk page, to avoid reverts/edit-warring etc. on this issue. Karst (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, feel free to put an alert of this discussion at that talk page if you like. I have no idea if that's an active problem there, I'm merely commenting here upon the request to do so at WP:ALBUMS, the area where I spend majority of my music-related editing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"Grunts and growls", I was trying to remember these words. They would be fine replacements for me. I'm just not so sure yet that "clean"/"unclean" constitutes a neologism and leaves the reader clueless as to what we're talking about. I mean, we can always wikilink it like Sergecross73 pointed. Now, I invite you to take a look at this: while Unclean vocals redirects to Screaming (music), Death growl lists "unclean vocals" as a synonym. Victão Lopes Fala! 16:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Fezmar9 on this; the clean/unclean combination is only used by a relatively small group. By far the majority of English speakers will not understand. I think we must say "screaming vocals" or "growling vocals" or even "non-singing vocals" when referring to this sort of vocal work. When regular melodic singing is presented in contrast to screaming, we can say "singing vocals". Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, this is generating more discussion than I was anticipating! I purposefully chose not to define or provide any synonyms for these terms to illustrate that a general audience might not understand them, so thanks for helping to prove my point Boomur. In most general cases like personnel sections or listing band members and roles in the lead, I think just saying "vocals" is perfectly fine for all articles and no distinction should be made there. The mixed use of multiple vocal stylings in metal/punk/underground music has been around since maybe the mid-90s, and all this time simply labeling the singer(s) (regardless of their style) a "vocalist" has been perfectly fine. I think the most famous example would be Linkin Park, which features the singer/screamer Chester Bennington and rapper/singer Mike Shinoda. The article for their debut album Hybrid Theory labels both as vocalists in the personnel section as vocalists, but in the body of the article it elaborates on their specific styles and uses familiar terms like rapping/screaming/singing to do so. But on articles like anything related to Hollywood Undead, which is a band that also features rapping/singing/screaming, the writers of those articles feel the need to not only use these neologism terms, but explain all the different types of vocal stylings with something like "unclean vocals, rap vocals, occasional clean vocals" just for one member in the personnel section, which I think is complete overkill. Outside of a general reference like a personnel section where you might want to elaborate on what style of vocals and where some might be tempted to use "clean/unclean," there are plenty of synonymous terms that already exist. For "clean" you can just use sing or maybe "softer vocals", or since the reader might assume that a vocalist will sing, it might not even be necessary to make a distinction depending on the context. For "unclean," Wikipedia already recognizes screaming and death growls as those already have articles. When punk music with different vocal styles became popular, the phrases "loud/soft dynamics" or "sing/scream dynamics" were popular disambiguators, and I see "aggressive vocals" and "harsh vocals" used a lot in reviews for casual descriptions. So like I said, there are plenty of alternatives that are commonly used and will make sense to most readers, so it's completely unnecessary to these uncommon and potentially confusing terms. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Fezmar9 that "clean" and "unclean" (especially the latter term) are little-known outside of heavy metal and hardcore audiences. However, while terms such as grunts, screams, or growls all work for describing the vocal styles encompassed in the term "unclean," and actually provide better nuance then the term "unclean" (there's a difference between hardcore shouts, death growls, and black metal shrieks, for example), what term should we use to describe "normal" or "clean" singing? Just "singing"? I've actually encountered the term "clean" a lot more than "unclean," and I think it's for this reason.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
"Harsh vocals", that's another term I forgot and I find it even better than growl or grunt. If we say one guy does harsh vocals, I suppose we can assume one will understand that the other guy who is listed as "vocals" is singing in a "clean" way. I still don't think unclean is a case of neologism to be avoided, but if the participants of this discussion come to a consensus that it needs to be replaced, I won't object. Harsh vocals seem like the best option so far. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I forgot about that term. That could work. There are times though that the "clean" vocals are the emphasis. For instance, in the band Exttol, Ole Børud is the "clean" singer. So how do we explain that on his Wikipedia article? Right now, due to this discussion, I just re-wrote the sentence about how critics praised his "clean" singing, and it now says that critics praised his singing, which contrasts with Peter Espevoll's screams and growls.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the many reasons I objected and reverted all of this was because it removed useful information from articles. I think it is clear that it is useful to make a distinction among several different types of vocal styles. All we need to settle is the terminology to be used in the articles. We already have "Screaming (music)" and "Death growl" as a basis. Perhaps I could propose that these terms be adopted as they are stable names for the articles in question. Now for a broader rationale. The whole point of Wikipedia is to link together informative terms using standard WWW hyperlinks. If we present an unfamiliar term, we make it a wikilink so that the reader may better understand it. It makes no sense to remove descriptive terms as well as their associated, wikilinked articles and say that makes a better encyclopedia. If I am writing an article that contains the term "saxophone", it is wikilinked in the hope that someone unfamiliar with the term, say a child in grade school, can click it and find out what that means. It would make no sense to remove it and replace it with a bare word such as "brass horn". Still less does it make sense to cite a guideline such as WP:WTW and policy such as WP:NAD as the rationale for so doing. It just didn't make any sense to me. I hope that for a way forward, we can settle on some terminology and retain the useful distinction among extended vocal techniques. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
i agree that normally, a wikilink would suffice and serve to advance Wikipedia's aim to create a network of information. however, i think in this case i agree with Fezmar (and, uh, myself, i guess) that "clean" and "unclean" are too ambiguous. if i am reading the page assuming those words mean something wholly different—which i expect a large portion of readers will—i won't click the link or even hover over the piped term to see what it is, i'll just assume it's the music-related definition i know already. on the other hand, while screaming also has a definition most readers already know, this may not apply to a musical context, so there is more motivation to read further by clicking through the link. so, yes, it is fine to use a word the audience may not know and link to it—but only if you can safely assume that most of the audience will click that link. ~ Boomur [] 08:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that something we need to keep in mind is that "unclean vocals" is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of different techniques (e.g. hardcore shouts, death growls or black metal shrieks) while "clean vocals" is used to distinguish standard singing from these techniques when both of these are used by a band. They are most often used in metalcore articles because melodic metalcore is in part defined by the variety of vocal techniques used in it, including different "unclean" techniques which are contrasted with "clean" singing, often done by a different vocalist. I think that in this area the distinction between "cleans" and "uncleans" is very important, and don't think there are many other terms we could use that would express this distinction adequately. The only solid alternative I can think of would be "harsh vocals" versus "sung vocals", but I don't think these are any less confusing.--MASHAUNIX 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to note that in my opinion, the average reader will need to get familiar not only with the terms used, but also with the very fact that there are two different kinds of vocals that metalcore (and other) bands use. The terminology used should make it easy for the reader to learn this quickly and effortlessly.--MASHAUNIX 01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Hewitt & Polaroid Kiss

There is a dispute over whether Steve Hewitt was ever a member of Polaroid Kiss. Along with edit warring, potential outing and allegations of sock puppetry! I would appreciate any comments or help, like reliable sources, etc at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Repeated vandalism on Biography of Living Person (Polaroid Kiss Music Band). Regards, 220 of Borg 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How to reference vocal range for a singer

I have seen an issue first at Steve Green (singer) and then David Phelps (musician) where an anon has decided to indicate the range for the subject based on personal interpretation of high and low notes in songs. My concerns here is not that editor isn't hearing those notes correctly, it's how that falls in-line with either WP:V or WP:RS. The songs are listed, but not the moments in the songs and so we would have to have access to the entire song to verify. Also, there's no guarantee that either the subject is actually singing those notes or that they are not somehow enhanced in some way. It would be helpful to get some assistance either at the talk page of the first article or here and ping me in the response as I don't watch this project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Original member of Molly Hatchet

Keyboardist Melvin Powell was a founding member of Molly Hatchet. Is he related to Billy Powell? (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bull of Heaven

There is currently an ongoing discussion on the genres of Bull of Heaven article. Input from other editors is appreciated. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the band Die Irrlichter met English Wikipedia's notability?

Hi guys! As the title, band Die Irrlichter met the notability or not? --CAS222222221 06:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, my limited German skills won't allow me to fully understand the German article. But basically, you can check it yourself, just take a look at WP:NBAND and see if the band meets at least one of the criteria. Basically, having been covered in a good number of independent sources is enough (could be even limited to German sources only, as long as they are of national scale and not just blogs, fansites or local news). A quick Google search returned no valid sources for me, but of course this doesn't mean necessarily that the article doesn't pass our criteria. Victão Lopes Fala! 06:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The German article lacks any references, which is a bit of a red flag. Neither is there any indication that the band has had any international profile, more of a local one around the Cologne area. Also, the article basically centres around the revolving personnel and there is no indication of notability. I would work on references and establishing notability before moving it to English Wikipedia. Karst (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Band members section discussion at MoS

There is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Band articles regarding the use of ==headers== vs. a semicolon, the use of bullets vs. an indent, and the use of the word "members" in the member sections. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Trevor Menear

Article is poorly sourced which makes me wonder if Menear satisfies WP:MUSICBIO or if the claim of notability is partially based upon his father (Kevin Matthews (radio personality)). A Google search gets lots of hits but many of them appear to be to user-generated sites or trivial per "WP:MUSICBIO#1". In fact, lots of the bio info I've found online actually seems to be mirroring what is written on Wikipedia such as this MTV bio. What I have been able to find are interviews like this and this as well as some reviews like this bio/review, this review of his second album and this review of his debut album. I'm not really sure of any of that is good enough to establish notability so the opinions of editors more familiar with the ins and outs of "WP:MUSICBIO" would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems not notable to me, WP:AFD it. Karst (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Naming of secondary articles, such as discographies

Hello. I'm looking for any kind of naming policies or guidelines, or any similar situations to what I've run across, regarding a musician whose new discography article is under a different name than than his biographical article. His biography is under his real name (Kim Junsu), which is well-known and which he's used in the past and which he uses currently for his work in musicals (which often spawn CDs and DVDs), and uses as a member of a singing group (JYJ). His discography is under the stage name (Xia) he uses nowadays for his solo pop music releases. He also had a previous stage name (Xiah or Xiah Junsu) he used for solo releases when he was in another group in the past (TVXQ). His discography includes solo work from the time when he was in his previous group, work released under his real name (past and present), and work released under his current solo name. I really want to see other cases like this to see how they were handled. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! Shinyang-i (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Trevor Menear for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trevor Menear is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Menear until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gary Numan

I was going through Gary Numan's albums to figure out his primary instrument(s), (there's a long list in his infobox) and to my surprise I find this and this (I stopped there) I doubt he plays all these instruments on an album but, I do not know this artist well enough so I thought I'd leave a note here in hopes someone more acquainted could fix this or :P tell me it's correct. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Numan is quite a prolific musician and did record a lot by himself using any number of synths. In the 1990s he switched to guitars and a more industrial soinds. The list of instruments reflects this. Karst (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, Thank you. I'd be curious if the album covers list those instrument also. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What ridiculous lists. These should really be trimmed down to something like "synthesizers" and a few others. Handclaps, really? --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Consensus on band timeline colour schemes

Insufficient participation to establish a reliable consensus beyond a single page.

A new RFC to standardize timelines may be started and advertized on the Talk pages of many of the affected articles. I recommend such an RFC include the most common scheme as well as a scheme which endeavors to produce good colorblind results. See tool. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Should we use the colour scheme with dark blue at the top, or the colour scheme with red at the top? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


I've been meaning to start a discussion on this for a long time now. Ultimately, I don't really care what the color scheme is, but the community needs to reach a consensus on: (A) a color scheme we can all agree on, (B) an alternative way to read the timelines so that blind/colorblind readers can still use them per WP:COLOR, (C) when a timeline is even needed (too few member changes and it doesn't seem to add much, too many and it's too difficult to comfortably navigate) (D) what albums should be included (some stick to studio albums, others have a vertical line for every single release) and (E) how many layers (if any) should be added (some band members will have multiple stacked lines for different roles). Fezmar9 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's stick with the colour schemes, though, as it is still a big issue nevertheless. Here is an example of a timeline and two ways that it can be represented (I chose the Avenged Sevenfold timeline for this instance):

Dark blue scheme

Red scheme

This is a typical example of how the timelines could be represented. I believe that the dark blue scheme should be project-wide scheme used because the colours are a lot more aesthetically pleasing/relatable (uses more of the rainbow would be another way of thinking about it), it incorporates yellow-orange as it brightest colour, which is not as bright as yellow and therefore not too bright for those with impaired vision, and there is no real similarity between the colours. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. A significant minority of male viewers will have at least a small degree of colorblindness. Here's this exact discussion page rendered to simulate colorblindness. In the dark blue scheme, Synyster Gates and the drummers seem to have the same color under Protan and Deutan color blindness, while the red scheme under Tritan colorblindness appears to have the same color for Zacky Vengeance and the bassists. So both of these schemes are flawed under one or another form of colorblindness. Varying the luminosity of the colors is a design factor that can help make it accessible. See The rule of thumb is to avoid textbook-perfect color complements such as red/green and blue/orange. Shifting the values one way or another helps make them distinct. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have seen orange substitute for purple in terms of the drums, and also in few instances bright green in place of green or teal. I will try this scheme and see how it accommodates colorblindness. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate red scheme

  • So, for this new scheme, some of the colors in the Tritan colorblindness might be too similar, but might work for the other 2. 'Teal' could also be substituted for regular green and bright green can be kept, if that works better. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't really seem to be getting anywhere, so is it all right if we start thinking about the majority rather than the minority? It's not that I don't care about the colourblindness issue (in fact I have a couple of friends who are colourblind, so it's definitely something that I can relate to), it's just that I think it would be a little easier to reach some sort of conclusion if we think about the wider community over the "significant minority". I went to school and conducted an unbiased survey of my form class of 34 other students (I simply asked, "Which scheme do you like better?"), and the results were 28–6 in favour of the dark blue scheme. I feel as though that could be an indicator that majority of younger viewers (and Wikipedia is used a lot at schools) would favour the appearance of the dark blue scheme over the red scheme, for the reasons that I've tried to outline above. Alternatively, if we can't agree on any of these colour schemes, then we can use the list of colours to create a completely new scheme from scratch – one that we can all agree on, looks nice and could potentially solve the colourblindness issue. Would anyone be opposed to this idea? (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 10:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Ok, so I have a lot to say on this, but I have stuff to do, so I'm gonna keep it short. This was brought up on wikiproject rock music with no consensus, but leaning toward the red/green/blue/orange. Three reasons I insist that it stays that way. 1) A very kind wikipedia user once converted almost the entire site to that color scheme. It is very easy to read, and so many people are used to seeing it that way. 2) I very much like the different shades of green for guitar stuff, because it is unambiguous at first glance what you're looking at. You know that all that green stuff is guitar. The legend says whether it's lead or rhythm or acoustic or whatever, but it is absolutely clear just from looking at the picture. 3) The colors in the original scheme red/green/blue/orange stack significantly better when that need happen. The colors are just the right amount of contrast. It is my opinion - which I don't want opinions to control this argument - that there is too much contrast when you stack these very bold colors from the darkblue/green/yellow/purple/red on top of each other. Overall, I have much more to say, but in short, I think that the site should be uniformed to the way that it was a couple months ago before the new scheme ever popped up — DLManiac (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In reply to part of your comment, let me add that we're trying to approach this discussion as though there was no red scheme to begin with. I didn't start this discussion to ask, "Do we change to this one, or keep the old one?" We're treating this as though timelines never previously existed – all we're doing is choosing between two schemes (or possibly creating a new one from scratch). Therefore, "what people are used to" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • OK well half of my argument is still valid under those circumstances. And to put it bluntly, there is no doubt in my mind that the new scheme is 100% LESS aesthetically pleasing. Simple as that the overuse of purple, yellow and darkblue are really all it takes to make that much of a difference. And I am positive that the majority of people will agree with that. Remember that's how this whole thing started anyway. DLManiac (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate you coming here to talk – you're the only other person who's really put in an argument at all – that is just your opinion, and that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will agree with it (or that you are correct). And remember what you said about "not wanting opinions to control this argument". We're basically trying to restart this whole thing (as though it never existed), with the objective of reaching a consensus, and I'm just waiting for other people to see this and have their say. However, if we as a group can't agree on any of these colour schemes, would you be open to my other idea? (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, and just because I am the only one here doesn't say anything about other people's thoughts. I am confused though if you don't want this to be about opinions, then what exactly are you asking? I thought this was about opinions on the colors anyway? And what do you mean by other idea? Choosing one from scratch? — DLManiac (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is, to say things such "there is no doubt in my mind that the new scheme is 100% LESS aesthetically pleasing" is opinionative, not an argument for something. And yes, I mean choose one from scratch, using this. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That certainly is my opinion, and I stand by that I think it is less aesthetically pleasing. I would be open to devising a new color scheme if it weren't completely unnecessary because it had already been done before. There is absolutely no reason to go through all that work. What do you have against the current one? – DLManiac (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And yes, I realize you want to pretend like nothing existed before, and that's fine. But something DID exist before. If we were to pick new colors then I would be coming for something almost identical to what's already there. So why don't we make our lives easier by sticking with it? Besides that, I really want to know what you have against it so much? DLManiac (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, the color selection should not come from the list you provided, but rather, as it is the list of acceptable colors defined as english words that can be used in timelines. It would be even MORE work were we to need to type RGB values on every timeline. — DLManiac (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DLManiac that having two shades of green for guitar work is a good idea, as it helps group all guitars together. In that sense, the Red scheme is better. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Glad to know I'm not alone with this. I also agree with the red scheme. Do you guys prefer the original (teal/green and purple for drums) or the alternate red scheme I displayed (brightgreen/teal and orange for drums). I would be fine with either option. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are two previous discussions about this from the last year or so:

I thought that in both of those discussions, the color scheme that was the most favored, and that's already used in many articles, was:

  • vocals – red
  • guitar – green
  • keyboards – purple
  • bass – blue
  • drums – orange

See for example Nazareth, the Rolling Stones and Def Leppard. So I would tend to favor that color scheme. But if somehow we could actually reach a consensus on a different color scheme, I'd probably support it, just to have a standard. Mudwater (Talk) 00:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support - I am in full support of this color scheme. I occasionally see the 'drums' and 'keyboards' colors swapped (drums are purple, keyboards are orange), but I have no problem with this proposition. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I ultimately don't really care what the color scheme ends up being, so long as every one agrees and Wikipedia uses them consistently. However, I feel there are several other issues that must be addressed. Per WP:COLOR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." I don't really know the first thing about editing the timelines' code, but is there a way to group roles together and put the legend to the left of table? I made up the following crude table to illustrate what I'm talking about. This way, it really doesn't matter (as far as colorblindness issues are concerned) what colors everyone ends up picking, the information about what roles each member plays is still conveyed through grouping. So, is something like this possible for timelines? Again, it's very crude and I'm in no way advocating the following table be used instead, it's merely an illustration of what I'm suggesting.

Role Name Years Active
Vocals Band Member A X X X X
Band Member B X X X X X X
Guitars Band Member C X X
Band Member D X X
Band Member E X X X X X X
Bass Band Member F X X X X X X X X X X
Drums Band Member G X
Band Member H X
Band Member I X
Band Member J X X X X X X X
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fezmar9 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple things about the table: The words and more explanatory bits are already written in the article (Usually in a list right above the timeline) So we definitely aren't only using color. The timeline is more of a convenient visualization. The timelines are also generally grouped vertically by instrument anyway, so we kind of keep that taken care of. And lastly, this table would be a little too obnoxious for a band like the Rolling stones or something though. Thank you very much for joining the conversation! — DLManiac (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I currently count 4 in favor of the Red/Green/Blue/Orange/Purple scheme, 1 in favor of Darkblue/green/yellow/purple/red scheme, and 1 indifferent

Would that be correct? If so, that gives us a reasonable estimate of 6:1:1 in favor of the red scheme, and conservatively 4:1:1 in favor of red.
If that is the case, what is the next step? — DLManiac (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry – must have accidentally unwatched this page. In regards to your earlier comment, it's not necessarily that I have anything against the red scheme (or that I'm trying to discourage it), it's just that I prefer the colours that I implemented in the dark blue scheme, for reasons I mentioned at the start of the discussion. And Ploticus was indeed the place where I got half of the colours for the dark blue scheme from. But seeing as you guys are in favour of the red scheme, unless other people come along supporting the dark blue scheme (or my other idea, just to try something different), is there really anything else that you want me to comment on? (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 05:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this has kind of died off, but asBinksternet has suggested, I think we should get some sort of official consensus on this. And maybe that requires some more discussion. Is there a way to get an official style guide for this? — DLManiac (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked at WP:ANI just now for uninvolved closure. Binksternet (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I just spent some time reading over all of this, and some valid points are made, but IMO there is nowhere near the appropriate participation for anyone to close this as anything as "no consensus". Should I take that as a sign that relatively few people care about it, or that they can't be bothered to read through and digest the arguments? --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The bigger question is why use these at all. Most of them are unsourced messes, attracting edit-wars and distract from the article in question. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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


I believe Eminem's importance level should be increased to top importance from high importance.Abhinav0908 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor

At the article Meghan Trainor along with other articles related to the singer, a few editors insist on classifying her as a singer-songwriter rather than singer and songwriter (or singer, songwriter). A quick look at what a singer-songwriter actually is (see the Wikipedia article which is spot on ) proves that the definition does not apply. The nomenclature "describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition" as well as "musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers...Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano". None of this describes Trainor, a pop singer who co-writes her songs, performing them with full band backup. The same edit warriors keep returning to revert back to singer-songwriter. I feel as if I'm beating my head against a wall here. Any help and/or sensible discussion at the article talk pages of these articles (including this [1]) would be appreciated. -- WV 15:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I glanced at a couple and it doesn't look like anyone has even opened a discussion. I see a discussion between two editors here but that's hardly anything you could call consensus. At any rate, personal opinions on whether she's a singer-songwriter have no bearing on the discussion. All that matters is what is stated in the preponderance of sources used in the article. We report what the sources say, not our own interpretations of whether she meets the definition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing references up, Laser_brain - I forgot to add this to my original post here. No references attached to the nomenclature, and no reliable sources name her as such. Online, one can find singer/songwriter - but that is not the same (you will also find singer/songwriter/producer). Singer, songwriter and singer, songwriter, producer is found as well. No reliable sources to support the actual label/artistry genre singer-songwriter. As far as discussion, this issue was discussed back in January - as far as I recall, no consensus was reached, however, there were a number of editors who strongly objected to singer-songwriter in relation to Trainor based on the definition and lack of reliable sources supporting such. One more note: the article has been nominated for GA. Interestingly, the nominator claims here [2] the singer songwriter issue was resolved "last year". This is untrue. My fear is the article will pass GA (along with Title (EP)) with the singer-songwriter label remaining. -- WV 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The above user is speaking a big bald-faced lie. How the fuck can you say that there are no sources when [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and [8] are all reliable sources already in the article? The above user's only problem is that I am actually improving these articles and their disruptive little streak-of-edits will be ruined if these reliably-sourced consensus-following pages are promoted to GA. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
To both of you, it's better to contain the discussion to one place (Talk:Meghan Trainor). Posting here to request advice on solving the conflict and to invite further participation is fine, but please don't let the argument spill into different venues. If you were trying to attract neutral comments, you might have the opposite effect. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This was discussed a few months ago and consenus was clear that we can call her a singer-songwriter because many sources do. Nothing has changed since then. Just because you don't like her music (or the fans of her music) doesn't mean we can't call her a singer-songwriter. Calidum T|C 1:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Consensus can change. Even so, there was no clear consensus. The facts are that she isn't a singer-songwriter by definition and unbiased, reliable sources don't support her as a singer-songwriter. Further, don't adding bogus emotional reasoning and conclusions to my comments. I've never said, nor have I indicated, how I feel about Trainor's music. Using that as an argument is just distraction and completely unnecessary. -- WV 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Consenus can change, but not if you can't come up with a better argument than what you've provided. In the January discussion linked above, where conensus was reached (consenus doesn't mean everyone agrees), references were provided to the NY Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic and Spin magazine, among others, who refer to her as a singer-songwriter. If you don't think those aren't reliable, I don't think you know what that word means. Calidum T|C 22:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If a reliable source refers to something scientific or medical or artistic some other specialized field of interest by incorrect nomenclature, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? For example: If a reliable source refers to someone as having melanoma when they really have carcinoma, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to a paleontological period as Cenozoic when it was really Jurassic, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to an artistic period as Renaissance when it is really Neoclassicism, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to the musical artistic classification in relation to a musical artist as a singer-songwriter when they are really a singer and a songwriter, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source?

The answer for all of these is: no. We use encyclopedic editorial reasoning along with common sense because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain facts, not incorrect content that is backed up by shoddy journalism. There is plenty of evidence via other reliable sources that Meghan Trainor is a singer and a songwriter. Those sources are correct. The sources that say she is a singer-songwriter are wrong. Bottom line. -- WV 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR Calidum T|C 01:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WV, that goes against WP's core content policies. Lapadite (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it is in line with WP:COMMON SENSE, WP:EDITDISC, and WP:IAR. While not policy, each of those essays are applicable in this situation, Lapadite77. Because humans are fallible, policy isn't always applicable. -- WV 14:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Please ignore the forum shopping user above. A clear consensus against their cause has now developed at Talk:Meghan Trainor. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 14:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of RFC

Hi, I would like to notify the wikiproject that there's currently an RFC underway at Talk:Meghan Trainor#RFC: Describing Trainor as to how to describe the talents of Meghan Trainor. Your participation is welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic issues involving Bad News Brown

You Wikifolks may be interested in a requested move discussion regarding the primary topic for Bad News Brown. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, July 27, 2013 (UTC)


I'm sure a lot of editors had a lot of fun creating templates, and no doubt the artists had great fun during the ceremony. But really, this listing of awards, won and nominated for, is getting totally out of hand. I just ran into Davido#Awards_and_nominations, which takes up more than half the article. It's ridiculous. I thought we weren't doing resumes here. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree these are ridiculous. Where to draw the line, though? --Laser brain (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Making a list article is possible. Is the list notable? If it unnecessarily bloats the article and is large enough for a separate article, definitely is an option. For example, since Buckethead has 100+ albums, his discography is separated from his actual article. Vortiene (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
That's probably the most workable solution. We can put a few highly notable awards (like Grammys) on the main page, and then link to the list. --Laser brain (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, the case of Buckethead is interesting since that discography consists of non-notable items and one wonders, if every one of his albums is to be listed, then really every single poem by every minor poet should be listed too. Or every single article written by a journalist, or scientist. Or every speech given by every politician. Mind you, many of those albums actually have albums.

    But Laser brain, my point is really that we should consider whether these awards and nominations have real value in the first place. Some, yes. Others, not so much. Many, not at all. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Seems to be getting a bit vitriolic for no reason so I'm going to stay out of this discussion. Vortiene (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I would advocate for a very limited list. I just don't know where to draw the line. Take a look at Mumford & Sons as a good case study. All the awards in that section are notable in their own right—they have their own articles—but we still have a giant table. At the very least we should take out nominations, but I don't know where to go from there. I challenge you to take some of those out and see how long it takes for a stream of editors to put them back in. --Laser brain (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Cleanup listing is essentially untouched for some years. Is it still needed? --Dweller (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: Needed, yes. Used, probably not. --Laser brain (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Because it's so out of date, I can't imagine why it could be useful, so I agree with you on that. If it's not useful, why's it needed? --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I falsely assumed that a bot was updating it, but I see now it's from 2010. I'd say nuke it. --Laser brain (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll list it at MfD. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Artist/Band Timelines with Rolling Timeline End Dates

It seems the most commonly utilized timeline templates within band articles require a specific end date set for the timeline. This is perfect for bands that have completed their career, say the band split up in 2002. However, for active bands, this needs to be updated on various occasions to maintain the appearance of the timeline.

What I'm proposing here is that instead of inserting a random future date into the timeline, we utilize wikipedia functionality to place the current date for active bands. I'd like to have a consensus of whether we should have a rolling end date for active artists/band timeline templates, or keep the current method of iteratively extending timelines for active bands by setting the end date to a date in the future not too far off. Instead of putting future dates, we can put the current date, since technically, the band is active until the current date, (we don't know if they will be active in the future for sure).


How is this done? We can utilize the following code to place a rolling-end date in timelines, as such:

{{#time: d/m/Y }}

which results in


alternatively, the following

{{#time: m/d/Y }}

can be used as well depending on the date format in the timeline.

In the case of a timeline, for example, the timeline of the band Lost Horizon we have:

Markup Renders as
ImageSize = width:700 height:auto barincrement:20
PlotArea = left:90 bottom:60 top:0 right:15
Alignbars = justify
DateFormat = mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:12/25/1990 till:{{#time: m/d/Y }}
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal format:yyyy
Legend = orientation:horizontal position:bottom
ScaleMajor = increment:2 start:1991
ScaleMinor = increment:2 start:1992

Colors =
 id:Vocals    value:red    legend:Vocals
 id:Guitars   value:green  legend:Guitars
 id:Bass      value:blue   legend:Bass
 id:Keys      value:purple legend:Synthesisers
 id:Drums     value:orange legend:Drums
 id:Lines1    value:black  legend:Studio_Releases

LineData =
 at:05/08/2001 color:Lines1 layer:back
 at:06/24/2003 color:Lines1 layer:back

BarData =
 bar:Cans text:"Joacim Cans"
 bar:Heiman text:"Daniel Heiman"

 bar:Lisicki text:"Wojtek Lisicki"
 bar:Olsson  text:"Fredrik Olsson"

 bar:Furangen text:"Martin Furängen"

 bar:Publik text:"Attila Publik"

 bar:Nyquist text:"Christian Nyquist"

 width:10 textcolor:black align:left anchor:from shift:(10,-4)
 bar:Cans from:12/25/1990 till:10/13/1999 color:Vocals
 bar:Heiman from:10/14/1999 till:05/14/2005 color:Vocals

 bar:Lisicki from:12/25/1990 till:09/25/2003 color:Guitars
 bar:Olsson from:07/02/2002 till:05/14/2005 color:Guitars
 bar:Lisicki from:07/25/2004 till:end color:Guitars

 bar:Furangen from:12/25/1990 till:end color:Bass

 bar:Publik from:07/02/2002 till:end color:Keys

 bar:Nyquist from:12/25/1990 till:end color:Drums


as you can see the current date is the end date of the timeline. Notice however that {{#tag:timeline|Insert timeline body here}} rather than <timeline>Insert timeline body here</timeline> must be used to declare the timeline, however, for this to work properly.

This is a minor modification, however it removes a consistent maintenance step for articles that isn't really needed, and isn't necessarily simple to rectify through the template itself without making a template specifically for active bands. (It is a timeline template after all, not a band timeline template.) I think it should be employed on articles with active bands. However, I'd like to hear what people think about it. One qualm I have is that people may not like the idea that a future release cannot be marked on the timeline beforehand. I think this isn't too much of an issue, since the timeline shouldn't necessarily run into the future, and the article itself can cover information on a future release.

I'm not proposing we have a huge task force go through every article, this is rather an approach to having a reason to prevent people from changing timelines not to have a rolling end date if we decide this is something that should happen on active band/artist articles. Rolling end dates can be added gradually, and there wouldn't be a particularly good reason for removing these end dates as it would add extra article maintenance.

Vortiene (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. From a technical standpoint, why not? This proposal would, as the nom said, reduce the workload on this project. APerson (talk!) 19:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed The proposed use-the-current-date makes a lot of sense, future times might even be confusing to people doing research and, in any event, it's a lie. I think using the current date is a good idea.Damotclese (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Is what a band currently working on encyclopedic or not

I started a discussion at Talk:Chevelle (band), on this topic. Feel free to open discussions there or continue here. I often see fans adding content like, "the band is back in the studio working on new material" or "the band are planning to record a new album to be released" etc. I'm not sure that it should continue, particularly when supported only with primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Input requested at Template:Randy Newman

Input requested at Template talk:Randy Newman#Films scored. The question is, should all of the films he scored be listed in the navbox, or only the two that have album articles? Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The "nav" in the term answers the question. You can't navigate to an article that doesn't exist, so only those that have articles. However, if the film has an article, and the article discusses the score, one could link to that article instead. Navboxes are not lists though and we should not list subjects for the sake of completeness. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Band members sections

Should a band members section for a defunct group include a list of former members, touring members (including one-time appearances) and every session musician, plus a timeline and a table for lineups? For an example, see Ramones#Band members. Piriczki (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The session member list and the right-aligned table for lineups seems a bit too much. It would be possible to separate lineups into another article, but at this point I'm not sure it is large enough. Vortiene (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The session member section could also be significantly trimmed; a lot of these are just guest musicians who performed on a few select tracks. A session member is hired to fill a spot for an entire recording session or album, so something like Jeff Morrison performing "handclaps" (as opposed to...?) on "Do You Remember Rock 'n' Roll Radio?" and "The Return of Jackie and Judy" should be removed. I'd also move the lineup table to the talk page until the day List of Ramones members is one day created – someone did put a lot of time into it, I'd hate to see it just get erased. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Unless sources are provided for each one of the touring members, they should be removed. An I agree that session members should not be extensive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Does being a singer and songwriter equate to being a singer-songwriter

I have seen the conflation of singers who are also songwriters with the fol genre of singer-songwriter. It's prevalent in infoboxes, ledes and now categories are starting to be affected. Am I wrong that they are not the same or should we be more clear that they are not the same? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitions: "A person who sings and writes popular songs, especially professionally." "a performer who writes his or her own songs" "a performer who writes his or her own songs" (looks familiar) "someone who writes songs and sings them"
It seems that the definitions do not see the term as a genre but are of a person. (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There are two views on this, the musicologist view that singer-songwriters are Seeger/Dylan/Baez sorts of folk/political instrumentalists, and the lazy view that anybody who sings and writes songs is a singer-songwriter. I favor the former view. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It must be as wide as possible and accomodate all kinds of music and musical style. It's not just the former folk/political instrumentalists - Buddy Holly, Brian Wilson Paul McCartney, Chuck Berry, Loretta Lynn, George Harrison and scores of other musicians and musical types are and were Singer-songwriters, and that's not lazy...Modernist (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What's lazy is using the typography "singer-songwriter" when "singer/songwriter" is meant, that is, when the writer is trying to say a person is both a singer and a songwriter. The forward slash contains the appropriate meaning. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
A singer-songwriter is a distinct thing, as Binksternet mentioned, and it refers to specific breed of musician. I've noticed some pages on my watchlist being recategorized (using an automated tool, no less) from singer into singer-songwriter and I don't think it's accurate in many cases. --Laser brain (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
A chanson is said to be lyric-driven. I think of a singer-songwriter as someone who creates an entity that allows for both their words and their music to serve expressive purposes. Bus stop (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with that from a rhetorical standpoint. However, I think we'll generally want to stick to reflecting the preponderance of sources about the subject. If good sources can't be found calling someone a singer-songwriter, we shouldn't be using it here. --Laser brain (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the majority of singers who happen to write songs shouldn't be classified as such; heck, many bands write their own songs when they get to the Wikipedia notable levels. But when many of major media sources associate the person with the two words together and the person has self-identified on their website with the hyphen, that would be a pretty good case that they would prefer that to be listed for their occupation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There was an RfC on this last year: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: How should music BLPs approach the term "singer-songwriter"?Fayenatic London 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The OP seems to be asking a few questions: (1) Whether singer-songwriter is a genre (MY ANSWER: No, how could it be -- genres apply to creations, not people). (2) Whether singers who write songs are automatically singer-songwriters (MY ANSWER: Not unless the songs that they write are then often sung by themselves, and not unless they have -- unlike, say, Celine Dionn -- written a fair number of songs. Alternatively, they are referred to as singer-songwriters in multiple independent RSs). (3) Whether someone can be categorized as both a singer and a singer-songwriter (MY ANSWER: Yes, the two are not mutually exclusive, even if one may be a parent/child category of the other -- this should be explained on the Category pages and coding). Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Scott Walker

A discussion about a state governor and a singer of the same name is ongoing. Comment there to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

If Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin can be categorised as "Top-importance" than the Rolling Stones should receive this level as well. TheDeathKingTheGodfather 21:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Procedures for Artist pages, photos

I'm creating a wiki page about a Jazz artist, and I uploaded the photos all wrong. I don't want to get banned for uploading incorrectly. Should I try to ask the artist for permission to upload her photo? She has a website so I could probably just email her for permission and hope for a response. I'm reading about that as a potential procedure. Would that be acceptable, or is there another way to do it? Autoshotdc (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Autoshotdc


I've worked with a number of articles that are about musicians' "projects", stating, for example, that "Purple Sneeze is a solo project of Corkie Connors". What does this mean? I've tried to figure it out based on the articles themselves, but the ones I've dealt with have tended to make the opening declaration about the project and then talk all about the musician without indicating anywhere which of the musician's activities defined or had to do with the project. If I understood what "project" connotes, it might help me clean up the articles. As they stand, the articles are full of "he" where I'm expecting them to be primarily about "it". —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I, too, was similarly baffled by this jargon, but eventually it became clear to me that "project" (or "side project") was meant to denote a collaboration, often temporary or a one-off. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Michael Bednarek. Besides, the word "project" always suggests something that does not exactly work like a band (Avantasia and Ayreon) or a band that is secondary to most or all of its members (Flying Colors (band)). It also suggests, like, those electronic music groups composed of only one DJ/producer and maybe some occasional guest artists. Couldn't remind of any example now. Victão Lopes Fala! 15:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Babys

I came across this article initially because it popped up on ANI. The albums are notable, but all the sources for the band are dead save an old print mag that someone else used (and which I'm taking on recognizance). There isn't anything out there otherwise besides an article from a few years ago that really only paints a few of the members unfavorably. Is it better to leave it as a relatively unsourceable mess, or AfD it altogether? MSJapan (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Song genres under songs by artist categories?

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization#Songs by artist: genre categories that are mostly right but wrong for certain songs. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Eric Clapton's religious beliefs

Could I ask for some assistance at Eric Clapton? There was a section entitled "faith", which took a quote from Clapton's autobiography about falling to his knees and praying during alcohol rehab, and continuing to pray now he's sober, combined with some tendentious and mis-sourced stuff about Christianity to imply that Clapton is a Christian. He clearly believes in a God of some sort, but based on the autobiography I don't think anything more specific than that is tenable, so I've removed the section on BLP grounds. If we can find some better sources, perhaps the section can be re-written and restored? --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for WP Biography

I started a proposal to add draft, file and redirect classes for all WP Biography articles here. This would first help split out the half dozen or so drafts from the 350 or so articles at Category:NA-Class biography (musicians) articles so we can identify the draft articles more easily. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)