This page is an archive. Please direct any comments to the current noticeboard.

• Support - (An awesome but, criminaly, relatively unknown composer; good article) - ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure - well-written article, but could do with some more media (images etc.), so not sure. Madder (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good quality article with references. Interesting in that it's not the usual "anglo-saxon" article about anglosaxon-originated music. Would bring some colour to the portal and tell people that music is not entirely about mainstream American pop-rock.... - --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tarkan/archive1, Madder (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Informative music-related article. Madder 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have lots of featured articles that we can use. This article is poorly sourced. 17Drew 05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• Article
• Peer review

• Article
• Peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• peer review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

• article
• review

Hello, could someone please create an article about Jolie Christine Rickman. Thank you! eLNuko 16:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --Folajimi 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not strictly a request, more of a question about whether an article should be created. I'm going to work on links disambiguation for links to medley. If you look at the disambiguation page, there is a brief music-related definition. I don't think those two or three lines are enough for a Wikipedia page (as opposed to a Wiktionary entry). However, I am not a musician & can't write an article. This leaves two options:

1. I link all the music-related medley links to the relevant Wiktionary definition.
2. Someone writes a non-trivial (i.e., more than a bare-bones definition) article for Medley (music) so I can point the relevant Wikipedi links there.

I'll watch this page for a week or so, and if no one answers, I'll start linking to Wiktionary. Thanks! Ling.Nut 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.167.252.251 06:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC): It would be useful to have an article about the role that music stores and virtual equivalents like iTunes Music Store play in the music scene. In particular, indepdendent stores like Music Millennium can sometimes become part of the local music culture. I expected to find a way to get to such a topic on this portal but never saw one. Perhaps it could be related to the topic of the music industry.[reply]

I create Record shop, thanks to improve it !

Record shop and Online music store should fulfill this request. Λυδαcιτγ 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list used to exist and was most interesting and informative, but I haven't been able to find any refernce to it for months. has someone deleted it? and if so why?

There doesn't seem to be a record of this page, but List of notable cover versions should take care of it. Λυδαcιτγ 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking of a definition of a music/song genre, a kind of "urban musical folklore". Its distinctive feature is that it is related with a specific modern profession or occupation. (I say "modern", to distinguish the most obvious example of "cowboy songs" of country music). These songs usually target a particular professional audience, heavyly loaded with professional slang and humor.

Some examples:

• Les Horribles Cernettes, "the one and only High Energy Rock Band" from CERN.
• Filk music
• The one I am particularty interested and trying to look up. In late 1960s or early 1970s, IBM released an LP full of parodies of pop songs with context related to computers. I remember two of them:
  • Press the Magic Button
  • Memory D'Amour (a pun on Melodie D'Amour by The Ames Brothers)

The latter one goes something like,

I've bought a terminal

The day I lost my gal

... etc.

Now I have girls galore

I my new mem'ry core

I put them on disk file

To store them for a while... etc.

Refrain:

Memory d'amour,

Put the core to the printer

Or to the display

Please without delay.

I'd very much like to see two things: the article about the genre and the info about this IBM music. Surprisingly, I cannot find its traces in the internet. mikka (t) 20:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with a background in technical music writing please take a look at Talk:Dixie (song)? The source I used to write most of the main "Dixie (song)" article gives a quite technical description of the song, which flies right over my head. I've bulleted the points he makes on the talk page in the hopes that someone who understands his terminology will translate into common English and determine whether any of it deserves inclusion in the main article. Thanks! BrianSmithson 15:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I would like to ask you a favor: I have been working on the Tool article for almost a year now and would like to pass it on to Peer review pretty soon. Before doing so, I would be interested in any qualified comments by co-editors who have already written good or featured articles in the same field. Like I said, any comments are welcome. Of course, if anyone is interested for my comments in exchange, I'd be more then glad to help out. Best wishes. --Johnnyw 19:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty... complete... article there. I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thing yet, but my initial reaction is that the intro is way too big and rather messy to read. It's one of the dangers of good citations, I'd be willing to bet. I'd move to have the intro cut down to the basics and move the important citations to the body of the article in some fashion, but that's an initial reaction; I'll give it a proper read later. Xinit 23:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost finished fixing the naming conventions on the List of songs about drugs page, and have found similar musical lists which need fixing in the same way and don't think I can do it on my own as I may go crazy. If anyone would like to help me then I'd be very thankful. I'm asking this here because people involved in this WikiProject will be more likely to know how to make the needed changes. Here's the pages I have in mind so far (and what needs to be done):

• List of songs about tequila (italics need changed to quote marks around songs)

Done. Took two seconds to change the italics to quotes, and a few more seconds to check the diff. Λυδαcιτγ 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of songs under one minute in length (quote marks around song names)

Done. This one took a lot longer because of the varying formats. Λυδαcιτγ 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (removal of excessive linking - a lot of entries link to the band name, even though they are in a section which the name links there already)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Halloween songs (quote marks around song names)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 04:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Christmas number one singles (quote marks)

Done. The articles pertaining to it could use some work, its not very through. CraigP 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of songs about Manchester (quote marks)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of songs about Omaha, Nebraska (quote marks, and perhaps changing around of the artist and song name)

Done. Didn't change around the names, though - I can if it makes sense. Λυδαcιτγ 16:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of patriotic songs (quote marks again)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 23:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of songs about World War II (quote marks, this is a bit shorter than the others)

Done. CraigP 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Beatles songs by singer (quote marks)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also need a second opinion on the List of songs about drugs article about changing all the — marks to "by". Aa you can see, it's a lot of work to be done and I'm sure there are more lists that also need work. I severly doubt I can do this alone. Tartan 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have Firefox? If so, use User:Cacycle/editor - it'll save you a ton of time. I'll get started on the simple search-and-replace stuff. Λυδαcιτγ 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I'm not even sure what that is (the Cacyle thing)... *laughs nervously* Tartan 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Praise User:Cacycle/editor. Λυδαcιτγ 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• claps* Thanks very much! I haven't been around much to edit over the summer holidays here... it's a very lazy time for me. Tartan 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

needs NPOVing. JesseW 02:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

done MarkBuckles 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not clear what needs doing. Is it good enough already? JesseW 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was in terrible shape. Did a big overhaul. MarkBuckles 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite JesseW 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

done MarkBuckles 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unformatted JesseW 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Completed MarkBuckles 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the disambiguation page, the article Crisis (band) should cope with the US heavy metal group, but actually, both Crisis (band) and Crisis (British band) speak of that British punk rock group... Can somebody help? -- 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed! Check it all over if you like (had to sort out the disambig page as well as the 2 articles) and make any modifications you think are needed. Madder 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contains a ridiculous amount of errors, and I need help converting its code. Please help! --Phantasy Phanatik 09:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything past the history section is full of POV's and OR. Most of it should probably be deleted. MarkBuckles (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Much of article has been rewritten. MarkBuckles (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

needs POV clean up very badly. Dalf | Talk 20:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need copyedit. It was my first major editing job and it should be reviewed. Thanks. Wangster 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been copyedited. Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this article recently. Can someone find out more about the nobility of this band and clean up or mark for CSD/AFD as needed? I would like to but I don't know enough about music to really make a good determination or not. - Hbdragon88 06:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted (A7). Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Neologism: Hi! I just noticed the new article touring label, which is not written in a particularly encyclopedic style. At the end of the article, it mentions that the term was coined by G. David Daniels of WCA Entertainment, who also appears to be the author of the article. (User:[email protected]). If someone who is familiar with the music industry could glance over the article, and sort out whether it's describing a recognized phenomenon or just promoting WCA Entertainment, it would be great. Thanks! FreplySpang 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touring label). Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has had a notability notice almost since I began it, and I'm not sure what else to do. Could folks take a look at it? Suggestions? Aleta 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like notability has been made clear. Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get this to Featured Article, and I want some help. Thanks.--CJ King 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been edited recently. Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the band Linkin Park isn't covered under this project. Just thought you guys should know. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the above article a week ago and tagged it for notability. In that week the notability tag has been removed and nothing in the way of references added, they've also had one of their songs deleted as non-notable. I've re-added the notability tag because the article only has one active editor and gives the appearance of being "we've got a Myspace page, lets get one on Wikipedia". Could someone from here with a better knowledge of band notability have a look at it and see if it should be marked AFD. Thanks - X201 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up on AFD now. Garion96 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ne'er-do-wells). Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==[[Love. Angel. Music. Baby Recently at FAC (after a not-very-helpful peer review) but failed due to concerns about the tone of the article. WP:LoCE has a huge backlog, so I'd appreciate it if someone could lend a hand since I've worked on the article to much to be able to take a fresh look at it. ShadowHalo 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited intro. Anyone else want to lend a hand? Λυδαcιτγ 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing a copyedit. Just a note in case anyone else wants to take a look at the article, it may be worth looking at the "Conception and writing" section since the comments at FAC mentioned that. ShadowHalo 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now a GA, and back at FAC. Λυδαcιτγ 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The below are vital articles that should be at least Good Articles, from the List of articles all languages should have (in music and composers and musicians). Λυδαcιτγ 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Classical music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Almost uncited. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gamelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good information and pictures; needs audio. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian classical music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not wikified; no references. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A-class. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Looks close to a GA to me. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pop music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

:B-class; no sources.Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — Completely overhauled between 8 and 26 December 2007. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rock and roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good amount of info, but only 2 references. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Soul music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delisted GA for lack of photo. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Symphony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good amount of info, but only 3 sources. Λυδαcιτγ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ludwig van Beethoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class; lots of sources, but not enough inline citations. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Antonín Dvořák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Aretha Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Start-class; almost no biography. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edvard Grieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Start-class; almost no biography. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gustav Mahler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Claudio Monteverdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Former FA; failed GA. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jean Sibelius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good info; few citations. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Too short; uncited. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Flute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of info; few inline citations. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

B-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Inline citations needed to get to GA. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Trumpet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of info; few references. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Violin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Close to a GA. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Compact disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of info; few references. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Start-class. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Public domain music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not in good shape. Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two related topics, Percussion instrument and Rhythm and blues have been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new WikiProject started for improving the Electronic music categories. If you're interested in helping, then take a look at WikiProject Electronic music. Hagbard Celine 18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I would like to point out here that on Meta a WikiMusic is proposed. Please look here for details, and please support the wiki:De proposalpage. Without communitysupport there will be no wikimusic :( effeietsanders 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a wikiproject to link applicable articles to MusicBrainz. Information on it can be found here and here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz...please vote!--Urthogie 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Λυδαcιτγ 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there currently a Wikiproject for Musical Artists (bands, groups, ensembles, &c)? If not, is there a specific reason or has it just not come about? If there isn't one, and there isn't a reason not to have one, then I'm proposing the creation of one. This proposal can be discussed on my user page, and if you support the creation of the project, please add you name to this list. A very preliminary pre-project page exists in my user space, here. bmearns, KSC_(talk) 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This project jas been officially started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians B.Mearns^*, KSC 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAM 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all musical wrestling fans: I am starting a wikiproject devoted to the music of wrestling, such as entrances and PPV themes, as well as WWE produced albums. Anyone interested in joining, please leave a message on my talk page or add yourself to the list on Moe Epsilon's. Please assist, and thank you! In the words of Mr. Mick "Mankind/Cactus Jack/Dude Love" Foley, HAVE A NICE DAY!!! Kingfisherswift 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both world music and folk music seem to poorly capture the sense of music both traditional and new played and created in the sense of say Indigenous Australian music or Native American music. Please join the discussion at Talk:Indigenous music Paul foord 14:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super DJ Clark Kent is up for deletion, and it's starting to look ugly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super DJ Clark Kent. If anyone has some time to chime in, please do so. Thanks. hateless 18:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Λυδαcιτγ 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I already made this question to Music portal, but Madder told me it wasn't the right place. I'm an Italian Wikipedia user and I need your help since I'm going to write the articles about John Legend's albums Get Lifted and Once Again. I need to know: should I consider these two albums as the 1st and 2nd or as the 4th and 5th? I ask you this because

• here and here there are a list of 5 albums and the chronology shows former albums, but
  • here there's the indication Years active: 2004 - present. 2004: year of Get Lifted release. Moreover,
    • here the album is indicated as the sophomore album: that is, the 2nd one.

Any help will be accepted with enthusiasm. Thanks in advance! 151.28.96.25 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's clearly a bit of confusion and some mistakes in the article, in particular confusion between albums and studio albums. I've fixed them, hope that helps. Madder 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a more detailed replacement for the project page's loose list of guidelines. It is also a music-specific version of Wikipedia:Cleanup. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. Tuf-Kat 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a great deal of edits done by Dafoeberezin3494 concernings the catagory of pages devoted to "composers". While it seems that there are a great many catagory pages such as "List of composers by name: S" and "List of Irish Composers" which are very short, there are enough composers whose names begin with "S" and enough Irish composers (as a visit to the Irish Contemporary Music Center site at [1] will attest) that these pages should eventually be full. Now that the Zarzuela composers catagory has been deleted, where are people supposed to be articles by the very good composers who are listed here? [2]

• While some cleaning up needs to be done, I'm wondering if there isn't just a little too much going on? Could we perhaps rethink all of this and perhaps keep some of these useful catagories open, since they are going to be needed at some point? Musikfabrik 20:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created Portal:Classical music and would appreciate participation, suggestions, and anything else anyone has to offer. Thanks, Dar-Ape 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks great, definitely a good idea and has much potential. Madder 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom page, and some of the pages linked from it, be rescued? I feel that these particular pages have been untouched for so long, that users have forgotten about them, so in essence they have been lost and information has been put elsewhere. Maybe it is best to delete the page altogether? --Montchav 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For no obvious reason, the link now points to "Folk Music of England". I hope somebody removes this divert. I have created a new article "Timeline of trends in British music" which is a reasonable replacement for the original concept. Ogg (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add a music clip of December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night) by the Four Seasons on the song page?

Wikipedia:Requested articles/music is a total nest, and this project seems like the perfect solution. Most of the stuff in there is totally non-notable and needs to be weeded out; some have been created without being removed; some are legitimate requests. Do you guys already watch over this? If not, would you be willing to take it in? --Masamage ♫ 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded here as a first step. Λυδαcιτγ 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the issue has arisen due to the ever-growing catalog of critical opinions forming in the Fear of a Blank Planet article, I've had this question for quite a while now... what, if any, is Wikipedia precedent regarding the notability, and therefore the justifiable inclusion of an album review? Critics like Rolling Stone, Kerrang, or AMG would appear to be no-brainers due to their ubiquity, but others seem to be considerably more esoteric than other. Personally, I believe that I could be a fair judge of the credibility of these questionable sources, but that sort of unilateral movement doesn't sit entirely well with me in terms of setting a precedent.

So... is anyone able to help me out here? - C. M. Reed 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at WT:ALBUM#Professional review sources. --PEJL 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an increasing amount of stand alone articles for specific film scores, eg. Batman Begins (soundtrack) and Happy Feet (score). Now, if you look at the composers' articles (Hans Zimmer and John Powell respectively), the links to their works direct to the actual film. Should this change so that we are directed to soundtrack's article? Wouldn't it be better if it did? And even if the soundtrack did not have it's own page, a quick direction to soundtrack subheading of the film's article would be nice, right? (e.g.Blood Diamond (film)#Soundtrack) Or, should we start creatng separate articles for soundtracks? — « hippi ippi » 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your third suggestion - linking to the Soundtrack subsection - would be best. I'll bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. Λυδαcιτγ 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these score / soundtrack articles fail to establish the importance of the subject. Every film has a soundtrack, an article that lists the soundtrack items will often violate WP:NOT#INFO. I would say that to qualify for an independent article there would need to be something unusually notable about the soundtrack, resulting in the soundtrack itself being the subject of significant external coverage. For example, 2001, with the rather brave use of Ligeti's Lux Aeterna, has received a lot of attention, and Wendy Carlos' soundtrack for A Clockwork Orange was singular in using synthesised versions of classical pieces. A list of the songs used in the soundtrack of Batman, for example, might be WP:INTERESTING but not actually of any provable encyclopaedic importance. Cruftbane 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout my editing experience, I have dealt with many music artist articles. I still cringe to see slow edit wars over the music genre(s) a band is categorized under. I have tried to make a solution by listing them under the most general term (ie. Rock), with no success. I have created and witnessed discussions on the artist's talk page about the genre, without much success, coordination, or final decisions either So I have given it a thought and came up with another solution that involves editor concensus:
This would be run in a style similar to Articles for Deletion, except instead of final decisions being, delete, keep or no consensus, you will have music genres. A separate page in the Wikipedia namespace would be established to coordinate a central area to deal with artists with debated music genre classification. If an editor observes a slow edit war over the genre, he can make a notice with a template. A centralized discussion area would be created, and would be open to anyone to try and reach concensus. In the meantime, the music genre of the debated artist would be listed as (debated), and wikilinked to the debate page. If there is a fair consensus reached, the discussion can be closed, and the decision of the music genre(s) would be applied. If an editor feels strongly about another music genre(s) that should (not) be included, another discussion can be setup, and the debating can occur again. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this problem affects album articles just as much as band articles. Sounds like a good idea, but I'm concerned that this solution would not help avoid edit wars re-erupting. Assuming editors who change genres will first check the central page to see if this has been previously discussed seems unrealistic. We could leave a comment in the code, but I've seen such comments ignored often enough to not assume that would work well. Perhaps we could "lock" a genre that has previously been decided, but transcluding it from a separate protected resource (for example "Metallica/genre" for "Metallica"), having the infobox code automatically use the value from the separate resource iff it exists. --PEJL 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album articles, yes...I forgot about those, and those could be included. As for your other concern, I don't doubt for a second that people would try and go change that, you've seen many <!-- hidden messages --> be ignored as much as I have, like you said. I just want some consensus and consistency here. Transcluding it is an excellent idea, but that could take alot of work doing that for every artist, and it would probably make for complication. -- Reaper X 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I sympathize with your pain, we should Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. I doubt that this page would have enough listings to be worth the time taken in setting it up. Instead, why not ask here when such an issue comes up to determine consensus? Λυδαcιτγ 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. John recommended coming to WikiProject Music for some help. Artists House is a free, nonprofit, and education-oriented site. All of its material was created exclusively for the site. I'd like to add some of the video interviews as external links to relevant Wikipedia pages. For example, I'd like to add a video interview with Teo Macero to the Bitches Brew page. Here is the interview. However, if you look at the site, you can see that there are a lot of videos that would be extremely relevant to a lot of pages. Would this be something WikiProject Music would be interested in supporting? Ammosh11 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your own site? If so, you will wish to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make sure that you are not conflicting with that guideline. Asking about the links before you add them, as you are doing, is a good first step. Λυδαcιτγ 03:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am affiliated with the site. However, I did read multiple Wikipedia rules and was referred here by a Wikipedia administrator. John let me know that the correct step is to get the links approved by a neutral party, so that's what I'm trying to do. Even though I am affiliated, all the videos were meant for education-oriented uses. The site owns the copyrights of all its material, and it's all free. Plus, the material is reliably sourced material, seeing as the people being interviewed are the people's pages I would be posting on.

John let me know that a WikiProject would be the place to go to get some help with posting some links. What's your take on this? Thanks for your help. Ammosh11 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a regular music article editor and I've seen some links to this site. I checked it out once because I often remove external links if they are overly commercial and not really needed. But I did not remove the link because the interview was educational and definately WP:RS. So I looked around the site, and found this:

Funding for the development of Artists House Music has been provided by the Herb Alpert Foundation. The foundation devised the idea for an online, non-profit musicians’ Website where all musicians can receive informational support, guidance, and expert resources to help them navigate the challenges and maximize the opportunities available to them within the music industry.

That's good enough for me. My opinion is that links to that site are completely fine. I did not see any commercial advertising on the site at all.

I'd say, go ahead and include the links and if you run into trouble about it, refer editors to the page with the above quote. If they still don't like the link, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or refer them to this discussion here.

It would be a good idea to include a footnote or explanation with the link, to indicate what you noted above, "The site owns the copyrights of all its material, and it's all free." You could add that it's a non-profit foundation.

Of course, further opinions are wlecome from other editors here as well.--Parzival418 _Hello 06:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Your suggestions are greatly appreciated. Ammosh11 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an objection against the addition of these links by user Ammosh11 or user ahmusic. WP:COI states that link-additions to organisations should be discussed if the user is affiliated with these links. Also, mass additions can be explained as spam, even if the links as such are good. Please discuss the links on the appropriate talkpages, and let them being added by uninvolved editors when consensus is reached. Also, in many cases the links serve their function better as a reference instead of a link in the external links sections (also see WP:EL and WP:NOT). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read the various links Dirk has provided and understand the problem better. I have some ideas about how we can come up with a solution that works for everyone and follows all the Wikipedia policies, but I don't have time to write about it now.

In the meantime, I recommend that user Ammosh11 or user ahmusic stop adding the links until we come to a consensus that they are OK and how to reference them. There is no hurry to get them added right away. I do believe the information is valuable, in accordance with policy, and we'll be able to find a consensus on this, but it's important to avoid unintentionally creating a problem that can drag down the process before the consensus is reached.

I also recommend that you read this discussion I found in one of the article Dirk linked in his comment: [3]. That link goes to the page, but to get to the actual text, you need to scroll down and un-hide the collapsed archive with the title: Victoria and Albert Museum (2) – Inactive. Please read that and also the Wikiguides that Dirk linked, so later when I post my suggestions on how we can approach this, you will be familiar with the underlying principles.

In particular, take a look at this section of the article about WP:COI. This may take a while, so please be patient. But also don't worry about it. Your contributions are not simply being rejected, we will continue this discussion. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is currently in need of contributions by informed third parties to assist in the resolution of a longrunning dispute concerning definitions. Similar attention is also required at Ambient music and New Age music. --Gene_poole 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link to the Request for Comment.

Regarding the similar questions about Ambient music and New Age music, I suggest that since the discussions will cover similar points, that we address the RFC at Space music first rather than trying to do them all at once. Just a suggestion - that we go a step at a time to avoid duplicate effort. The consensus will affect several articles in the long run. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a WikiProject Pop music at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Anyone with input on whether or not it should be created or who would be interested in forming one should discuss there. ShadowHalo 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Barnraisers is up for deletion. I make a habit of notifying an appropriate group in these circumstances, so apologies if this is the wrong place. The AfD can be found here. DarkSaber2k 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:MUSIC the charting criterion is "had a charted hit on any national music chart." What exactly qualifies as a "national music chart"? I'm specifically interested in the US, but worldwide would be helpful, too. The reason I ask is there's a "problematic" article that refers to chart hits on Friday Morning Quarterback (link), which I think is more of a radio "tip sheet" for programmers than a solid chart reference (like Billboard). My history is in music retail, not radio so I don't know about FMQB (other than knowing it exists, and has for quite a while). Pondering whether or not charting with FMQB counts toward notability got me wondering about other charts that might be quoted. Especially when they're not easily verifiable (i.e. no online archive of charts). I mean, the criterion explicity states "any" national chart; that seems overly expansive. Precious Roy 12:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this Wikipedia:Record charts not sure if it clears things up though - X201 12:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that; that's just how to present chart information in a table. Thanks for the thought anyway. Precious Roy 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DMajj wishes to alert us to Musicality, a music-specific wiki which he has been working on. Those interested in music may wish to check out Musicality and perhaps contribute. Λυδαcιτγ 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Invitation
		I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject G-Unit Records. We are currently on demand for new members and we believe that the project could benefit from your contributions. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards The-G-Unit-Boss

--The-G-Unit-Boss 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project, a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles consisting of music entries, was recently marked as inactive. I guess I was the only one who was working on it, and that was rather occasionally. There are many many ideas for articles there that should be included in the encyclopedia, and it would be great to see more progress. (The whole list is a bit daunting.) I wasn't sure how widely known the list is, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Rigadoun (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a set of music Navboxes, and I'm trying to seek approval. Each one covers a certain genre or category. Now I realize we already have a Template:Navbox musical artist. I feel that one template can't support all genres of musc (suppose if the one template was changed, it would affect all other template, which could be a pain). The templates can be found HERE. I have only created navboxes for "solo hip hop artist", "hip hop groups" (i.e. D12, G-Unit, NWA, etc.), "solo pop singer", "pop group" (i.e. Destiny's Child, NSYNC, etc.), "solo rock singer" (i.e. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, etc.), "rock band", and "other". If there are any other notable genres to be created, I can create it. The more feedback I have on this, the better. MITB LS 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:UK Raving be deleted? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:UK_Raving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a begining to an article here on a user subpage. I was hoping to flesh it out more and then make it a wikipedia article, but my sources have completely dried up. No more googlehits other than buying used CDs. Should I throw in the towell? Please respond on my talk page. —ScouterSig 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. -- Pepve (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked Brrwawall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & sockpuppet Reww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am not familiar enough with hip-hop to know what information added is incorrect, but these accounts have a history of creating hoaxish/spamish content that should be reviewed. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted your request on WikiProject Hip hop, it might get better attention there. I myself am rather unequiped with hip hop knowledge, sorry. -- Pepve (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Scientizzle 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've taken upon myself to overhaul the Pop music article that's been in dire need of attention for a while. As befits, its taken me far more time and effort than I foresaw, not only because of the associated articles, categories and lists. I was given the shove I needed to get on with it by the Core Topics Contest, which ends tomorrow, so I've posted what I have and shall continue to work on it until it's finished (five days to a week, I'm expecting). I beg your patience on the sections tagged 'Work in progress' and am open to all comments on the rest, for which I refer you to the article's talk page. Peace. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the rewrite of the article. I've left a couple of hints for improvements on the talk page, if anyone wishes to help. Greetings. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two related topics, Percussion instrument and Rhythm and blues have been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new WikiProject started for improving the Electronic music categories. If you're interested in helping, then take a look at WikiProject Electronic music. Hagbard Celine 18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I would like to point out here that on Meta a WikiMusic is proposed. Please look here for details, and please support the wiki:De proposalpage. Without communitysupport there will be no wikimusic :( effeietsanders 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a wikiproject to link applicable articles to MusicBrainz. Information on it can be found here and here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz...please vote!--Urthogie 10:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Λυδαcιτγ 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there currently a Wikiproject for Musical Artists (bands, groups, ensembles, &c)? If not, is there a specific reason or has it just not come about? If there isn't one, and there isn't a reason not to have one, then I'm proposing the creation of one. This proposal can be discussed on my user page, and if you support the creation of the project, please add you name to this list. A very preliminary pre-project page exists in my user space, here. bmearns, KSC_(talk) 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This project jas been officially started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians B.Mearns^*, KSC 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAM 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all musical wrestling fans: I am starting a wikiproject devoted to the music of wrestling, such as entrances and PPV themes, as well as WWE produced albums. Anyone interested in joining, please leave a message on my talk page or add yourself to the list on Moe Epsilon's. Please assist, and thank you! In the words of Mr. Mick "Mankind/Cactus Jack/Dude Love" Foley, HAVE A NICE DAY!!! Kingfisherswift 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both world music and folk music seem to poorly capture the sense of music both traditional and new played and created in the sense of say Indigenous Australian music or Native American music. Please join the discussion at Talk:Indigenous music Paul foord 14:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super DJ Clark Kent is up for deletion, and it's starting to look ugly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super DJ Clark Kent. If anyone has some time to chime in, please do so. Thanks. hateless 18:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Λυδαcιτγ 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I already made this question to Music portal, but Madder told me it wasn't the right place. I'm an Italian Wikipedia user and I need your help since I'm going to write the articles about John Legend's albums Get Lifted and Once Again. I need to know: should I consider these two albums as the 1st and 2nd or as the 4th and 5th? I ask you this because

• here and here there are a list of 5 albums and the chronology shows former albums, but
  • here there's the indication Years active: 2004 - present. 2004: year of Get Lifted release. Moreover,
    • here the album is indicated as the sophomore album: that is, the 2nd one.

Any help will be accepted with enthusiasm. Thanks in advance! 151.28.96.25 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's clearly a bit of confusion and some mistakes in the article, in particular confusion between albums and studio albums. I've fixed them, hope that helps. Madder 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a more detailed replacement for the project page's loose list of guidelines. It is also a music-specific version of Wikipedia:Cleanup. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. Tuf-Kat 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a great deal of edits done by Dafoeberezin3494 concernings the catagory of pages devoted to "composers". While it seems that there are a great many catagory pages such as "List of composers by name: S" and "List of Irish Composers" which are very short, there are enough composers whose names begin with "S" and enough Irish composers (as a visit to the Irish Contemporary Music Center site at [4] will attest) that these pages should eventually be full. Now that the Zarzuela composers catagory has been deleted, where are people supposed to be articles by the very good composers who are listed here? [5]

• While some cleaning up needs to be done, I'm wondering if there isn't just a little too much going on? Could we perhaps rethink all of this and perhaps keep some of these useful catagories open, since they are going to be needed at some point? Musikfabrik 20:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created Portal:Classical music and would appreciate participation, suggestions, and anything else anyone has to offer. Thanks, Dar-Ape 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks great, definitely a good idea and has much potential. Madder 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom page, and some of the pages linked from it, be rescued? I feel that these particular pages have been untouched for so long, that users have forgotten about them, so in essence they have been lost and information has been put elsewhere. Maybe it is best to delete the page altogether? --Montchav 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For no obvious reason, the link now points to "Folk Music of England". I hope somebody removes this divert. I have created a new article "Timeline of trends in British music" which is a reasonable replacement for the original concept. Ogg (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add a music clip of December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night) by the Four Seasons on the song page?

Wikipedia:Requested articles/music is a total nest, and this project seems like the perfect solution. Most of the stuff in there is totally non-notable and needs to be weeded out; some have been created without being removed; some are legitimate requests. Do you guys already watch over this? If not, would you be willing to take it in? --Masamage ♫ 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcluded here as a first step. Λυδαcιτγ 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though the issue has arisen due to the ever-growing catalog of critical opinions forming in the Fear of a Blank Planet article, I've had this question for quite a while now... what, if any, is Wikipedia precedent regarding the notability, and therefore the justifiable inclusion of an album review? Critics like Rolling Stone, Kerrang, or AMG would appear to be no-brainers due to their ubiquity, but others seem to be considerably more esoteric than other. Personally, I believe that I could be a fair judge of the credibility of these questionable sources, but that sort of unilateral movement doesn't sit entirely well with me in terms of setting a precedent.

So... is anyone able to help me out here? - C. M. Reed 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at WT:ALBUM#Professional review sources. --PEJL 08:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an increasing amount of stand alone articles for specific film scores, eg. Batman Begins (soundtrack) and Happy Feet (score). Now, if you look at the composers' articles (Hans Zimmer and John Powell respectively), the links to their works direct to the actual film. Should this change so that we are directed to soundtrack's article? Wouldn't it be better if it did? And even if the soundtrack did not have it's own page, a quick direction to soundtrack subheading of the film's article would be nice, right? (e.g.Blood Diamond (film)#Soundtrack) Or, should we start creatng separate articles for soundtracks? — « hippi ippi » 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your third suggestion - linking to the Soundtrack subsection - would be best. I'll bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. Λυδαcιτγ 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these score / soundtrack articles fail to establish the importance of the subject. Every film has a soundtrack, an article that lists the soundtrack items will often violate WP:NOT#INFO. I would say that to qualify for an independent article there would need to be something unusually notable about the soundtrack, resulting in the soundtrack itself being the subject of significant external coverage. For example, 2001, with the rather brave use of Ligeti's Lux Aeterna, has received a lot of attention, and Wendy Carlos' soundtrack for A Clockwork Orange was singular in using synthesised versions of classical pieces. A list of the songs used in the soundtrack of Batman, for example, might be WP:INTERESTING but not actually of any provable encyclopaedic importance. Cruftbane 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout my editing experience, I have dealt with many music artist articles. I still cringe to see slow edit wars over the music genre(s) a band is categorized under. I have tried to make a solution by listing them under the most general term (ie. Rock), with no success. I have created and witnessed discussions on the artist's talk page about the genre, without much success, coordination, or final decisions either So I have given it a thought and came up with another solution that involves editor concensus:
This would be run in a style similar to Articles for Deletion, except instead of final decisions being, delete, keep or no consensus, you will have music genres. A separate page in the Wikipedia namespace would be established to coordinate a central area to deal with artists with debated music genre classification. If an editor observes a slow edit war over the genre, he can make a notice with a template. A centralized discussion area would be created, and would be open to anyone to try and reach concensus. In the meantime, the music genre of the debated artist would be listed as (debated), and wikilinked to the debate page. If there is a fair consensus reached, the discussion can be closed, and the decision of the music genre(s) would be applied. If an editor feels strongly about another music genre(s) that should (not) be included, another discussion can be setup, and the debating can occur again. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this problem affects album articles just as much as band articles. Sounds like a good idea, but I'm concerned that this solution would not help avoid edit wars re-erupting. Assuming editors who change genres will first check the central page to see if this has been previously discussed seems unrealistic. We could leave a comment in the code, but I've seen such comments ignored often enough to not assume that would work well. Perhaps we could "lock" a genre that has previously been decided, but transcluding it from a separate protected resource (for example "Metallica/genre" for "Metallica"), having the infobox code automatically use the value from the separate resource iff it exists. --PEJL 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album articles, yes...I forgot about those, and those could be included. As for your other concern, I don't doubt for a second that people would try and go change that, you've seen many <!-- hidden messages --> be ignored as much as I have, like you said. I just want some consensus and consistency here. Transcluding it is an excellent idea, but that could take alot of work doing that for every artist, and it would probably make for complication. -- Reaper X 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I sympathize with your pain, we should Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. I doubt that this page would have enough listings to be worth the time taken in setting it up. Instead, why not ask here when such an issue comes up to determine consensus? Λυδαcιτγ 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. John recommended coming to WikiProject Music for some help. Artists House is a free, nonprofit, and education-oriented site. All of its material was created exclusively for the site. I'd like to add some of the video interviews as external links to relevant Wikipedia pages. For example, I'd like to add a video interview with Teo Macero to the Bitches Brew page. Here is the interview. However, if you look at the site, you can see that there are a lot of videos that would be extremely relevant to a lot of pages. Would this be something WikiProject Music would be interested in supporting? Ammosh11 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your own site? If so, you will wish to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and make sure that you are not conflicting with that guideline. Asking about the links before you add them, as you are doing, is a good first step. Λυδαcιτγ 03:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am affiliated with the site. However, I did read multiple Wikipedia rules and was referred here by a Wikipedia administrator. John let me know that the correct step is to get the links approved by a neutral party, so that's what I'm trying to do. Even though I am affiliated, all the videos were meant for education-oriented uses. The site owns the copyrights of all its material, and it's all free. Plus, the material is reliably sourced material, seeing as the people being interviewed are the people's pages I would be posting on.

John let me know that a WikiProject would be the place to go to get some help with posting some links. What's your take on this? Thanks for your help. Ammosh11 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a regular music article editor and I've seen some links to this site. I checked it out once because I often remove external links if they are overly commercial and not really needed. But I did not remove the link because the interview was educational and definately WP:RS. So I looked around the site, and found this:

Funding for the development of Artists House Music has been provided by the Herb Alpert Foundation. The foundation devised the idea for an online, non-profit musicians’ Website where all musicians can receive informational support, guidance, and expert resources to help them navigate the challenges and maximize the opportunities available to them within the music industry.

That's good enough for me. My opinion is that links to that site are completely fine. I did not see any commercial advertising on the site at all.

I'd say, go ahead and include the links and if you run into trouble about it, refer editors to the page with the above quote. If they still don't like the link, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or refer them to this discussion here.

It would be a good idea to include a footnote or explanation with the link, to indicate what you noted above, "The site owns the copyrights of all its material, and it's all free." You could add that it's a non-profit foundation.

Of course, further opinions are wlecome from other editors here as well.--Parzival418 _Hello 06:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Your suggestions are greatly appreciated. Ammosh11 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an objection against the addition of these links by user Ammosh11 or user ahmusic. WP:COI states that link-additions to organisations should be discussed if the user is affiliated with these links. Also, mass additions can be explained as spam, even if the links as such are good. Please discuss the links on the appropriate talkpages, and let them being added by uninvolved editors when consensus is reached. Also, in many cases the links serve their function better as a reference instead of a link in the external links sections (also see WP:EL and WP:NOT). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read the various links Dirk has provided and understand the problem better. I have some ideas about how we can come up with a solution that works for everyone and follows all the Wikipedia policies, but I don't have time to write about it now.

In the meantime, I recommend that user Ammosh11 or user ahmusic stop adding the links until we come to a consensus that they are OK and how to reference them. There is no hurry to get them added right away. I do believe the information is valuable, in accordance with policy, and we'll be able to find a consensus on this, but it's important to avoid unintentionally creating a problem that can drag down the process before the consensus is reached.

I also recommend that you read this discussion I found in one of the article Dirk linked in his comment: [6]. That link goes to the page, but to get to the actual text, you need to scroll down and un-hide the collapsed archive with the title: Victoria and Albert Museum (2) – Inactive. Please read that and also the Wikiguides that Dirk linked, so later when I post my suggestions on how we can approach this, you will be familiar with the underlying principles.

In particular, take a look at this section of the article about WP:COI. This may take a while, so please be patient. But also don't worry about it. Your contributions are not simply being rejected, we will continue this discussion. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is currently in need of contributions by informed third parties to assist in the resolution of a longrunning dispute concerning definitions. Similar attention is also required at Ambient music and New Age music. --Gene_poole 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link to the Request for Comment.

Regarding the similar questions about Ambient music and New Age music, I suggest that since the discussions will cover similar points, that we address the RFC at Space music first rather than trying to do them all at once. Just a suggestion - that we go a step at a time to avoid duplicate effort. The consensus will affect several articles in the long run. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a WikiProject Pop music at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Anyone with input on whether or not it should be created or who would be interested in forming one should discuss there. ShadowHalo 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Barnraisers is up for deletion. I make a habit of notifying an appropriate group in these circumstances, so apologies if this is the wrong place. The AfD can be found here. DarkSaber2k 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:MUSIC the charting criterion is "had a charted hit on any national music chart." What exactly qualifies as a "national music chart"? I'm specifically interested in the US, but worldwide would be helpful, too. The reason I ask is there's a "problematic" article that refers to chart hits on Friday Morning Quarterback (link), which I think is more of a radio "tip sheet" for programmers than a solid chart reference (like Billboard). My history is in music retail, not radio so I don't know about FMQB (other than knowing it exists, and has for quite a while). Pondering whether or not charting with FMQB counts toward notability got me wondering about other charts that might be quoted. Especially when they're not easily verifiable (i.e. no online archive of charts). I mean, the criterion explicity states "any" national chart; that seems overly expansive. Precious Roy 12:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this Wikipedia:Record charts not sure if it clears things up though - X201 12:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that; that's just how to present chart information in a table. Thanks for the thought anyway. Precious Roy 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DMajj wishes to alert us to Musicality, a music-specific wiki which he has been working on. Those interested in music may wish to check out Musicality and perhaps contribute. Λυδαcιτγ 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Invitation
		I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject G-Unit Records. We are currently on demand for new members and we believe that the project could benefit from your contributions. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards The-G-Unit-Boss

--The-G-Unit-Boss 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project, a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles consisting of music entries, was recently marked as inactive. I guess I was the only one who was working on it, and that was rather occasionally. There are many many ideas for articles there that should be included in the encyclopedia, and it would be great to see more progress. (The whole list is a bit daunting.) I wasn't sure how widely known the list is, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Rigadoun (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a set of music Navboxes, and I'm trying to seek approval. Each one covers a certain genre or category. Now I realize we already have a Template:Navbox musical artist. I feel that one template can't support all genres of musc (suppose if the one template was changed, it would affect all other template, which could be a pain). The templates can be found HERE. I have only created navboxes for "solo hip hop artist", "hip hop groups" (i.e. D12, G-Unit, NWA, etc.), "solo pop singer", "pop group" (i.e. Destiny's Child, NSYNC, etc.), "solo rock singer" (i.e. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, etc.), "rock band", and "other". If there are any other notable genres to be created, I can create it. The more feedback I have on this, the better. MITB LS 14:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:UK Raving be deleted? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:UK_Raving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a begining to an article here on a user subpage. I was hoping to flesh it out more and then make it a wikipedia article, but my sources have completely dried up. No more googlehits other than buying used CDs. Should I throw in the towell? Please respond on my talk page. —ScouterSig 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. -- Pepve (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked Brrwawall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & sockpuppet Reww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am not familiar enough with hip-hop to know what information added is incorrect, but these accounts have a history of creating hoaxish/spamish content that should be reviewed. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted your request on WikiProject Hip hop, it might get better attention there. I myself am rather unequiped with hip hop knowledge, sorry. -- Pepve (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Scientizzle 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've taken upon myself to overhaul the Pop music article that's been in dire need of attention for a while. As befits, its taken me far more time and effort than I foresaw, not only because of the associated articles, categories and lists. I was given the shove I needed to get on with it by the Core Topics Contest, which ends tomorrow, so I've posted what I have and shall continue to work on it until it's finished (five days to a week, I'm expecting). I beg your patience on the sections tagged 'Work in progress' and am open to all comments on the rest, for which I refer you to the article's talk page. Peace. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the rewrite of the article. I've left a couple of hints for improvements on the talk page, if anyone wishes to help. Greetings. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC) www.Hla awm khawmna.com[reply]