Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. 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 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Add musical notation directly in wikisyntax

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#New_:_add_musical_notation_directly_in_wiki_article_via_.3Cscore.3E

You can add musical notation through the use <score></score>.

Like this

<score>\relative c' { f d f a d f e d cis a cis e a g f e }</score>

gives

$\relative c' { f d f a d f e d cis a cis e a g f e }$

See more details : <score>

Thanks to all project contributors:

Thanks to all project contributors for your recent helpful new references and edits. Keep up the good work everybody! Zachtron (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Music terminology expertise needed

Hello, I need help understanding a music terminology used in this article in the second paragraph. It's currently at FAC and its being asked to be removed since I nor the reviewer seems to understand the term used by the composer. Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Record Labels members needed:

Hi everyone. We really need some contributors for WikiProject Record Labels, which is a part of this project. I am currently one of the leaders of the project which right now does not have many active participants at all, so it would be great to get some more editors contributing to the project. Please check out the project's page and participate if you have interest in it. Thanks! Zachtron (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Any interested contributors yet????? We could REALLYYYYYYYYYY use some help! Zachtron (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Anybody interested in this yet? Zachtron (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Me.. what Do I have To Do?? Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Miss Bono, and thank you for your interest in the project. There are many different open assignments, and you are of course free to do whichever you choose, but perhaps you are interested in editing and updating the article for Hollywood Records, which has some decent history but has not really been updated with new references and a paragraph or two dedicated to the label's notable current operations in 2013 (ie. current artist roster, news, etc.) . This is just a suggestion for you, as that is one of the article's which needs much improvement in order to be up-to-date. Zachtron (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Any new interested contributors yet? Zachtron (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Dear All: There is a discussion about whether or not to split "Mary Was the Marrying Kind" from Up All Night by Kip Moore into a brand new article. Please visit Talk:Up_All_Night_(Kip_Moore_album)#Split to contribute. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Getchyer larfin gear rand this lot

THE WP:RED LIST OF ENDANGERED MUSICIANS -- Hillbillyholiday^talk 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#7 problem

Due to a change to the {{audio}} template, lots of files suddenly show up as unused. This means that lots of audio files may be deleted as "orphaned fair use". See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#How to interpret WP:NFCC#7 for audio files for a discussion related to this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New TFA nomination

I've nominated the article 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) for consideration as a candidate for WP:Today's Featured Article, please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, — Cirt (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability question - Main Attrakionz

Please join the discussion regarding the notability of Main Attrakionz at Talk:Main Attrakionz#Notability is iffy and help render the discussion moot by finding suitable references so there is no longer any question about the band's notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)23:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Davidwr (talk · contribs) has wrongly tagged {{notability}} to many other undoubtedly-notable articles such as Busdriver, Radioinactive, The Weather, Beaus$Eros, and Chance the Rapper.114.145.84.54 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously there is some disagreement on just what constitutes notability in the way Wikipedia means it. Or rather, some disagreement over what terms like "significant coverage," "independent," "not promotional," etc. mean. However, I did re-examineChance the Rapper and I will own up to likely being wrong on that one - it's in that grey area where a significant percentage of editors would say "yes" and a significant percentage would say "no." Only 1 of the references (Alexis) clearly met the criteria to be a good, solid source for determining notability. A couple other sources were "maybe" but the majority were not. I will spend a few minutes revisiting the others you mentioned.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you really think Chance the Rapper, among others, is not notable even though he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG)? 114.145.84.54(talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This general discussion about my reading of the near-the-line-but-on-which-side? cases of questionable notability is probably better handled on my talk page. Or yours, if your IP address will be unchanged over the next few days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As you have quoted before at Talk:Main Attrakionz, "questions of notability can be resolved through discussion atWikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". So, if you still think other articles, including Chance the Rapper, in which I reverted your tagging are non-notable, please feel free to open another discussion there. FWIW, I've just googled him, and I'm convinced that he is also notable enough to survive AfD.114.145.84.54 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts section added to wikiproject Percussion

Just to let you know that wikiproject Percussion now has an: Article alerts section. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tonality shift

Can anybody here shed any light on the veracity of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tonality shift and how/if it differs from Tonality flux or Progressive tonality. Thanks. Pol430 talk to me 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised this topic isn't covered in Modulation (music) (maybe it was, once?). Also known as the "Trucker's Gear Change" modulation, or variations of that phrase. It's a valid topic, and not the same thing as either tonality flux or progressive tonality. I'm not an expert in popular music theory, and don't know if "tonality shift" is the most common way to define this type of modulation -- the term isn't coming up in either the Harvard Dictionary or New Grove.Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick search shows that the "Truck Driver's Gear Change" was mentioned briefly in Modulation (music) since the article's 2nd version in May 2003 until this edit by78.147.73.107 on 11 November 2010. Maybe the new proposed article could be merged into that article (where Key change redirects). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I have recommended a merge to Modulation (music). Pol430 talk to me 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

talk page template

Does this project have a talk page template? Kinda WikiProject Music. Anyway, please categorize International Space Orchestra/Talk:International Space Orchestra. - Altenmann >t 04:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Musicians use the {{WikiProject Biography}} template, with the musician-task-force parameter set to "yes".[1]Adabow (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirect for Reiteration to Tremolo changed to a DAB page

The term "reiteration" has a meaning in mathematics also, which means the page cannot just redirect to the musical concept. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#"Reiteration" rule of inference. Thanks.M∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Metallica band member timeline

Can anyone weigh in on this discussion?Jauersock^dude?/_dude.16:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Brief members of a band/group still considered as full members?

Hi, guys. I just want to ask about Wikipedia's standards when it comes to articles about bands/members. So let's say two original members left and then the talent agency announces that two new members are added. Later on when the group gears up for a comeback single, those 'two' replacements are no longer there and have been replaced by three newer ones. So are the two previous replacements still worth being considered as 'former members?. They never really released any music with the group hence they didn't debut with them. I've opened a discussion on this talk page as well.Masterpeace3(talk) 04:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer review wanted

Could I please get a peer review for Travis Tritt? I'd really like to get this to GA, as I feel it's pretty close already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also Lonestar needs a peer review. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Article split discussions for Amon Amarth, Guttermouth, Pop Evil, SeS, TNAF & UproarFest

I am writing to encourage users to comment on the discussions at Talk:Amon Amarth, Talk:Guttermouth, Talk:Pop Evil, Talk:Smile Empty Soul, Talk:The Naked and Famous & Talk:Uproar Festival about whether or not parts of the pages should be split from the remainder of the article. If someone can indicate the best place to post this, it would be greatly appreciated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative

Hey all, is there an official stance on the use of "Mixed to positive" and "Mixed to negative" to describe critical reaction to music? Either of these phrases sound absurdly redundant, as "mixed" implies both positive and negative reactions. I see these phrases all over Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article in AfC?

Hi! I need help with an article that someone has submitted to AfC. The article in question (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klaus Zehelein) looks to be about a notable enough person to merit an article, however the article's grammar and punctuation isn't the greatest. At times it's hard to understand and the article would need an almost complete re-write. In good news, there looks to be enough sourcing about Klaus Zehelein to show easy notability, so this would be just a re-write. I thought I'd ask here, since it'd probably be better for someone for the music WP to be involved than anyone else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the deal with "All-Steinway Schools"?

Is this a real thing? I removed a sentence from the lede (!) at Oral Roberts University (!) stating that it was "All-Steinway School", on the grounds that this sounds like ridiculous promotional hokum and who cares what brand their equipment is. But then a search showed that this phrase is shot through our articles on colleges. Absent some explanation of why this is not hogwash I propose to redact them all. Steinway's take on the matter is here although they don't say much.

Granted Steinways are great, but it's not like the other pianos are chopped liver, and really beyond snob appeal why shouldn't a general-education university let the freshmen use Baldwins or whatever and save a few bucks? Or use electronics, which IMO are superior for most needs unless your needs are to cater to habit and nostalgia? Why is it such a great accomplishment to refuse to do this? Herostratus (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with music education, but a quick web search gave me five non-primary reliable sources describing "All-Steinway" schools: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It may have become slightly more than a promotional tool, or are these news sources just responding to promo from the schools and Steinway? Adabow (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Music - Skysmith (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding merging album pages to those on their respective artist

So, at Laguna (album), my PROD was removed by Lx 121 after being up for ten days, with the remover proposing a merge to D*Note, the artist's article. As a part of this informal merger proposal, Lx 121 proposed merging the album track listing onto the artist's page. I, however, disagree and still think the page should just be deleted outright. (The thread is here.) My issue with adding the track listing to the artist's article is that I thought discography was supposed to consist of released albums and singles, which the artist's discography section already has. None of the songs on the album were released as singles, so I don't think the track listing belongs in the discography section. Thoughts? T C N7JM 22:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"supposed to" are such pretty words. wp:be bold why not list the tracks & other info under the album? do it in a collapsible section, if it really makes you feel better. it's silly to suggest that an article about a band will be better with less information about the songs they've created. Lx 121 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lx 121 - This was discussed from April-August 2013 in great length at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums_redux following Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_15#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. MOS:Collapse prohibits collapsing such lists. BTW, does anyone plan to respond to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Article_split_discussions_for_Amon_Amarth.2C_Guttermouth.2C_Pop_Evil.2C_SeS.2C_TNAF_.26_UproarFest? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for helping me understand the situation. It is much appreciated. T C N7JM 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(to jax 0677) i don't work in the music-sections much (i just got into this one because i decided to see what was going on @ prod one night... ), but the split proposals all seem completely non-controversial to me.

as regards the mos about collapses, i'm not sure what to think of that. i'm not a fan of putting lots of widget-y crap on webpages, especially things dependent on javascript (or worse); but if we're going to use collapses at all, then it would seem to me that (optionally) collapsing sub-sections of long lists would be one of the more useful applications for it...

Lx 121 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Charts in France forum

I found topics on Charts in France forum about sales in some countries and full sales Top 200 in France... (now I can't found link...). Where this peoples get it? Or other forum [www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=96139&start=100 UKMix]. Eurohunter (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:James singles

Category:James singles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
This notice was originally posted at WikiProject Songs but there is an argument about whether "Singles" are more similar to "Albums" than to "Songs". So, this WikiProject is welcome to weigh in on possible changes to the taxonomy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Iron Projects

.... notable? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. The *might* be notable, but their notability is not established, given the lack of reliable sources, significant external coverage, or any produced albums. Nom'd for AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dave Witte

Notable? Not notable? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Army Jacket

Notable? Not notable? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I need some help here. Long story short, I'm involved in a really very messy small "war" with a somewhat new editor, User:Ben0kto. He's made some big controversial edits to the article Acid Rap, which is currently about the 2013 mixtape. The editor has said that the article was "hijacked" by people trying to create the album's page and that the page itself should be about a subgenre by Esham, acid rap. The problem is that originally this was a redirect because a discussion was made over whether or not the subgenre is independently notable outside of Esham. It's performed and I'm not denying its existence, but almost everything I've found has mentioned the subgenre as an aside in favor of Esham as a whole. Even the people that have had some sort of influence from the subgenre mention it in relation to how Esham has influenced them. ([7], [8]) An AfD closed as a keep years ago, but by today's standards the notability is relatively low when you figure that you have to establish notability outside of Esham himself. If someone were to find a way to finagle an article outside of Esham#Style, then I have no overwhelmingly huge problem with that. I do have to say that I'm not really confident that the subgenre would really pass notability guidelines if an article was created and put up for AfD. Almost all of the sources mention the subgenre in passing in relation to Esham himself, and that's just the ones that might be able to be used as a reliable source. Many of the sources given have been relatively unusable as RS.

Now the other problem is that the editor in question is demanding that "Acid Rap" either be an article for the subgenre or redirect to Esham's subsection. My issue is that although the subgenre predates the album by a long stretch, the subgenre isn't as likely a search term as the mixtape is. Put bluntly, between the two the mixtape is the more notable of the two and as such, more likely to be a search term. I've tried explaining this in terms of how Michael Jackson goes to the article for the performer as opposed to say, the priest born in the 20s or the footballer active in the 50s. I've also tried to explain that even if we reverted to a redirect, the most likely thing would be that the mixtape would be moved to the main term of "Acid Rap" since it'd make more sense to have that and get a hatnote.

Can anyone wade into this? There's been a huge discussion on the editor's talk page and he's been blocked twice now for disruptive editing. Now he's accusing me of having a bias against underground music, so I doubt he'll listen to anything I have to say. I really need some people to come in and help with this, since it's getting pretty nasty. It doesn't fit into any one specific category, so reporting it has mostly ended with people saying "not the right forum". The way it's going, I feel that this will probably end with the user in question either ragequitting or getting permabanned, neither of which I particularly want but am beginning to think is inevitable at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion, take it for what it's worth: If the editor agrees to NOT edit certain pages, including the article in question, for the duration of a formal discussion, open a formal request for comment on the article's talk page (or a sub-talk page, if desired) and un-block the editor so he can participate in the discussion. If he edits the article, either re-block him or protect the page, depending on what is best at the time. Since he is a new editor we want to do what we can to make him feel welcome and show him that he is part of the community discussion, without allowing him to edit willy-nilly overriding what appears to be past consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Hiya, have we thought about renaming the article "Acid Rap (album)"? I admit I've only glanced at the discussion going on about this. Just wondering if that would help as a compromise so that the album article can exist, and the other editor can endeavor to write an article about the musical style, if he so chooses. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That has been mentioned, but the problem here is that the genre isn't covered even half as heavily as the album is. The album has been the focus of quite a substantial amount of coverage, while the genre is almost entirely mentioned in passing in relation to the person who created it. Acid rap seems to more refer to the specific style of one person (that other people somewhat emulate) than to a full subgenre such as horrorcore. Everything I've found mentions it only in relation to the artist Esham, saying that he dubbed his personal style acid rap and that others have found his music (him in specific) to be somewhat of an influence. The whole article was actually merged because it lacked coverage outside of Esham, which is why it was a redirect when the album was created there. So far the other editor has tried to show sources, but they're all either primary sources, trivial sources, sources that focus almost entirely on Esham (brief mentions, album reviews for the artist, bio pieces on the artist, etc), or sources that don't even mention the genre as a whole. (There are multiple reviews for various artists that don't mention the artist or subgenre at all, although they might have mentioned in some other source that they found the artist an influence.) There really isn't anything out there that shows that we need an article outside of the subsection in Esham's page. Now as far as "he's a new editor" goes, we've all tried to make him aware of policies and guidelines. He's blatantly ignored this to the point where even other editors are saying that this has become more of a behavioral issue than any misunderstanding of guidelines. The only time he says that he doesn't understand is whenever another editor comes in and blocks him or scolds him for being disruptive. I think he's using it more as an excuse than anything else. We've opened a board and Ben0kto has used it mostly to post rants about how the article was "hijacked" and how we're against the little guy or things to that nature. His most recent move seems to have been to try to move the article again- against consensus- because nobody had commented on the page since a certain point. I've tried as hard as I can to explain that creating an article at a redirect is not hijacking, but he's pretty much ignored everything that doesn't agree with his point. I think that at this point he's abusing the "I'm new and don't understand" thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Aww bummer. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page box

Is there a reason why there is no talk page box for this project? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)