Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard/Old/Notices 2

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Music‎ | Noticeboard‎ | Old

Abc notation edit

I'm just learning about abc notation. The article is a good start, and the links are helpful. However, the article should be assessed and included in the Music WikiProject. Further, it should be tagged as a stub. Thank you! 71.210.250.75 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{wikify}} and {{stub}}. You know you can do that yourself, right? This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I sure hope you will edit with us in the future. -- Pepve (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Credits" edit

Are "credits" appropriate for Wikipedia music articles? For example, Life Got Cold (along with many of GA articles) had "credits" added to them not so long ago, and I'm not sure whether they should be kept or removed. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter edit

Can I have a (daily/weeky) newsletter which tell me about changes on rock music pages? Can I have it at User talk:jaytur1/a? --JayTur1 (Contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telemann edit

Could a WPMusic expert clean up Georg Philipp Telemann's Admiralitätsmusik, Georg Philipp Telemann's Passions, and Georg Philipp Telemann's 1716-1717 Cantata Cycle? The creator duplicated a considerable amount of information from the composer's biography for each article; I don't really know what should be contained in articles about specific compositions, however. Olessi (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Babe Records Cleanup edit

I would love some assistance over at Righteous Babe Records. I've begun a clean up and sourcing of the article in earnest, but could use some help on formatting, any templates, and really getting this article up to par with some of the other record label articles. Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive walled garden? edit

Khanoda seems like either an elaborate hoax or a non-notable artist puffed up to appear notable (I'm leaning toward the latter). Check Category:Khanoda—there is so much there my head is spinning. The AMG bio seems to have been taken from a press release (what little info is there shows up in almost the same form elsewhere on the web. His site appears to be down at the moment so no luck on that front. Archive.org has about 5 years's worth, I'm digging through that now; haven't turned up anything yet. I don't know whether to pick this walled garden apart piece by piece or just AfD the entire bunch at once. Any suggestions? —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriting award credits for performers? edit

Noticed this issue editing List of Carrie Underwood awards: an anon keeps removing certain awards from the list, and is usually reverted. However, edits such as [1] raises the question: what credit (if any) should be given to performers for awards given to the writers of the song? At List of Celine Dion awards, there is this entry:

  • Song of the Year (to James Horner and Will Jennings) – "My Heart Will Go On"

At List of Norah Jones awards, the Grammy Award for Song of the Year to Jesse Harris for Don't Know Why is not mentioned.
So there seems to be no consistent policy on this. Or is there and nobody knows about it? Kelvinc (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source? edit

I'm working on an article for the recent Doctor Who Prom, and came across this review. I've never heard of classicalsource.com — is it a reliable source? Any views would be welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Wordsworth edit

Mr Wordsworth is a conductor of some note, including The Proms. Three-quarters of his article is devoted to a single controversy, which surely gives it undue weight. Could someone knowledgeable look at this article? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bartolomé Ramos de Pareja edit

I recently translated this from the Spanish WP, but also borrowing a detail or two from my Norton textbook. I bring it here because it is currently orphaned (from mainspace). Perhaps some people with this project could help integrate it? And/or expand it? Thankyou. Srnec (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible link spamming edit

Recently, I reverted a significant number of edits done by an anonymous IP that added external links for discographies to a number of soul music performers. The external link being added was to www.soulexpress.net, and was performed by 81.17.197.172 (talk · contribs). An example of one of these external discographies can be seen here. After some mild edit warring, some conversation ensued at User talk:81.17.197.172. Of note; soulexpress.net has an Alexa ranking of greater than 700,000, though the magazine it is based on has been in publication for quite some time.

Today, I discovered another IP that posted a link to the same site. Doing a reverse lookup, both this new IP (83.244.161.33 (talk · contribs)) and the other (81.17.197.172 (talk · contribs)) route to the same host, leading me to believe it is the same user.

I put it to you, the members of this project, should this site be linked? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant country-based racism on Wikipedia? edit

It has been today brought to my attention that a Wikipedia editor called Hammersoft- see above - has been starting to delete several external links on Wikipedia artist biographies to our Soul Express music magazine website, as contributed by 2 different readers of our website, one from UK (83.244.161.33 (talk · contribs)) and one from Finland based IP address 81.17.197.172 (talk · contribs)) - while at the same time leaving similar external links to other, US based soul websites, added by same users, untouched. This editor has then later explained the reason of deleting that these particular links are "link spam", advicing that these links to our website are to an "extremely non-notable site", referring to the current position of Soul Express on current Alexa ratings.

I wonder whether the popularity of the site - according to Alexa ratings - is a valid criteria to remove external links according to Wikipedia policy. For me personally, it sounds like blatant country-based racism, and leads to a discrimination of all non-US based Websites!

Since a website based in Finland can hardly get high ratings on a US youth based statistics like Alexa. As a comparison, one of the most popular female sites in Finland, Anna.fi, gets a rank # 5,160,155 on Alexa, even if the official web site statistics in Finland show that it's one of the leading female websites in Finland.

If Wikipedia editors would rate the credibility and validity of the source site more than mere popularity of it, the following facts could be taken into consideration:

  • Our site is the online version of a printed music magazine established in 1989, and published by a non-profit music organization Soul Society of Finland, and being mainly funded by Finnish government [1], in a form of the yearly grant from Ministry of Education we have received for over 10 years.

The list of culture magazines in Finland [2]


  • The contributors of our site have written literally hundreds of soul & jazz artist biographies, discographies and music album and book reviews. In addition to that, they have written CD liner notes to various soul music albums, compiled CD releases to UK labels, contributed to various indices on the Net like Allmusic.com and Soulandfunkmusic.com etc., and have been keeping lectures on two Finnish universities (at Helsinki and Turku), with the titles like "cultural history of Afro-American music in United States".

[3]

  • Not to mention the hundreds of interviews with soul and jazz artists our contributors have written in past two decades.

If these facts are of less value than the point that we don't have millions of readers, then please go ahead and delete all the links to our site. According to Google Analytics statistics, even after removing over 10 Wikipedia links to our website, we still have currently 38 existing links from Wikipedia to our site, while as a whole we have a total of 176 different external sites that have linked to our site, including myriad official artist pages. So, obviously there must be more than one so-called "spammer" who has added these links to our website!

Personally, I am astonished that any Wikipedia editor even uses these kinds of popularity and rank-based arguments to remove external links to any specialised music source, whether US based or non-US based. I leave to the consideration of Wikipedia editors whether the magazine I represent is relevant and competent enough to be accepted as a valid external link site to soul artist biographies. - Ismo Tenkanen, editor of Soul Express and MD of Soul Society of Finland83.145.199.189 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I'm a racist. You found me out <hanging head in shame>. Thank you so much for setting me straight. Oh, and thank you ever so much for abiding by WP:CIVIL in calling me a racist. Truly, truly appreciated. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not surprisingly, the IP 83.149.199.189 is hosted at the same Amsterdam hosting service as the other two IPs used in spamming the links. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it must be one spammer who has added all these 38 existing links to our site, he/she just travels all around the world to hide that he's actually one and the same spammer who insists on spamming non-notable foreign sites from distant and non-notable countries. We are also so ashamed of living in such a small and non-notable country but we all wish that we would win in a lottery of USA visas some day, so that we would also be qualified both for contributing Wikipedia and being accepted as sources of reliable information.
  • FYI: RIPE is indeed based in Netherlands. But RIPE has nothing to do with hosting, The RIPE NCC is one of five Regional Internet Registries providing Internet resource allocations, registration services and co-ordination activities that support the operation of the Internet globally. Sorry for not having own RIRs here in such a non-notable small country! For actual internet hosts, you're welcome to check any whois services over the Net.¨-IT83.145.199.189 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding Stockhausen on the Aphex Twin page edit

Hey, I'd appreciate it if a few editors familiar with electronic music might offer an opinion on this silly dispute regarding the inclusion of Stockhausen as an influence on Richard D. James. e.g. [2] --Kaini (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft or not? edit

Please weigh in on American Idol contestant Nikki McKibbin's talk page—there's a discussion as to whether every song performed on the show and how she did each week should be included in the article. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed: Categories at CFD edit

A whole roster of categories for musical groups of specified sizes (numbers) are up for merging in this CFD discussion. Although I support the general proposal, I spotted one particular category (Category:Classical trios) that should not have been included in the list -- and it's possible that one or more of the others also don't belong. So I thought it would be good to get some input on this from other knowledgable editors. Cgingold (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird Al" edit

I have opened a discussion at WP:WEIRDAL to determine whether or not there is sufficient interest in maintaining WikiProject "Weird Al" Yankovic either (a) at all, (b) as the current WikiProject, or (c) a taskforce under the umbrella of WPP:MUSIC. If you have any input or interest in contributing, please join the discussion at WT:WEIRDAL#the future!. Thank you! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckethead task force edit

WP:BH wants to expand into a real WikiProject and maybe include additional related artists in the future. See WT:BH for discussion. Any input welcomed!

Happy new Headcheese!-hexaChord2 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concept album edit

Holy crap! I ended up at concept album and discovered it to be a steaming pile of mess. I'm overwhelmed and don't really know where to start so I was hoping a few of you might swing by and drop some suggestions at the article's talk page. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Records discography edit

This list isn't even 1/10th complete and is almost totally rap centric. It needs a total overhaul. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singles box question edit

Can anyone explain to me why the singles infobox doesn't have a review section like the album infobox? - Mgm|(talk) 20:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Op." and keys edit

We seem to have a wide variety of ways of writing an opus number after a work:

Op.28
Op. 28
op.28
op. 28
opus 28
Opus 28.

Some articles use one style consistently (which is a good thing, even if it's not the style I personally prefer), but others use a hopeless mish-mash of styles (which is a bad thing). Are there any guidelines about the preferred style? (For the record, I prefer the form "Concerto in B minor, Op. 28"; for multiple works, "Opp. 43 and 67".)

There's also confusion about how to write a key. We see:

  • B-minor
  • B minor
  • B Minor
  • b minor.

The way it usually appears in references is "B minor", "C major", etc. Some use a shorthand, where "B" = B major and "b" = B minor. But where the word "major" or "minor" is written out, the letter should always be capitalised, imo. The words "major" or "minor" should never be capitalised in these contexts.

Also, with flat/sharp keys, sometimes it's "D flat" and sometimes "D-flat". It doesn't particularly bother me either way, but I think we need to be consistent.

Is this the best place to raise these concerns, and if not, where? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Vazquez edit

Not sure if this is the greatest place to put this, but we'll give it a shot, anyhow... I just came across this article, which has been around for a while, and is an utter disaster that appears to have been created in a clear conflict of interest by some representatives of the subject. She seems to be quite notable, but the article needs some love and attention from someone who knows the topic. Help would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Festivals edit

Rosa López edit

Good evenings, queria to report to them to travez of a translator since not English, that editeis and alargeis the section of the singer Rosa Lopez in wikipedia, provided that it(he,she) has very little information. Podeis Spanish knows mas of this singer in wikipedia.

Thank you. Boxix (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor historic value of Middle C edit

Message copied from WP:AN. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
At the Talk:Music theory#Middle C = 256 Hz page, there's a discussion of whether to give prominence to a minor historic footnote about one proposed value of middle C which didn't gain enough traction to become a worldwide standard in the 19th century when it was suggested, let alone the 20th century and now. The article about Pitch (music) describes many historic values of Concert A including the one concerning this difference of opinion: A 430.54 which yields a middle C of 256 Hz. The Music theory article is currently being used as a brief description of concepts and a directory to other articles that go into further detail—mention of one single alternate value of A or C isn't appropriate there. User:Another Stickler continues to place the information in the music theory article despite discussion and reversion by other editors. Please join the discussion at Talk:Music theory#Middle C = 256 Hz. Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal consideration of The Beatles portal edit

P:TB is currently being assessed against the Featured Portal criteria. A notice about this has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, but I figured this might be more watched. The discussion is at a standstill, and I would appreciate comments at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:The Beatles. (Note: this is not canvassing, simply alerting you of something which might interest you). Dendodge TalkContribs 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using images of music memorabilia in articles edit

Greetings, I am posting this message in regards to adding certain types of images to a musicians' article on Wikipedia. Recently I photographed a promotional t-shirt of a music group (EPMD) and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons in order to link it to the band's Wikipedia page. The image itself followed the Wikimdia Commons guidelines: it did not have any copyright or non-fair use infringements (the photo of the shirt did not contain and images or pictures).

I feel that the image is relevant to the group's history, as it depicts an artifact from a tour the group went on. Additionally, there are no free or fair-use images of the group on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Therefore I feel that including the image would make a big difference to the article. However recently the image was removed from the article by a Wikipedia contributor. I was surprised of this move, since the image follows the guidelines of Wikimedia image uploading and of Wikipedia. The contributor's response for the decision was:

"my reason for removing that image from the EPMD article is because it is beyond a shadow of a doubt, pointless...It really serves no point and is just an unwelcome cluster on two articles. ".

I did not agree with the contributor's reasoning and therefore would like to open the issue up for a second opinion. In the future I would like to add more music memorabilia to articles and hope that this issue can be resolved.

A link to the photograph in question can be found here

Thanks! --Djrun (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment edit

An RFC was opened regarding the need (or not) for two separate articles for two versions of the same song (see Talk:Gasolina#Request for comment). I saw it at RFC, stopped by the talk page and dropped my 2 centavos. Since the discussion doesn't seem to have attracted much attention yet, I thought I'd post here to get a few more outside opinions. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need some third party help edit

Just wanting some help in categorization of some articles. The main conversation can be found here. Wanting to get the opinions of those more in the know :) Q T C 04:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Howard (producer)- Another third-party review requested edit

Original poster of Mark Howard (producer) has asked (through my talk page) for help in reviewing this article. He started off rough, with a blatant copyvio (tagged by me) and has since had trouble satisfying (or even believing) the comments made by admin OrangeMike. He has asked for a third party review, and before opening up a full RfC I'm hoping for a few more voices to chime in on the article (I happen to agree with what OrangeMike has said, so I am seeking other POVs or confirmation).    7   talk | Δ |   01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to accelerate the creation of a requested article? edit

Hi all. I am an inexperienced user of Wikipedia but through my extensive studies of WP policies and guidelines, I found out that I should NOT create an article myself about Equal Dreams (because I am an intern there) which, in my opinion, really should have an article because it is very notable. Equal Dreams is an online music market and it has been covered by media many times. So what I did was to request an article about Equal Dreams; then I also wrote something about the issue on my user page. Now my question: How can I accelerate the creation of an article about Equal Dreams? The list of requested articles is so long that I don't think anybody will find my entry there for a long time... Maybe here in this Music Project somebody reads what I write and starts the article? Then, once somebody has started the article, I could add all the sources I have about it... *Hoping to get a reaction...* --Tilmanb (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Connect edit

Does Tha Connect meet notability requirements? Considering it only sold 2400 copies its first week? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freely licensed short clips from archives? edit

Is there any standard for a short identifying clip of a piece that can be requested from publishers as a freely licensed audio identifier for inclusion in Wikipedia/Commons? This seems like something that one could ask a lot of archives and distributors for, especially if it were a shared standard for the request (the first 30 sec?) and for idents, similar to the "first N bars" of a piece that are used as a TOC in some books of sheet music. +sj+ 02:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan edit

"Input requested at Talk:Bob Dylan" about Jann Wenner quote. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Outta Compton edit

Seems to me there's been a lot of talk about genres lately, but I'm not sure if there is any solid policy on identifying and categorizing albums by genre. Specifically, there is some debate as to whether the infobox should mention that this album is West Coast hip hop, Golden age hip hop, and especially Gangsta rap, or should it just use the more generic parent genre Hip hop? Neither of us in the current discussion seem to be able to find any specific guidance for this sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice edit

New portal added to category Portal:Music of Canada
Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Stubs AFD's round 2 edit

All comments welcome. Ridernyc (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthcore edit

At the abovementioned page, there is a debate going on between the event's organizer and another user who doesn't seem to like Earthcore much. There's some debate over whether to include a passage about controversies, which can be found at the bottom of the talkpage there. The sourcing appears (to me) to be somewhat dubious, but I'd like more experienced people to have a look. Could I get an extra set of eyes or two on this? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbert Humperdinck RM edit

Notability Of Albums edit

There is an ongoing RFC on the notability of albums. I encourage everyone who has an interest to take part. [3] Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving WikiProject PipeOrgan edit

I'm attempting to revive the WikiProject PipeOrgan and invite all interested to join. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change all song articles edit

I think we should change all the articles on songs so that the year it was released in links to the article on that year in music. So instead of "'The Safety Dance' is a song written and recorded by Canadian New Wave band Men Without Hats; and to date, it remains their biggest hit. It was initially released in Canada in January 1983," it will instead read "'The Safety Dance' is a song written and recorded by Canadian New Wave band Men Without Hats; and to date, it remains their biggest hit. It was initially released in Canada in January 1983." This change would never end up getting applied to every single song article but if it's a good idea I'd like to have some other editors on board with me. Kbog (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Kulttuuri/kulttuuripolitiikka/avustukset/kulttuurilehdet/myoennetyt/liitteet/Kulttuurilehtituki2006.pdf
  2. ^ http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Suomen_kulttuurilehdist%C3%A4
  3. ^ http://vanha.hum.utu.fi/historia/kh/english.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Noticeboard/Old/Notices_2&oldid=1141873263"