Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

I have proposed the creation of two categories, one for Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and one for Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. I was told that, given the scope of this endeavor (given that there are 600+ articles that would fall into each category), I should post here to discuss it further. (I'll also link to the Articles for Creation/Categories page here so you can see the discussion there as well – specifically linking my requests here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories#Category request: Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time inclusions)

One of the editors on the AfC page pointed out that it was surprising that there was not already a category for RS's 500 Albums/Songs. I agreed with them, but it also made me wonder if there is a specific reason why there are no equivalent categories for these albums and songs already; has this been an idea that was rejected in the past? If not, and if there is no pushback against the creation of these categories, I would love to see it happen and get some help with page categorization! :)

BTW, if anyone does have any issue with this, I am also open to hearing reasons why this may not be an appropriate category to pursue creating. Afddiary (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-project-member comment) As a person who commented on the AfC/C page, I do endorse the idea of this category if there is no opposition. I am also ready in assisting of adding the categories using AWB if the idea is accepted. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really feel strongly either way, but it feels like there could be a valid argument that making a websites top list isn't really a WP:DEFINING characteristic... Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't have a particularly strong opinion, and was leaning towards accepting the request originally. However, I can't find other examples of similar categories, which makes me question whether it is WP:DEFINING enough. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

And if it is a defining characteristic, whether we should make categories for other (popular) best of all time lists. And if we shouldn't, why should it only be Rolling Stone? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with other "best of all time lists" having categories. In fact, if categories are created for Rolling Stone's lists, I'd argue it would be appropriate to create categories for the others as well. I understand there are a few similar lists of "greatest" songs and albums, including (but definitely not limited to):

• NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
• 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die
• 1,000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die
• The Pitchfork 500
• (VH1 has a list of 100 greatest hard rock songs of all time (mentioned on the pages of each song, including its #1 entry "Welcome to the Jungle", but their list does not have a Wikipedia page.)

The reason I was surprised about the lack of categorization for the RS lists is because of how much attention RS's lists receive in the media (well, at least western media, from my perspective). However, despite the fact that I have long been aware of several other lists, the comparative amount of press and attention I see RS's lists receiving definitely eclipses what I see the other lists receiving. I don't really see the other lists as part of a cultural conversation around musical reception in the same way, although to be fair, that could be because RS repeatedly updates their lists, automatically forcing them to remain a part of musical conversations as each update gets released every few years. (I know the 1001 Albums list technically receives occasional updates as well, but I don't see its updates getting the same amount of press.)

I can also understand the argument that inclusion on the list isn't really a defining characteristic of each song (per Wikipedia:Defining). I don't know if RS's lists' level of notoriety works in favor of creating categories for them, but I did figure I'd mention it; however, looking over WP:DEFINING again, I'm wondering if it might be more appropriate to create an article containing a full list of each edition, instead of categories. As it stands, neither RS 500GOAT article contains a full list; the "Songs" article contains the top 10, and the "Albums" article contains no lists at all, although it contains statistics.

For whatever it is worth, the only place on Wikipedia where I've found a list has been the WikiProject dedicated to ensuring each of RS's 500 greatest songs has GA/FA status (as well as an equivalent WikiProject list for the 500 greatest albums – and I feel it is worth mentioning that each list only contains the most recently updated edition of each list, rather than the lists' original 2003/2004/2010/2012 iterations). Afddiary (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We would need to make sure creating an article with the full list is not a copyright violation. I vaguely remember that it may be, but I could be wrong. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm frequently reminding people of this. We should not be replicating other websites lists verbatim like that. If people want to read a Rolling Stone list, they should be going to their website, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, @Sam Sailor has created the categories Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. I was hoping to come to a consensus here first, but I suppose the next step would be to categorize all relevant pages unless there are any objections. We'll need to compile a list, check to ensure each page is the correct topic, and likely do an AWB/JWB run. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a risky move. Hopefully it doesn't get deleted after dumping a ton of work into it. I've seen it happen countless times with the video game content area... Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Been having a difficult time deciding how I feel about this. On one hand, probably no publication's lists should be considered defining, and we don't really need to collect that information because it can already be found published by that publication. But on the other hand, this list could be the exception. It is Rolling Stone after all, probably the biggest music publication in the world, and I guarantee there's plenty enough coverage of these lists out there to speak to its value above any other. For safety, I would probably lean toward non-defining anyway, but it feels like it's right on the edge.

However, it's also worth discussing the value of the category in terms of the information this list can provide. I'm not sure it's worth it just to load a category with >500 items (because different albums have been added to/removed from later lists so the grand total is over 500) without any further explanation. Were they on the first list, but later removed? How highly did they rank? A category can't tell us any of that info, but I'm sure the prose in these albums'/songs' articles already do, and I think that info is far more important than just blankly saying this thing appeared on this list at some point in history without any further context. What all is to be learned from that? Ends up just a collection of names for collection's sake methinks. For that reason, I wouldn't make the categories. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In Blackhawk (band), Randy Threet was formerly a "real" member but is now credited solely as a member of the backing band. Since he's not a former member in the sense that he still performs with them, should he be listed as a current member in the infobox but with a footnote, as is the case now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I am formally proposing an update to WP:BAND, which can be viewed here. The proposal can be voted on here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:RS/N regarding these sources and if they are reliable. Input at that discussion would be appreciated, please.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Per Graywalls (talk · contribs) suggestion at the discussion, I'm soliciting input from this WikiProject. Is Indie Vision Music an unreliable source? Discussion is here at RS/N.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This was a pretty standard mid-level independent review site for a long time, though it never got formally evaluated at RSALBUMS. I've added it to pages in the past and am unaware of any good reasons not to treat it as generally reliable. Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Greywalls argument is that it is akin to the HuffPo or Forbes contributors where there isn't editorial oversight in a meaningful way.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

For purposes of centralizing the discussion, could you comment at the RS/N discussion rather than here, Chubbles?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't exactly say for certain, but what would help is if you could explain their editorial policy with citations directly supporting it. Graywalls (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls I will note that this isn't really possible with a lot of even reputable music sources. I should search and see if they've ever issued corrections, that's a good way to tell if a source is reliable. I did email IVM and I'm waiting to hear back. Whether they will respond, I don't know. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: [1], [2], [3], [4].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability and it's more like bands and blogs cheering and praising each other. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've brought this question up years ago (I believe regarding Doug Van Pelt of HM), the founder/publisher of a source can also be an author for it. I'll see if I can find that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion. I searched for "Doug Van Pelt" and "John DiBiase" (of Jesus Freak Hideout, which I also searched for) in several different talk pages and noticeboards. If I didn't name drop them, which seems to be the case, then I don't think I'll ever find the discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"like bands and blogs cheering and praising each other." - that's not truly accurate, as the site does hand out negative reviews. It's not a simply promotional site.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Timbuk 3 needs a major revamp and cleanup.

• The band is defunct, so per fair use we could probably put an image in.
• I think all the band members except Pat MacDonald should be merged/redirected, as none seem to be independently notable and one has had a two sentence stub since 2006.
• No info on what the band members are up to now?

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Created a page on Imagine Dragons song Take Me To The Beach. It’s my first page, and I would love for it to be approved. If someone could please help edit it to make it better/more likely to be approved, that would be much appreciated…

Draft:Take Me To The Beach (Imagine Dragons song)ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Since participation is lacking, I thought I'd publish the AfD here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symphony_of_Heaven Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Would someone mind checking out this draft?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Taylon_Hope (attached link as well)

Thank you! Palmetto252 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend reorganizing per the guidance at WP:LEAD. Much of your intro should probably be repurposed into a "History/Background" sort of section, and then rewrite the intro so that it only summarizes the article body content. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

when we write or make new document of singer's albums or songs, there's sometimes producers list. how do y'all find producers credits? i tried Discogs, Spotify, Apple Music etc but i still couldn't find the way how to check them. also i wanna know how y'all find songwriters) credits & genre credits. Arismauve (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arismauve Tidal will usually list them. If it's albums, I usually consult the physical liner notes. You can often find those at Discogs.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can't find documentation at any of those sites, try to see if you can find it in a press release or review article. And at that point you're out of luck if you can't find anything.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

hello! thanks for your reply. also can i refer other language wikipedia's information? and i usually check producers or release date by genius.com, but i remember someone said it's not a reliable source.

i searched Discogs, and i just entered like Mariah's 4th album Merry Christmas, i can't find any producers list. i tried it on other artist's "best" albums, which are popular. but still i couldn't find anything.. Arismauve (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arismauve On Discogs for that album, click the cover art it brings up the liner notes. I can see who the producers are.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You can check other languages Wikipedias for leads/ideas of information, and you can take sources from them and add them to the English Wikipedia, but you can't use other Wikipedias (or any wiki/wikia) as a source directly per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a copyright issue if I copy it completely? Always appreciate for y'all helps! Arismauve (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arismauve no, if you're transcribing them into text that's perfectly fine --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

wow, i didn't know about that. but i have to write like "brought from (wikipedia link)" in edit summary, right? Arismauve (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

nvm, i found 'em. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (i was right xd) Arismauve (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was reading this from mobile and missed the context of your question - yes, if copied from another Wikipedia, you need to attribute the content.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Indie Vision Music, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for the reliability of the publication as a source for music journalism. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed updates that include adding musicians that might interest members of this WikiProject: Talk:Academy of Achievement#New names for Academy of Achievement#Notable recipients of the Golden Plate Award Jarc12030 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Started a discussion yesterday regarding Template:Morrissey singles and whether it should be separate. Unlikely to get much attention on a template talk page on its own so I figured I should just reach out for any responses I can get rather than letting it be between two people who probably won't come to a consensus on our own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested for comment in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Music, I made a request for the ASCAP article that may be of interest to editors. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer! Stephanie BINK (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

in here, what's the standard of Studio album and EP? Camilasdandelions (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In an artist's discography, all studio albums and EPs should be listed. Chubbles (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, how do y'all check whether this album is studio or EP? How do y'all differentiate? Camilasdandelions (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see - there's no hard and fast rule. If the artists identify the release as an EP, that's usually definitive; otherwise, as a rule of thumb, releases that are less than a half hour in length AND have eight tracks or fewer generally qualify as EPs. There are exceptions. Edge examples can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Chubbles (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much this. In most cases artists are pretty clear with the label, and we use that, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. Do y'all count a studio album related to their release dates? If the studio album named "A" were released ij 2009, and "B" were released in 2010, then "A" is 1st studio album and "B" is the second? Camilasdandelions (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though we also defer to sources in instances where some albums are considered "unofficial" parts of an artist's discography, e.g. the footnote in the lead of all of Björk's albums clarifying whether one counts Björk (album) or Gling-Gló. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

See also this brief discussion regarding Journals by Justin Bieber. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your explanation.

so for sum, in Wikipedia we regard studio album as 8 + songs but there're some exceptions, like Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster.

if an artist once say it's an EP even though the album exceeds 8 songs, then it's being an EP. am i correct? :,) Camilasdandelions (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello all,

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Lists of music venues in which you may be interested.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is the first time I'm doing something like this, so let me know if I've messed up somewhere.

There is a minor disagreement on whether or not "Piano ballad" should classify as a music genre on the page for "Cancer", and therefore be included in the infobox. My argument is for the inclusion of it: various sources directly call the song a piano ballad and nothing else (the sources are listed on the talk page for the article), and the Wikipedia page for music genres defines a genre as being one which "identifies some pieces of music as belonging to a shared tradition or set of conventions", something which clearly must be true if various outlets choose "piano ballad" as the sole identifier for the song and are thus expecting readers to hold some common understanding of their conventions. However, the other side of the argument is that a piano ballad is a style, and thus cannot be a genre; this is a similar argument made in regards to the consensus of not counting a "power ballad" as a genre, given that a "ballad" on its own is not a genre. There was also a discussion on the talk page for Norman Fucking Rockwell! which decided against including "piano ballad" in an infobox for an album, however the consensus may be different on a song-by-song basis. Is there any chance of establishing a clear consensus on this? Leafy46 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

No, just like a regular ballad, it's a descriptor/characteristic of music, but not a genre. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The line between a "category" or "characteristic" and a "genre" is a gradient. But I lean toward this being a category or characteristic of the song. Like, say, duet.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

To unhelpfully confuse the issue: there is a redirect piano balladpiano ballad which points to Ballade (classical music) where "piano ballad" is termed and categorised as a genre. The work under discussion her, "Cancer", of course doesn't fall into that description, which in turn means that it shouldn't be so categorised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled on a user who has added Quebec charts to over 100 English-language song articles over the past 24 hours. However, the source used on a majority of these additions seems to be this PDF from BAnQ, which appears to be only an English- and allophone-language chart and not a comprehensive chart for Quebec. There is also no indication on the PDF that ADISQ, the organization included in the chart table, is the one who authored this chart, though may be implied elsewhere. I can't find any information on WP:Record charts about how sub-national/regional charts should be handled, so is there any precedent on this matter? Leafy46 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Alabama (band) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! When recently reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/How You Get the Girl/archive1, I noticed that the article has two infoboxes. On

I have likened this to video game articles that usually combine the different releases (and the idea of a remaster to me done by a different company is very similar to me), or a movie with a directors cut.

What are your thoughts on having more than one Infobox for an article on a song? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In the case of "How You Get the Girl" specifically, I would say that it is warranted to have two separate infoboxes. This is primarily because the information between the two songs is sufficiently different (e.g. its studio, label, producers), which may be confusing to a reader if consolidated into one infobox. It also keeps information relevant to the Taylor's Version of the song near its dedicated section in the article. However, I definitely see the argument for consolidating infoboxes on certain articles, or removing second ones altogether; for instance, the 2022 re-recording of "November Rain" does not have its own infobox on the page, despite the orchestration being different. I suppose the ultimate difference, then, is whether there is enough to write on a re-recording to warrant it having its own section in an article, and, if so, whether the infobox attached to it would be sufficiently different from the one at the top of the page. Leafy46 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've seen this done for cover versions of songs, but never re-recordings. To me, it would come down to how large and much redundancy they'd have to decide if it's necessary. This one looks like it would be pretty easy to merge video game style. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the second infobox can be helpful in these instances as multiple parameters are different in this instance. Looking at "How You Get the Girl" as an example, the differences are in the title, the parent album, the genre, the release date, the studio, the producers, and the video link parameters. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the MOS that is against having multiple infoboxes so it may just be a matter of personal preference.

You may be "a firm believer we should only have a single Infobox per article", but unless there is actual policy to support that, that is just your opinion, which is valuable and important to share, but editors also can disagree and think something else. I think having the infobox in the section about the rerecording is helpful for readers. "Habits (Stay High)" is another instance where another version of a song has a separate infobox. We can disagree on whether or not we as individual editors like this, but I think that it should be left up to the editor; to form a consensus against this this should either be rooted in policy or have a stronger argument. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the argument - is the original Infobox really too big to accommodate both pieces of information? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

And the counterarguments would be: What is wrong with having more than one infobox per article, and why does the original one have to cover both versions? This article treats the original version of the song and the rerecording as separate, so I do not see an issue with including two infoboxes to clearly establish that for readers. I do not find the argument to be particularly compelling or convincing. In my opinion, it still boils down to personal preference. It is okay if you or any other editor prefer to use a single infobox, but my concern would be why should other editors have to adopt this approach too? It reminds me a bit of WP:CITEVAR. These are just different approaches to the same thing. I do not see why or how one way is better or worse than the other. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur. I don't see a problem with multiple infoboxes where necessary.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That being said, it is likely just a difference in opinion, and I will respect whatever consensus or decision comes from this conversation. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is an article about one song, that exists as two recordings. The song and the recording of the song are two intellectually separate objects. You can have one infobox if the infobox is about the song. But if the infobox is about the recording, you need two infoboxes for information-organization purposes. As the infoboxes are currently set up, they represent the recordings, and so two makes sense. Chubbles (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  My thought is that infoboxes should be about the subject of the article, not about something else. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Both of the recordings are notable, but since they're by the same artist (who is also the songwriter), it becomes ungainly to try and farm them out as separate articles. The article subject, really, is all three things - a notable song as well as two different notable recordings. Chubbles (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello mates, I have serious problem. What are the general requirements for an album's deluxe version to have a standalone article?

---

I have stumbled across articles like articles like Lana (deluxe of SOS) and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (deluxe of Good Girl Gone Bad), but Scarlet 2 Claude is merged into Scarlet although it's also a reissue. According to WP:Articles for deletion/Lana (album), editors say that as long the subject has enough coverage in RS then that's ground for a standalone article. However, we have remixes like "Die for You (Remix)" and "Save Your Tears" which both peaked at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100, certified in multiple regions; to sum it up, they somehow performed better than the originals and they are critically discussed in RS (enough to grant a standalone article, but they are merged into the originals).

---

So, again, if this is some kind of loophole to create standalones for special editions, can there be clear requirements, or should they be merged into their respected standard editions/originals? dxneo (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I always need a really good reason to split an article like this. It can't purely come down to notability — the coverage in sources also needs to be sufficient to generate a ton of proper Wikipedia content, such that shoving all of it into the main album article becomes unmanageable.

When I've proposed merging or deleting articles, an attitude I see a lot is to say "we should keep this, it's clearly notable". But an awful lot of notable stuff can be covered in sufficient depth as part of a larger article.

Another vague observation: I think there is a tendency to be too deferential to reissues and deluxe editions on Wikipedia, and the urge to catalogue them often spills out into fancruft. This isn't Discogs. We should be thinking big-picture and long term about what really matters, not worrying about outtakes and alternative covers, etc.

OKNOTOK, the reissue of OK Computer, is a rare example of where I felt the split was justified. I originally put the coverage in the OK Computer article but it grew so large I split it. Popcornfud (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been curious about this myself lately due to the existence of The Black Parade/Living With Ghosts article. I've been questioning whether or not it needs to be a separate page or if it should just be merged into The Black Parade since it's literally just TBP with some extra outtake material. I'm leaning towards that it should be merged, but I also think that if I tried to merge the article it would be rejected and then likely kept in any discuss because it might technically be notable. λ NegativeMP1 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, it's almost never justified, and should just be combined into one article. Largely per the points of WP:MERGEREASON. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's simply a matter of whether or not a reissue is able to pass WP:NALBUM on its own, disregarding its correlation with the original album. In the case of Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, for instance, the reissue, not the original, was certified as gold in Sweden, which qualifies it per Criteria 3; Lana, on the other hand, charted in Italy (even if only barely) and Norway, qualifying it per Criteria 2. Both also have received extensive news coverage of the reissue itself, saying more about it than simply a passing remark of "It is the reissue of the album ____" and a release date. I feel that the reason why Scarlet 2 Claude is not a standalone article seems to be more about editors never having put one together in the first place, and less about its notability independent of the original album. This may be something of a hot take, however, and I don't have nearly as much editing experience as some others in this thread, so feel free to take this comment with a grain of salt if you wish. Leafy46 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect, and not good advice. There are many reasons besides WP:NALBUM (or the WP:GNG) that are considered when deciding whether or not something gets its own stand alone article. For example, as I said above, see the points at WP:MERGEREASON. Being notable is a requirement for something having its own article, but its not compulsory for something to have an article just because its notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Amen! I think there's a mass confusion over notability meaning the same thing as being worthy of an article. Popcornfud (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I basically 100% agree with what Sergecross and Popcornfud have said above. Notability does not necessarily automatically equal being worthy of a separate article, and when it comes to a lot of these reissues (though barring examples such as OKNOTOK and Thriller 25, both of which have enough information about them in addition to notability to warrant standalone articles), their content can often be more than easily merged into the parent album article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't Lana and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded have enough information and notability? Medxvo (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of notability. dxneo (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

JeffSpaceman said OKNOTOK and Thriller 25 are exceptions since they have enough information in addition to notability, which seems to be the case with Lana and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. Medxvo (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I see what you all mean, but I feel that it's all a matter of balancing what is said at WP:MERGEREASON with the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and thus that there is no practical reason why two articles with connected but fundamentally different scopes cannot both exist. It is never strictly "compulsory" for something to have an article as far as I'm concerned, however I also think it's somewhat demeaning to say that a topic like a reissue — even if reliable sources do exist and it can be demonstrably shown to be different from the original album — is not "worthy" of having an article simply because it could be summarized in a different one. After all, is that not what album articles do when it comes to their "composition" or "music" sections, where each individual song is given a short blurb, but they can always be expanded out into full pages if there are enough sources supporting its distinction from the original album? Why can't that same luxury be extended towards album reissues, like the ones presented at the top of this section? Leafy46 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When a song has enough coverage that there's enough to write about on its own page, rather than summarizing that info on the album page, then a separate page is justified. The same logic holds for reissues. Popcornfud (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur. We cannot have "Save Your Tears" and its remix on separate pages. Same with these albums. dxneo (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the logic, which is why I'm confused on where the point of contention is in this section. I'll point out that WP:MERGEREASON says that merging should be avoided if "The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles". To me, this reads like it's saying that as long as both articles are notable and enough can be written about them, which they are in the case of these original/re-issue albums, then there is no reason why they cannot be standalone but connected in prose. I also do not believe that the "Context" argument is valid here, given that a large chunk of the reissue articles are devoted to the reissues themselves, rather than their correlation with the originals. Unfortunately, however, it's hard to make any argument using MERGEREASON given that so much of it is subjective. Aside from "Duplicate" and "Overlap", the other three reasons listed seem to allow for much editor freedom on whether or not an article matches the criteria, and in that case there is already a fixture in place to reach consensus: AFD. Leafy46 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you keep trying to frame it as "simple", and it's not. It's contextual, to be figured on a case by case basis. But usually it's very easy to implement into one cohesive anrticle than two short, redundant ones. And no, it doesn't have to be at AFD. Simple talk page discussions are fine, either at the subjects talk page or a Wikiproject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should be contextual, but I honestly do not think that this is as complex as it's being made out to be, either. If an editor goes through the effort to make a separate page for a reissue, then it should be fine as long as it is notable and there's enough information on it; otherwise, the page can be deleted/merged, and everything returns to the status quo before. I would also not classify either reissue page in question here as being a redundant clone of the original album page, but I clearly don't have the experience with writing articles to say whether or not two would be better than one. In any case, though, it's clear that this conversation is going in a circle (and seemingly on the verge of going off-topic), and that there's not really much of a point going back and forth on this given that it looks like the only difference is our different, subjective answers on whether Wikipedia should have more but shorter pages, or fewer but longer pages — which is to say, I'll just stay out of this discussion from here on out. Leafy46 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana (album) and was hoping for just this type of discussion. Many enlightening points so far, but I think everyone is using the traditional definition of "reissue" although that term seems to be getting indistinct in the business. Lana is being promoted as a "reissue" but not in the traditional sense. SZA's previous album was two years before, and she just released 15 new songs totaling 46 minutes. For everyone else that would be a new album of its own. Instead, SZA latched those new songs onto the previous album and called it a "re-issue". I really don't get that reasoning myself (makes the new songs look like rejects), but to me it seems like a new tactic that doesn't quite fit the above discussion about more traditional reissues. I sure hope this tactic doesn't become a trend. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Having one subject largely on two separate articles is totally unacceptable in my opinion. Question is, do we stop this now before it becomes a trend or what is the way forward? Because if Kendrick Lamar comes back with 11 more diss tracks (endless coverage) in June then we gonna be back here again. And if we are keeping the articles, can there be clear requirements specifically for special editions. dxneo (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, this really needs to stop because what's Megan: Act II Facepalm dxneo (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

So it really is a trend and it won't stop just because we think it's a dumb promotional tactic. Now we have to deal with it by figuring out a policy on what is an independent new album and what is not. (If your last album was a smash hit with lots of rave reviews, but you're worried that your new batch of songs will come up short, just plaster them onto a "reissue" of the last hit album so they don't have to stand on their own. That's my suspicion but I just work here.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it even happens in the rock music world, with bands like Blink 182 and Radiohead, though their bonus discs haven't historically been spun out into separate articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Some tracks on Lana are not really "new" in the way I think you mean and are actual outtakes/throwaways you'd expect from a regular deluxe edition ("30 for 30" - demo; "BMF" - demo; and "What Do I Do" - demo). However, I see what you mean when you say the line is incredibly blurred. Some of the bonus songs were new in that they were recorded after the original album. (as if to make things worse, her label plans to add more songs on top of that, some of which are also an assortment of "new" and "outtakes".)

Re. "billed as a reissue", I'm not sure where this is coming from. SZA never explicitly billed it as one and has consistently referred to it as a deluxe edition. I assume nobody onwiki ever agreed on the right type to describe the project, so "reissue", having been a frequently used descriptor in other album articles, was the next-best thing.

Even with that in mind, SZA's said some very confusing things about Lana that has left even our usual music RS lost. In interviews, she's said that "the deluxe is a whole 'nother album", it "is really just the B-side of SOS", and it is "definitely turning it into its own album". Although who knows how much of those is figurative/an exaggeration. Looking at the RS, publications like Variety are calling it a deluxe album, but then we have Rolling Stone saying "Lana - at once a new album, but also technically an expansion upon 2022's SOS" and Vibe outright says "third studio album serving as the SOS Deluxe." If not even the reliable sources, upon which we build Wikipedia, agree on anything... I can see a possible RfC happening sometime in the future. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I overused "reissue" to describe various strategies, one of which is definitely "deluxe edition". Otherwise I too think we need a policy-level RfC on this confusing chain of events. especially if other artists turn it into the trend that we're already dreading in this discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't think of any instance where a song's remix got a separate article spun off from its original edition, nor do I believe that practice would be justified when it tends to be easy to talk about both versions in one page. Albums have more nuance with reissues because they contain new tracks that might get their own significant attention that the standard album didn't. From what I can tell, those are a case-by-case basis. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Singles criteria § USRadioUpdater. The discussion is about the reliability of the publication "US Radio Updater" for radio release dates. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 12:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have proposed making MOS:ALBUMS an official guideline. I know this is more specifically relevant to WP:ALBUMS, and I've already notified them, but I felt this project might want to participate as well and would appreciate the notice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Upgrade_MOS:ALBUM_to_an_official_guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts § Hot Dance/Pop Songs. The discussion is about determing the proper use of the newly established chart on song articles. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have recently submitted a draft for Draft:Jay Wadley, a composer known for his work in film, television, and contemporary classical music. He has scored projects such as *I'm Thinking of Ending Things*, *Driveways*, *Swan Song*, and the *Franklin* miniseries.

The draft includes references from reliable sources such as Polygon, Deadline, Gold Derby, Classic FM, and others. Since the Articles for Creation (AfC) review backlog is currently about two months, I was hoping an experienced editor from WikiProject Music could take a look and help assess its readiness for mainspace.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly! Heytinaaam (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a RfC discussion at Template talk:Infobox song § RfC: Customizing Infobox Background Colors Based on Album or Single Cover Colors. I highly recommend to join on this discussion to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Over at WP:RSN, I have proposed deprecating Encyclopaedia Metallum.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion if CDM (Create Digital Music) is a reliable source on the reliable sources noticeboard. As mentioned on the noticeboard, this source is being used on several "living persons" but might also be a self published source. 2620:8D:8000:10E6:F1E1:F861:593:FB0B (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to put more than the main instrument in a musician's infobox? I know WP:COATRACK etc but this one guy - DeFord Bailey - was known mainly for his harmonica but was also well-known for playing the banjo & guitar etc... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've always felt it's fine to add multiple instruments as long as they're the main instruments they're known for. Musicians often don't have a single main instrument and in many cases it would be misleading to imply they're only known for one. Popcornfud (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. Its fine to put multiple instruments, but don't list every instrument they've ever touched in their life. Some do things like add the tambourine to Dave Grohls article just because he used one for 2 minutes in a recording session once in 1998. Don't do that. He's known for drumming and guitar, not tambourine. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I restored banjo and guitar to Bailey's infobox but did leave out the mandolin and the bones. - Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the reliability of sonicstate.com on RSN, any input would be appreciated. See WP:RSN#Sonic State. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

An editor has asked about the reliability of Two Story Melody[5] on RSN, it just seems to be a blog. See WP:RSN#Two Story Melody. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

https://twostorymelody.com/the-ethereal-charm-of-auroras-forgotten-love/

It's a link that I found Camilasdandelions (talk!) 10:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Music, I have another request for the ASCAP article that may be of interest to those here. Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer! Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't often work with up and coming artists. I have added a new paragraph at Adrien Nunez. I would love it if anyone would come and tweak what I have added for his start to 2025.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I've just finished working on a userspace draft for Los Angeles Rising, a charity compilation album that has been assembled to raise funds for the musicians affected by the Los Angeles wildfires of last month, and features the likes of Nick Cave and PJ Harvey, as well as Red Hot Chili Peppers members Flea and John Frusciante.

I just wanted to get some feedback on how my draft looks like at the moment, and whether it could be ready to be moved to the mainspace or not. Oltrepier (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. There's a number of music RS's present that cover the release itself, so I wouldn't think you'd get any pushback from publishing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Good to hear- ahem, I meant good to read! : )

I'll publish it as soon as possible, then. Thank you for your feedback! Oltrepier (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Great article, Oltrepier (talk). Although I am an Angeleno, a music fan, and a person who organized two edit-a-thons related to the wildfires, I was unaware of Los Angeles Rising. Thanks for writing the article. JSFarman (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@JSFarman Thank you for the heartfelt feedback! I hope you're doing well, by the way... Oltrepier (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

My feedback is definitely heartfelt; the fires were devastating. I am ok! Hope you are too. So happy to have had another great reason to cross paths with you, @Oltrepier.JSFarman (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started an RfC on the guidance of MOS:ALBUM regarding bonus tracks and alternative tracklistings on album articles. If you are interested, please see the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album article style advice#RfC on alternative tracklistings and bonus tracks on album_articles.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Concerts regarding the usage of festivals for tour date tables, which may be of interest to those here. Any input would be appreciated. The discussion is called Music festivals in Venue column on tour date table, or in Explanatory footnotes?. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

One is a gospel group and the other a metal band, I don't think these disambiguators are really standard. Usually it's nationality that is used. ★Trekker (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) to repurpose WP:MN (now to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles) to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Can someone help me format this a little better so it can possibly be published? I am writing a wikipedia article for a friend of a friend's band. also the name is wrong, it should be "Year of the Rodent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rodent_Death_Orgy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widingt (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, can anybody help me add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jolyon_Petch to this group?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainamera22 (talk • contribs) 01:26, July 17, 2021 (UTC)

Could I get a second opinion on what's happening to the article The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings? This article is about a box set of Frank Sinatra music. For the past week or so, an editor has been greatly expanding it (using several IPs as well as one newly registered account, but from behavior I assume they are all the same editor). The article now contains, not only list of each of the 452 tracks in the set, but for each of those tracks, a purported description of the date, day of week, and occasionally the time of day, on which it was recorded, the city in which it was recorded, and full list of all the musicians performing on each track, roughly 30-40 musicians per track. The article now contains over 20,000 words, of which only 238 words are prose, the rest being these enormous lists of names. This seems to me to fall afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Oh, also, none of this information is sourced. CodeTalker (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit uncommon...but so are 20+ disc releases. And additionally, somewhere in the guidance, it says that track lists generally don't need a source as long as they're 1) released and 2) non-contentious. So unless you have specific doubts on its accuracy (ie someone was certain there were 35 songs on disc 5 or something), the track lists are okay without a source.

I guess I'd ask, if it's not okay, why not? How is it different from a single or double album where we list the whole track list? Where is the line drawn? Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about the track listing, which has actually existed in the article for many years. My main concern is the 75% of the article that now lists the name of every musician who played on each track. That seems an unnecessary level of detail, and I don't see it in articles about other recordings. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band does not list the name of every member of the 40-piece orchestra, and Days of Future Passed does not list the name of every member of the London Festival Orchestra. CodeTalker (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with CodeTalker's concerns. The section "Contributing performers, arrangers and producers" is overwhelming and unnecessarily detailed. It is also unhelpful because its track numbers are through-numbered 1–452 which is not used in the track listing. This section might be marginally useful if it were restricted to a simple list of "Notable contributors" (those with articles). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was initially ready to counter with "music credits often vary in detail, with some getting quite granular", but looking closer, the credits are too detailed. They look like the equivalent of someone copy/pasting the entirety of a film's ending credits or something. Judging by some of the formatting details, I wondering if they actually copy/pasted some liner notes, which would be a no-no for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a nightmare to me. Do we need an article for this in the first place? Is it notable enough / is there enough material to write about it to justify the article existing? Or can it be summarised in one or two sentences in the Sinatra article? Popcornfud (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Googling around, I can't find much coverage of this, which suggests to me the article should be redirected to Frank Sinatra. Popcornfud (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this editor is making similar changes to a number of other articles: This Is Sinatra Volume 2, All the Way (Frank Sinatra album), Ring-a-Ding-Ding!, Sinatra's Swingin' Session!!!, Nice 'n' Easy, No One Cares, Come Dance with Me! (album), Look to Your Heart (Frank Sinatra album), and many others. None of these have sheer volume of personnel as The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings simply because there aren't that many tracks on the other albums, but the pattern of adding every musician, along with dates, times and cities, is the same. I have asked them to come here and participate in the discussion. CodeTalker (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I got a notification on all of this, and have been trying to figure out what exactly is happening here. A few months ago, I went through and compiled the info on personnel for Sinatra records from the book “Put Your Dreams Away”. I’m not ann experienced Wikipedia editor but knew this info would be appreciated. Every edit I made has cited that book. As a musician myself who regularly performs and studies this music, this information was never available anywhere online. Since I found it useful, I decided to add the information specifically under Personnel for Sinatra recordings, album by album. (Many musicians I know are thrilled that this is now available). In my opinion, Wikipedia is the perfect location for this information, especially when it’s located in its own personnel tab.

With that said, I’ve never edited a collection, because as people are pointing out, it’s overwhelming to list personnel that way, track by track. So I’m definitely not involved with the current edits. While I don’t get bothered by overwhelming information on musicians, I can see why the entire Reprise collection having this info is quite unnecessary. Especially since the info is available more succinctly by album. Ryanshawdrums (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Your efforts and enthusiasm are appreciated, you just kind of went overboard a bit with the details. It's not an encyclopedia's job to compliment to totality of the credits of something. Think of it in terms of my comment above - it's good to outline some key credits to a film, but it would be inappropriate to transcribe the entire 10 minute credits scene from the end of a film. What you did was...more akin to that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what has been previously published in reliable sources, not to publish information that has not been available previously. There are many places on the Internet where such details could be published more appropriately than in Wikipedia. Whether Sinatra would want the information known is irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:NOTDB, which explains that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information is true and useful does not automatically justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia. It might be useful to some people to have train schedules, TV listings, or car repair instructions available, but that does not mean that such things should be on Wikipedia.

Also, you say "Every edit I made has cited that book. But none of your edits have included citations, to that or any other book. Please read WP:REFBEGIN and the links therein to understand what a citation consists of on Wikipedia.

Please do not restore such information to any more articles until this discussion has reached a consensus. Doing so is edit warring and is not the way to reach a resolution here. CodeTalker (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

I’m working on a draft article about the Argentinian hard rock band LUJURIA, based on reliable sources and written with a neutral point of view.

The article is currently in my user sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stanlukubrik/sandbox

Since I have a direct connection to the band, I’d prefer the article to be reviewed and, if appropriate, moved to mainspace by an experienced editor to avoid any conflict of interest.

I would really appreciate any feedback or help!

Thank you so much for your time Stanlukubrik (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 9#File:Ssmlt.JPG. George Ho (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I am looking for feedback at Featured Article Nominations for Vince Gill, which I am trying to get to featured article. Please check it out here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

New stub: LGBTQ representation in jazz

Collaboration welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

In another project, I'd like to use some images from Wikipedia that are generated from the score module along the lines of what you get if you right-click and download the images in Peter and the Wolf#Instrumentation. Since these aren't actually uploaded images, they don't have their own pages with file attribution guidelines. Can anyone please point me in the right direction for correct attribution? Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that attribution would be the same as for any text from Wikipedia, WP:CC BY-SA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Katy Perry regarding her studio album chronology based on her major-label debut. Please share your opinion on the discussion page. Thanks. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 07:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started an RfC about what guidance, if any, there should be for bonus and alternative tracks in album articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#RfC_on_bonus_and_alternate_track_listings. Thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Good morning everyone,

some weeks ago, I reached out to Oricon regarding the availability of the You Taiki page with contains the full coverage of every Charts published by the company. As I am currently focusing on Japanese musicians and bands I (and I am translating articles from English to German) some information like chart entries below 50th place in the Oricon Singles and Albums Charts (after implementing You Taiki and earlier entries bein archived online) I reached out the company asking if it is possible to get access from overseas and adding PayPal as payment method. Oricon replied to me some days later and unfortunately, they wrote that You Taiki is and will only be accessible in Japan and they disapprove the usage of the data from You Taiki (including chart positions and first-week sales, even I did not ask for using the latter).

This is the message Oricon had sent to me:

(Introduction deleted as it would show my personal name)

この度は弊社「you大樹」サービスにお問い合わせいただき、 また貴重なご意見をいただき誠に有難うございます。

「you大樹」では利用規約におきまして以下のように定めております。

■第３条（申込の方法） １．本サービスは、日本国内に居住する個人のみ利用を申し込むことができるものとします。

よって貴殿におかれましては、「you大樹」のご登録、ご利用はできない状況です。

また、以下のようにも定めておりますので、想定されているご使用方法は不可となります。

■第４条（本サービスの利用について） ３．会員は、本サービスの利用にあたり、次の各号に定める行為をしてはならないものとします。 （1）コンテンツを複製、頒布、貸与、譲渡、公衆送信、送信可能化または上映を行い、 　　　もしくは第三者をしてこれらを行わせる行為

何卒ご了承ください。

誠に恐れ入りますが、何卒よろしくお願い申し上げます。

---

オリコンランキング月額有料情報サービス「you大樹」：http://ranking.oricon.co.jp/

お問い合わせ先： ranking@oricon.jp

--Goroth (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Well that's quite upsetting. Did they state why they disaprove of it being used outside of Japan?★Trekker (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm working with Wikiproject Unreferenced Articles and I was wondering if there's any good database sources that count as reliable that can be used for unreferenced album articles? AllMusic is clearly right out due to WP:ALLMUSIC, as is any other user-generated source like Discogs. So, what good non-user generated databases are out there for music? Silverseren^C 23:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Allmusic is still good for bio and album reviews, it's not as much as their database, but the usable content still has pretty good reach. But yeah, honestly, I'm not sure there are many. Unfortunately, in this day and age, most databases are user-generated, AI-generated, or Wikipedia-generated. There's aggregators like Metacritic I guess, but there's not usually much original content to be used there either. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using Allmusic for matter-of-fact confirmation of discographical information. Discogs is far and away the most comprehensive and reliable source in the world for anything discographical, but because it is UGC, you should use it and then not cite it. (This is silly, yes, but it is what makes a better encyclopedia.) More than anything else, you can trust the albums themselves as sources, since they are published works (and since Discogs usually has photographs of them, you often don't even have to have them on hand). An album is a reliable source for information about itself, just like a published book is. Chubbles (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

A while back there was a long discussion on the Micheal Gira talk page about an abuse allegation against him and it's inclusion on his page. An editor claims that the coverage of the allegations shouldn't happen because he's "not a public figure", among other claims on why they think the claims should not be included. I have responded to several of them on why I think they are incorrect. I would like to have some other editors revisit this as I felt the discussion didn't really go anywhere with only a few editors involved. RF23 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Someonefighter (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we might have a WP:TOOSOON case with Leo33. So far, the clearly notable Zach Top seems to be the only artist on the label who's released anything, and most of the coverage in the article is about Zach Top and not Leo33 proper. I would suggest this be draftified for a while until the label becomes more notable. Paging @Caldorwards4:, @Martin4647:, @Jax 0677:, @Sergecross73:, @CloversMallRat:, @Ss112: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I kind of doubt it'd survive a close review of WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Any suggestions here? This discussion kind of fizzled out and CloversMallRat isn't interested in doing anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Zach Top is clearly the spearhead for the label in terms of majority news since he's the big success story so far, but I don't see an issue here as it has received enough press to have a sufficient number of reputable sources (Billboard, Music Row), was started by notable industry executives with ties to big labels, and it has been signing several artists (who have released material even if it hasn't been on Top's level of success). If something like R&J Records can exist with virtually no sources, or Black River Entertainment who has only had 1 real success story in Kelsea Ballerini, I don't see the problem with Leo33 existing as it is. It's pretty clearly going to only continue growing as Top is on the precipice of being huge at the format, so there's no indication that the label will cease to be notable imo. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

If your examples haven't survived any sort of scrutiny like a merge or deletion discussion, they're not good examples of what's acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, or send to AFD - I think we should keep it, or at least have the conversation at AFD!. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong with having a preliminary discussion before AFD to gauge things. Its not like it'd be deleted from this discussion alone. That said, its not particularly helpful to say "I think we should keep it" without giving any explanation at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: any suggestions on what to do with the Leo33 article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

R&J Records at least had a large roster of mostly notable artists and was around for multiple years. Black River has had multiple chart entries prior to Kelsea Ballerini, and has received way more significant coverage. The current Leo33 roster is not notable except for Zach Top, and the label only began last year. I argue that it's a WP:TOOSOON and would probably be better served as draftified or redirected to Zach Top as an WP:ATD, unless someone has a better idea than that. As it stands, it's just too new a product to be notable, but may be notable in the future, so the current content should be preserved in some fashion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Jewish country music is a synthesis of ideas, a two-sentence stub with bad sources. I think it should go, as there's no info worth keeping or merging. The intersection of country musicians and Jewish ones doesn't seem to be a noteworthy topic. What say you, @Caldorwards4:, @Martin4647:, @Sergecross73:, @Another Believer:? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems like something that could be a notable topic, but if there aren't sources out there then it should probably be AFDed.★Trekker (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a few new citations of blogposts by the website/e-shop Vinyl Me Please getting added to music articles. 99.9999% chance these posts are generated by AI, they have all the stereotypical hallmarks of AI generated writing, are unattributed, and come back 100% on AI detectors. Per WP:RSPCHATGPT they shouldn't be used.

The company just announced this year they were going out of business and the AI articles seem to be indications it is now a zombie linkfarm site. So older citations are probably fine. I don't know the cutoff date though. 68.174.163.248 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway to merge Son of the Mountains with Brad Paisley. Your participation is encouraged here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway to change parameters on the Musicians infobox. Participation is encouraged here. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm an employee of Beutler Ink, working on improvements to the Freddy Wexler article. I have an open edit request over on the Freddy Wexler Talk page and thought editors at this project might be interested. I avoid editing the main space because of my COI, so I'm asking others to review and implement appropriately. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to address them over on the article's Talk page. Thanks! BINK Robin (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.(2405:6E00:222A:34AF:E06A:39FF:FE44:384F (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC))

Hello, I'm looking for input on whether it is acceptable if not encouraged to document the name origin and potential names a band considered before settling on their current name, provided the information is backed by multiple sources (e.g. interviews with an active founding member). On The Hardkiss, it appears the only active editors are me and Revirvlkodlaku, and we are not making progress despite having had an exchange on my talk page. Please chime in on the article talk page or get involved in the article space if you could. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely, as long as you've got a reliable source and you're conveying it accurately, it should without a doubt be included. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree fully.★Trekker (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed today that the editor @Seasider53 removed the all the names of children (except the ones with articles, or are deceased) from articles on The Rolling Stones members. I believe this is an overeager interpetation of WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states caution should be used and when naming family members and that it needs to be "properly sourced", not that they need to always be outright removed if they are living persons. And that reliable sources outside of news articles are prefered for sourcing. The majority of the individuals that were removed are not minors and don't seem to be obscure or private persons just because they don't have Wikipedia articles (yet). Many of them have willingly been involved in public over the years, (such as working in entertainment themselves, being interviewed for articles, or appearing in documentaries, etc). For example, Brian Jones son Julian with Linda Lawrence is a musician himself and has performed with his adoptive father Donovan. Not to mention that when your parent is as famous as theirs are, there is probably no meaningful way to actually avoid being discussed in biographies and similar, I don't believe in these person's cases reliable sources are a problem. I for example happen to have access to the book The Stone Age: Sixty Years of the Rolling Stones by Lesley-Ann Jones which discusses all the Stones major relationships and their children. It's far from the only book to do so. Pretty much all their names are already known to anyone who does a simple Google search or picks up a book on the band, and unless we have reason to think some of them would prefer to be excluded removing them from Wikipedia does nothing but make the article less complete, in my opinion. To summarize I don't think it's the right approach to remove all these names as some kind of standard. ★Trekker (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I've followed guidance from Escape Orbit in the past on this. They can weight in if they feel so inclined. The naming- and (especially) birthdate-sharing of the children (and maybe one grandchild?) seemed incredibly unnecessary in relation to learning about, say, Mick Jagger's life's work. I got the impression that a single editor felt the need to include the information, because it was very repetitive. I left the notable children in for each of the articles. For reference, my edits were:

• Charlie Watts
• Mick Jagger
• Keith Richards
• Ronnie Wood
• Brian Jones
• Ian Stewart
• Bill Wyman
• Mick Taylor

Seasider53 (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies are not just overviews of someones "life's work". They're biographies. Wikipedia gladly covers the personal lives of famous people, for example we have articles like personal relationships of Paul McCartney. If we're removing the names of their children without articles, why not all other family members? Their wives, siblings, parents, etc. That's certainly not a standard I've come across ever on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:BLPPRIVACY and especially WP:BLPNAME (The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.[f] Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.), I think the names of family members may be included in the articles if well documented, but not birth dates.

It separates family members from the primary subject of the article. The birthdate of Mick Jagger can be listed in his article, unless he or his representative reaches out and requests that it not be included, but with a presumption of privacy, only the names of his children may be included with proper sourcing. If the birth date of the next generation must be posted, create an article for the child. For example Jade Jagger has an article, and the birth date of Jade can be posted in the infobox for the article, but it would be inappropriate to list the birth date in the article for Mick Jagger. It would be acceptable, I think, to include the birth year, but anything more than that does nothing to expand the knowledge of Mick Jagger.

I believe every edit of an article for a living person should take into consideration a reasonable consideration of privacy, and should consider how the data improves the knowledge for the subject and only the subject of the article. Mburrell (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Official guidance here is open to interpretation and editors have to make a judgement call to reach consensus. My view is generally there is no need to name children, unless they are notable in their own right. (Maybe not notable enough to have their own article, but notable.) This seems particularly important when it is evident that the article subject has made no attempt to make their children's details public knowledge, or actively shields it. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, and just because readers may, for some reason, have an interest in knowing names, does not mean the the privacy of the children (and parents) should be encroached on by an encyclopaedia. I can think of few reason why I, or most people, need to know Mick Jagger's children's names (again, with the except of those who are notable in their own right). I can get a perfectly informed and full understanding of the man without knowing this. Same goes for dates of birth. While the existence of the children, and their approximate ages, are significant features of the article subject's life, who needs to know their precise birthdays? And doesn't this information constitute trivia? I realise that some notable people make no attempt to have any privacy, and publicize their children as much as any other aspect of their personal life. But I always think that Wikipedia should consider what say the children have had in this, and err on the side of privacy in all cases. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

But how to judge if a child is notable enough to mention by name, but not notable enough to have an article?★Trekker (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to revert these edits. I don't believe they make any sense and they make the writing clunky.★Trekker (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted the edits, I see no reason why some editors should be allowed to mass remove information in the name of privacy when the actual guidelines don't say that that is a must. The guidelines only say names need to be reliably sourced. I've seen no evidence so far that the offspring of the Rolling Stones aren't already widely known and have been for decades or that they crave privacy enough for their names to be excluded from a Wikipedia article. Removing their names makes reading the article confusing and clunky, not to mention that their names are often mentioned in several other articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I read a lot of articles about modern songs. Most of them lack any basic technical information, which is a real shame. One exception is At Seventeen, which has ""At Seventeen" is composed in the key of C major using common time and a moderate tempo of 126 beats per minute." Is there some way to make it a standard practice to add this kind of information? Kdammers (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Not really, as 1) we can't make anyone have interest in adding things and 2) it often isn't covered by reliable sources, and Wikipedia requires that for inclusion per WP:V. For example, I write a lot in the rock music content area, and many of the articles I've written, I couldn't add that if I wanted to, as I simply have no way of knowing it in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We could add recomended sources to the project.★Trekker (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Do you know of any good sources for the project to use?★Trekker (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I was going to say, I'm all for adding it, but I'm not familiar with any reliable sources that consistently cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. I come to Wikipedia's music articles for the information I mentioned (as well as other content), but I'm not a music expert or scholar. Kdammers (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to ask about the article for this one artist, Megan Kashat. The article was made in 2018 and shortly after its creation, it went through an AfD that was closed as soft delete. The article was brought back, but its original creator has since been indef blocked for editing in a promotional manner. Looking at a version of the article at the time of its AfD until now, very few source additions have been made, and after doing another search for sources, I can't seem to find much independent coverage. Most links related to her lead directly to her social and streaming profiles. I looked through each of the available sources, and they also don't seem to meet WP:NMUSIC; the subject clearly doesn't meet 2-12 for WP:MUSICBIO, but I'm still skeptical of 1.

I wanted to pass this article by editors who are more familiar in the topic area, though, just to see if there's any reasonable ways of salvaging the article or if it should go through another AfD. Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I am inviting those in this WikiProject to participate in two discussion topics. They are: topic one and two (stemmed from topic one). Your participation would be appreciated. livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I recently expanded Draft:Amble (band) and would like any AfC reviewers to look at it. I would have ordinarily moved it to mainspace but the draft creator chose the AfC process. I think notability is probably a slam dunk based on WP:MUSICBIO #2 and maybe #5. Specifically, they have an album that is currently #2 (and formerly #1) on Irish music charts and are signed to Warner. wizzito | say hello! 19:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It's probably just best to wait until it's the draft's turn in line. A reviewer will get to it eventually.★Trekker (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The user Mathglot directed me towards this WP via Teahouse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#No_clear_credited_director_for_a_music_video
I'll just copy and paste my post from there.
I'm giving Cup of Joe (band) a GA review and trying to help its nominator improve the article. However, I'm running into a huge obstacle. One of the tables mentions that VJ Catacutan is the director for the music video of "Alas Dose," a song by this band. They use a Facebook post as a source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=709897339512302
The footnote for this goes: "The music video for "Alas Dose", there is no description provided regarding the director. However, a Facebook post by Cup of Joe on October 30, 2019, indicates that the video was directed by VJ Catacutan (also appeared as an actor in the video), as noted in the post's caption." Social media posts published by the subject are an acceptable source when there's literally nothing else, right? The problem is that the post itself says: "Video by VJ Catacutan."
This is on a teaser for the song that features the cover art and a brief snippet of the song. So this is not clearly indicating that the music video was directed by the VJ guy. "Video by VJ Catacutan" could mean: 1) he edited the teaser. Or, 2) he edited the music video. (Or both.) But it's not precisely stating that he directed the music video.
What would you suggest in this instance? Can the director row be left blank for that MV? Thanks so much. Bloomagiliw (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Cross-posted at WT:Verifiability#No clear credited director for a music video; suggest responding there, not here. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been seeing a record label vandal go about lately, making spurious label claims. Most of these claim that a country artist is on Walt Disney Records (which has had no dealings with country since the closure of Lyric Street Records in 2010) or Rounder Records (a bluegrass label which has had minimal success with mainstream country). Some of the claims are also anachronistic to when the label existed, such as saying that an artist active in the 1990s was on Big Machine Records, which was founded in 2005. An example of such vandalism can be found here, where it was un-detected for weeks, and a later addition of Walt Disney Records also went unchecked on the same page until I removed it today. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Report them to my talk page moving forward and I can take action. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I translated de:Danger Dan to Danger Dan, but I'm not sure what to do with the chart placement templates in the discography. How should I format them? --Slashme (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This link says that Beckii Cruel's song "You Can't Kiss Me" hit no. 1 on the Music Week Upfront Club Charts and no. 15 on the Commercial Club Charts. The song was originally released on October 24, 2011. I don't have access to Music Week to verify these claims. lullabying (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pop 2 (mixtape) § Splitting proposal, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This discussion is a proposal to split the background section into a separate article. Rosaece (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Rosaece (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The music and emotion article is relatively popular, with 1700 page views in the last 30 days. But IMO it needs major overhaul, most of it is written like a research paper. I've been working on editing it but it's really long so it's hard for me to do alone. If anyone else wants to, I'd majorly appreciate some help cleaning it up! :) Shocksingularity (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think, as section title, that {{infobox musical artist}} needs more, semantically suitable name parameters, and started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist § We should have a personal name param as well. Please have a look, think and share your views there. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Subject: Request for Review and Submission of Article Draft – Gary Adante

Hello WikiProject Music members,

I have drafted a Wikipedia article for Gary Adante (formerly Gary Olazabal), an American recording engineer and producer credited on numerous Grammy-certified works, including Stevie Wonder’s *Songs in the Key of Life* and Michael Jackson’s *Bad* and *HIStory*.

The draft is thoroughly sourced with independent, reliable references such as AllMusic, Discogs, Muso.ai, and the book *Faces of Music* by David Goggin, as well as an Okayplayer feature.

Beyond his engineering contributions, Adante has held significant leadership roles in the industry, including Director of Studios for Paul Allen, overseeing 17 studios worldwide, and currently serves as Director of Neptune Valley Studios in Beverly Hills.

As I am the subject of the article, I respectfully request a neutral editor from the project to review and consider the article for submission.

Draft link: User:GaryOAdante1/sandbox Thank you for your time and expertise!

Sincerely, User:GaryOAdante GaryOAdante1 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians § Proposed merger of inactive sub-projects. Heartfox (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Adrien Nunez signed with both Warner and Warner Records Nashville in November 2024 and Sony Music Publishing in July 2025. Can people sign separate deals for singing and songwriting? Or should one infer he is no longer with Warner?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Though I don't know the details off by heart and am a bit busy, Ado (singer) is signed with two labels, I think due to licensing issues with the domestic Japanese market, and because of these, she's not alone. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

No inference can be made; you can indeed sign separate contracts for singing and songwriting, or even sign contracts with multiple labels for either (though it is, or at least was, common practice for many labels to demand exclusive contracts). Chubbles (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have raised a number of issues at Talk:Silverchair#FA_issues regarding the content of the article Silverchair. Your participation is welcomed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Nippon Budokan is a martial-arts venue that gets used for all kinds of other stuff, including music, to raise funds when there's nothing martial-arty going on.

The article currently has a quite horrible list of musical acts that have performed there, with an ignored criteria of being for released recordings. I have suggested splitting this list out and away, were the criteria can be more controlled and encompassing than for this embedded mess. Please share your thoughts there: Talk:Nippon Budokan § Proposal to split list of recordings of live music performances to its own article.

Another concern regarding the subject of the same article is regarding what appears to be an urban myth that musical artists need to be invited to perform there, with suggestions even that some committee is involved. This, judging by official and other reliable sources, is patent nonsense, and the gigs are arranged like most others, by promoters and their like. I have tracked a few half decent sources that reciprocate the idea of appearances at the Budokan being by invitation, adding fuel to the complete trash-fire of social media sites like Reddit, Facebook, blogs and fan sites churning this myth out like it's gospel.

If the notion was only in obviously non-RS, I'd ignore it and watch some more X-Files, but, Far Out (magazine) stating "the Beatles were invited to perform at the city’s Nippon Budokan venue" appears to possibly be an interpretation of Japan Times (and likely others) quoting Paul McCartney saying "all [the Beatles are] doing is coming here and singing because we've been asked to" in response to the mixed reception. These were likely picked up by bloggers of some repute like in this Homicidols post stating "the Beatles said [...] they went there because they were invited to play, not to offend anyone."

Another apparently quite prominent blog (or something) runs with it, stating "when it was announced that the Beatles were to perform at Budokan, it was akin to inviting foreigners to play the devil's music in a holy shrine". There's a common theme that the Budokan is oooh special and playing there is an honour. China Culture also talks about invitation and "the prestigious Budokan" in the same sentence: "Cui Jian is invited to Japan again and plays at the prestigious Budokan Theater in Tokyo".

Another source that suggests some kind of invitation is required, if the reader is inclined to think that way, is a US Army band video in which it is stated that the band is invited time and time again to perform at the Budokan, but they are actually invited by the military band event organizers.

These examples of misunderstanding and paraphrasing can evolve into further misunderstanding and eventually into an apparently quite prevalent belief on the social web, like this on Reddit and this on Facebook. Folk out there in the real world seem starstruck and confused, or the official documentation is a front and you actually have to sacrifice your first born to play there.

The question is, should we or can we address this, without flushing policy, particularly OR, down the toilet? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Clint Black has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Jarre's somewhat well know album Equinoxe has be been mistitled here for over a decade, with its article having a history of misguided and disruptive moves back and forth, to and from a title with and without a diacritic over the E.

Please take a look at Talk:Équinoxe § Requested move 17 August 2025. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion about a possible hoax on Wikipedia is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Eric "Nealante" Phillips. Input, especially from someone with knowledge about the music industry, would be welcome! Renerpho (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Concerning disagreement in exhaustive coverage of "did x and y", especially regarding "other contributions". There's no doubt that Sexsmith was present or did one thing or another, but is it WP:DUE to rattle off, or even include in a table format about every conceivable documented instance of his contribution?

Please consider commenting at: Talk:Ron_Sexsmith Graywalls (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Hindutva pop#Nazi music. I am requesting input from interested editors. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to understand acceptable sources for chart content. Please comment at the above discussion if you have an opinion or expertise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I just spent a lot of time cleaning up Avery Friedman; she's an artist that has released one album on a independent label, she's probably borderline to keep, album reviews probably count as routine. I've removed a lot of the obvious things like playlists, x.com links, blogs, etc - but unsure on a lot of the rest, I'd personally remove 50% of what's left but would like additional eyes. The article Audio Antihero is just as bad, and when you start clicking on their acts, all those articles have the same problems. Would like additional eyes on those articles as well: Frog, Nosferatu D2, Cloud, Magana, and CIAO MALZ. Denaar (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I checked through Frog. There's a lot of junk to sort through, and a lot of cleanup necessary to make it look decent, but there were a few sources from Pitchfork and Stereogum that probably would barely eke out a "keep" outcome at WP:AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a deletion discussion that may interest memebers of this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Hayes (audio engineer) Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

In the future, please use more neutral messaging when notifying editors about discussions. It is otherwise considered campaigning, which is a form of canvassing (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification). Life of Tau 16:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've revised - thanks for the feedback. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

H all I’m a new editor working on the Barbara Gogan article—she was the lead of The Passions. The article is currently under deletion discussion (AfD), and I’m hoping to improve it with reliable sources and better coverage. If anyone has advice on how to strengthen the article or knows strong sources I could use, I would really appreciate it. This has been a fun project so far, and I’m learning a lot! Thanks so much for any guidance or any assistance with improvements, if you are so inclined. Best, Adrian Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I’ve compiled additional sources below on post-punk and electronic musician Barbara Gogan. Feedback or assistance verifying or expanding the content by any noninvolved editors would be very welcome. I aim to expand and improve the article. Thank you for any guidance or assistance you can provide!

— Adrian

Newly identified possible key sources:

• Women Make Noise: Girl Bands from Motown to the Modern, Julia Downes et al., 2015
• Real Life Rock: The Complete Top Ten Columns, 1986–2014, Greil Marcus, 2015, p. 504
• Post Punk Diary: 1980–1982, George Gimarc, 1997, p. 36
• Season of the Witch: The Book of Goth, Cathi Unsworth, 2024
• The England’s Dreaming Tapes, Jon Savage, 2010, p. 736

Newly identified possible additional sources for reference:

• New Women in Rock, Liz Thomson, 1982, p. 46
• Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: True Life Stories of Women in Pop, Sue Steward & Sheryl Garratt, 1984
• The Trouser Press Record Guide, Ira Robbins, 1991, p. 492
• Billboard, 4 Oct 1997, p. 30
• The Virgin Encyclopedia of 80s Music, Colin Larkin, 2003, p. 377
• The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin, 1992 & 1995
• Complete UK Hit Albums 1956–2005, Graham Betts, 2005, p. 309
• Collins Complete UK Hit Singles 1952–2004, Graham Betts, 2004, p. 586
• The Peel Sessions, Ken Garner, 2010
• BBC Music Magazine, Vol. 6, 1998, p. 62
• The Wire, Vols. 173–178, 1998, p. 33
• The Nation, Vol. 238, 1984, p. 697
• Enciclopedia rock anni ’80, Riccardo Bertoncelli, 1989, p. 529
• The Literature of Rock II, 1979–1983, Frank W. Hoffmann, B. Lee Cooper & Lee Ann Hoffmann, 1986
• The Great British Mistake: Post Punk Fanzines: 1979–84, Tom Vague, 2017

Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

So, a lot of these look like reliable sources, so that's a good start. But usually in AFD/merge debates, people will want to see that it was "significant coverage". If it's just a passing mention, like a name drop in a single sentence, then it probably won't be helpful. But if you can show that it was something more extensive - an entire article focused around the subject, or maybe they received a few paragraphs or a page worth of content about them in a magazine article or something - that's helpful towards keeping the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this guidance! I will tackle digging through these today for substantial coverage. Much appreciated! Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a controversial between album (or song) articles, and I saw both who regard a singer as an author of music streaming services and who don't. I'm the latter case, but let me know others' opinions more in here. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. An editor has capitalized the "The" mid-sentence in all mentions of a band called the Passions (or The Passions) in an article. I don't think this is important; anyway, she reverted some of my edits (including a revert I made with a long edit summary explaining my revert: [6]) and she cited Wikipedia's manual of style as justification (here: Talk:Barbara Gogan#Update 17 September 2025, and also in that article's edit summaries). Pinging this editor: User:Adrian.stewart.music. Is she right on this? (Again, I don't think this is important, but anyway I decided to ask here). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Whoever cited WP:THEBAND would be correct here as long as we're talking about the use of the band's name in prose and not at the beginning of the sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've created a draft, initially as an experiment, on the music program GXSCC. This program is not covered by mainstream outlets, but is instead covered quite extensively in academic papers, magazines and in substantial primary documentation from multiple places. As this software also comes under video games, I have already had a discussion with an editor who is active in that part of the project. The main issues highlighted were whether this program is independently notable and whether the coverage that does exist is enough. I have edited long enough now that I don't feel the need to use AfC anymore, despite it being excellent. I would appreciate any feedback from editors active in specifically music software, thanks! I am actually qualified specifically in music technology (BA level). Wikipedia is quite different however, so I felt it best to get some second opinions before going ahead with a move to mainspace. 11WB (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I’ve just published a musician article and would appreciate a review. The article includes reliable sources and aims to establish notability according to Wikipedia standards. Any confirmation or feedback would be greatly appreciated. --Blueskyeditor333 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Blueskyeditor333! I would recommend providing a link to the article! 11WB (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @11WB,

Thanks for the recommendation! The article is here: Draft:Colin Stauber

I’d really appreciate a review or confirmation that it meets guidelines.

--Blueskyeditor333 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Please express yourself at Template talk:Infobox musical artist § An "awards" parameter, like in Infobox person? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I am a new editor on Wikipedia and am currently working on an article about Annie Minogue, a female singer/songwriter from America, who fronts the Annie Minogue Band. I have previously had my article about the AMB deleted, due to lack of sources and notability, and was advised by another editor to try create an article on Annie Minogue herself for now, which I have done - but it has now been moved into draftspace due to lack of notable sources, and seen as promotional content.

I would love some help improving it. Could anyone take a look and share feedback on references, tone, or structure? OR make edits directly to the draft. Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Annie_Minogue

Thanks so much for your time and any suggestions! Van1985 (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Lady Gaga regarding the reported attendance of Lady Gaga's free Rio concert at Copacabana Beach. Some reliable sources (CNN, Guardian, etc.) cite "2.1–2.2M" from City Hall, while others (Pollstar, Billboard, Variety, Rolling Stone, etc.) report "2.5M" based on organizers (Live Nation). We're trying to decide the best way to represent this in the article. Additional input from editors familiar with music coverage would be appreciated. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

I’ve drafted a new article about a music artist and would be grateful for a review. The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Colin_Stauber

It includes reliable sources and aims to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. Any feedback or confirmation would be greatly appreciated! Blueskyeditor333 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a very large number of new accounts in the past few months. These accounts get created and soon after make somewhere between four and 20 edits, one of which is a (usually minor) edit to this article. It's not really a problem, per se; I've just never seen such a strange editing pattern before. Does anyone have a hypothesis as to what's going on? Chubbles (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am interested in starting my own WikiProject community for Las Vegas' very own the Killers. The main focus of the project would be to either improve or make articles about songs, albums or tours related to the Killers in any magnitude (The Killers, Brandon Flowers, Big Talk, Mark Stoermer, Keuning, etc). I've already made seven articles on Killers' related things, and I'm already planning at least 15 more. I would definitely be founder, leader, and most active of the Project, but I was wondering what would constitute this being made/how many people would I need to keep it afloat?

Thanks, SassafrassAlabass (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I would love to work on the subject, but I don't think a new WikiProject is really needed for those kinds of collaborations.★Trekker (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Cappella (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has become the target of edit-warring by two brand new accounts trading claims over the musical group's membership, and which people contributed to which recordings, with one of the users claiming that they are removing libellous information. I would check the sources to verify but the claims in question don't seem to have any sources, and the new users also are not providing any. I have semiprotected the page temporarily but this is not a subject I'm familiar with; users interested in this project or who know more about this group may be interested in helping to mediate the dispute. Courtesy ping Úíqíípédê and Jennylovesmusic. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Neither editor has seemingly tried to do anything since the page was protected, so unless the issue comes back upon unprotecting it seems to have calmed down now.★Trekker (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I’ve done nothing but revert some of Jennylovesmusic’s edits, which I saw as vandalism. I especially reverted edits which simply removed content. See for instance this edit of mine which reverts this edit of theirs. Úíqíípédê (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, there's an anonymous user who's been changing genres around in 11 and counting music articles, 45.236.87.85 (talk · contribs), the last of which involved deleting references. I leave it here for editors who know more about music than I do. smallest red boy^he/she/it (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for what is likely a noob question. I often correct articles translated from Japanese, and a lot of them have very long lists of every single performance and TV appearance a band has ever made (see The Hoopers) as this is rather normal in ja Wikipedia. Is this something that should exist in English Wikipedia?

In short, I'd like to know if it would be preferable to simply delete these or if I should indeed correct them as well. Erynamrod (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Erynamrod: Generally English Wikipedia prefers prose over lists, and listing every single performance is not something I've seen done. So removing it probably would be in line.★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That's the feeling I had, just wanted a second opinion before deleting a lot of content. Erynamrod (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)