Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Category:Musical terminology

Redheylin has been making a series of changes to this category, basically depopulating it and replacing the cat. with other ones. (Apparently there were 600+ edits using HotCat.) Category:Musical terminology is a basic cat, similar to other terminology categories that serve to identify sets of relevant articles, a sub-cat of Category:Terminology.

I've reverted a few mistakes (e.g. mistaking Melodramma (three Ms) for a 'Dramatic and literary genre' [1] etc) but there is obviously no way I can check 600 edits. I am asking Redheylin to explain what he has been doing in more detail and why. Has he/she discussed these changes with any music editors on any music project? Are there other music categories involved? --Kleinzach 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All edits made per guidelines at Category:Terminology: "Articles belonging to this category and its subcategories are devoted in whole or in large part to a discussion of terminology, usually terminology related to a specific topic. It should not be used as a category for articles about those topics in general". Have also advised above user of guidelines re. nested categories; "One important aspect of the "most specific" principle is that if every article in a category belongs to another category, it is sufficient to nest the categories directly, rather than double-categorizing each individual article". Have ponted out ways to ensure presence of important terms within terminology categories. Skilled recategorisation or further categorisation by editors within music genres is welcome while reversion, though it happens now and then, is seldom the most accurate response. Redheylin (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that answered any of my questions, but I have others. Judging by this, Redheylin is editing one music article about every 30 seconds. How is it possible to read each article in such a short time? --Kleinzach 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can get enough out of the Melodramma stub in less than ten seconds to know whether the existing stub is primarily about 'the thing itself' or 'the name for the thing', which is all that needs to be determined in this case. It's only three sentences, after all.

Perhaps you just don't read as quickly as I do, and assume that everyone is as slow as you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as Melodramma goes, it is defined as "an Italian term for opera", though "used in a much narrower sense by English writers to discuss developments in the early 19th century Italian libretto" having "influence of French bourgeois drama". For this latter reason I classified it as music influenced by dramatic and literary genres - since it is a term defined by libretto. Since it is a term in opera it is an "operatic term", which is a subset of "musical term", which made it a nested page. It is not a page that offers "in whole or in large part a discussion of terminology" beyond itself: it is purely about "the thing itself" and, in fact, perilously close to NOTDIC violation. There were therefore two policy reasons to remove the cat "Music Terminology" from these two articles. There are also wikilinking lists of musical terms available at the above cat.

The question as to how fast one can read an article and that as to how fast one can make changes are rather different. The latter is achieved by practice and by forethought. Redheylin (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Opera is not a subset of music, because it it is both music and drama, so Category:Opera terminology should not be regarded as a subset of Category:Musical terminology. Category:Opera terminology is a useful collection of 128 articles. How many articles were originally in Category:Musical terminology before they were removed? BTW the note at Category:Terminology (referred to above) is not a guideline, just something someone wrote at the top of the category page. --Kleinzach 04:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Right! So we turf Opera and all its articles out of Music and dump all wiki articles in Terminology. Or rather, YOU do! Get busy... Redheylin (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I am dumbfounded by the shallowness of Redheylin's arguments... First off, no we don't dump all opera terminology out of music for the simple reason that these are also musical terminology. Second, you have not even discussed these changes with any music project nor even with any portal. Third, the recategorisation of between 400 and 500 articles in 3 days is surely impossible unless you spent the previous 6 months reading every article; if you did indeed do that why not point out the problems over at one of the projects and let us sort it all out? To be fair though, most of the recatted articles were either about the thing (eg Gebrauchsmusik—which discusses both the term and the application of it—and Tenuto—which explains how the tenuto works in practice) or notation (eg Natural sign and many others). Regarding potential mistakes, we will need to read through every article in his contibutions list to check it all out, now... cheers mate... not! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think what the quoted lead means is that articles that simply explain how authorities have used the word belong in the cat while those that explain the practice of the thing defined by the term do not. Therefore, an article like this belongs here:

The term Term X is applied to {music style x}. The term has a long history. Dr. Authority and Mrs. Verity have both defended the use of the term. Mr. Source and Prof. Reliable have rejected it. [etc]

What I meant by discussing this with projects and portals was that when you read each article and find a mis-cat you could simply copy the title over to user space, wiki-link it and add a comment. Once you have found all that you think are mis-cats, then simply direct editors to your user page rather than listing them all in project space etc. If you are correct in most cases then there will be discussion around only a handful of articles which is quite manageable. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"no we don't dump all opera terminology out of music for the simple reason that these are also musical terminology" - no this is because "Opera is not a subset of music, because it it is both music and drama".

"Second, you have not even discussed these changes with any music project nor even with any portal." - I tried here and there, but nothing was forthcoming.

"Third, the recategorisation of between 400 and 500 articles in 3 days is surely impossible unless you spent the previous 6 months reading every article; if you did indeed do that why not point out the problems over at one of the projects and let us sort it all out?" - the portals and projects have had many years to "sort it out". Yet the top level music categories were stuffed with, typically, around 200 articles whose categorisation had never been reviewed. Many times the too-high categorisation is because of nested categories or simply failure to locate the right category, and this typically goes with unreff'd orphan stubs that have been tagged for years and never touched. To fix such a high-level category takes typically 500 edits, maybe 20 merges, four new categories, a few category links to non-music categories and so forth. Roughly once in each operation (I have made maybe 3000 edits to this category) a person with a particular attachment to a particular page perceives a downgrading of that page and complains. But that is OK: the job is getting done - it is, of course, my very shallowness that allows me to accomplish the impossible. As I go I become aware of inconsistencies and problems on lower levels and must sometimes let articles collect in some place where they will be readily visible on that level. Some of these issues will be worth discussing later. If you want to check everything I've done, you need to review the last two years, especially April-May 2009 - a couple of thousand there. I will be getting on with "sound technology". As far as the "terminology" issue goes, I'd say it needs to be referred to the Terminology category/project and then to "categories for discussion" if need be. Otherwise, I cannot say things are yet perfect - just much, much better than when I started. Awards gratefully received. Redheylin (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree in principle with what you are doing and think that someone really does need to do it. It's just that for the life of me I can't find any request for help from you at any place I frequent! Any pointers? OTOH, I can't actually find anything (yet) that you have mis-(re)categorised. One thing though: Opera is a subcat of music—wrongly... See Category:Musical terminology and look under "O"... If opera were not a subcat then those terms common to both opera and music should be in both cats. That was what Klein was trying to say! Actually all of this is quite timely as another project I work on has Cat problems of its own that need sorting out. I hope I can come to you for some pointers? Oh... Merry Christmas! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll be very welcome and merry X to you too. Sorry if it all looks too bold but there have been very few incidents, nearly all resolved. I hope you will understand that endless tagging and talkpaging would not have done the job. 99 out of 100 edits are uncontroversial and it is impossible to tell which one will be trouble - just that the troubled person will have no interest in actually helping or even understanding the system. I do think it has been a mistake to redefine these categories and disrupt the intention of the Category:Terminology without taking stock of the broad picture. However.... there will be quite a few articles that could be more finely or further categorised: it just seemed clever to start at the top and hope there were people at the bottom fielding. Of course I have done my best for Opera - I seem to recall starting Category:Theatrical music genres to bring opera and ballet together and help deal with literary and dramatic influence on Musical form (another of mine, please see also Meter (music), Chord progression etc. I am glad to report that my page-edits also stay put.) I am doing this because I kept finding bits of random info on given topics floating free and could not tell if I was getting the full wiki-story on the topic. So it was hard to edit key articles. Redheylin (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Jubilee, there's no requirement that changes be discussed in advance. In fact, editors are encouraged to be bold, and major policies like "Consensus" specifically declare that editors do not need to obtain permission in advance for changes.

I think that -- overall, not just in the single instance of Melodramma -- Redhylin is doing valuable work correctly. I also think that it's inappropriate to use the phrasing of the first sentence of a perhaps poorly written stub to determine cat placement. Nearly all articles that begin with something like "___ is a term that describes this thing" could -- and probably should -- be re-written as "____ is this thing". For an out-of-field example of the difference, proctitis is an article about a "thing" (a disease); gay bowel syndrome is an article about a term for (more or less) proctitis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - If you are refering to the italicized lead I made up ([t]he term Term X is applied to {music style x}...), I was really fishing for answers as to what actually belongs in Category:terminology. You have supplied a brilliant example of how this actually works: - thanks! I was beginning to think that nothing belongs in the cat simply because of both WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDICT. In other words, articles simply discussing a term should be merged into articles about the thing the term describes. Perhaps there are times when such articles are valid, but they must be very rare given that most terms are still actually applied to something rather than being rejected historical terms or theoretical terms never actually used? (However, I note that gay bowel syndrome is an orphan...)

Redheylin - Actually, you are doing a fine job, indeed, going by those articles! Just to back up a bit though: how have categories been redefined and when? Or do you mean the placement, in this particular set of cats, of articles about things rather than terms (ie a de facto redefinition rather than a rewrite of any lead/policy etc)?

''Both - Obviously, editors have to be bold and just get on with it in the vast majority of cases otherwise nothing would ever get done! As I said, I can't actually find anything wrong in Redheylin's recats. It just seems a courtesy to inform other editors interested in a particular topic when sweeping changes are being made to that topic, especially when those editors may well be oblivious to the entire issue at hand (as I was in this case until this discussion enlightened me). Then again, Redheylin also said he had tried and failed to involve other editors: I am sorry to hear that. Where did you try? Indeed, they could have helped and even reduced your workload if they had responded. Given that I have only been editing on WP for just over a year, I probably missed it somewhere (and would have been no use anyway until very recently). BTW, sorry about my insult (shallowness) above: I was trying to defend KZ who seemed a bit out in the cold but I got somewhat over-zealous! Good luck both of you with your future edits and happy New Year! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I am glad you both find something good in all the work. I am sorry for any sense of incivility and have taken no offence: I just prefer to get on with the job and deal with matters as they come up, avoiding general, meta and personal discussion where possible. Some things are really intricate to describe. The present conversation was fairly advanced before it came to this page, and some things may not have been clear. But I have signed up to this project. Re cat. placement; the lede is important, it's best to have a prior idea of the scope of the article anyway and that may mean thorough reading and a long pause for thought. But often categorisation can be derived from parsing the title itself. "List of Brazilian tap-dancers" tells you that it can be categorised somewhere under "lists", "Brazilians" and "dancers". The first and the last one really ought to get to know to do "music", but "Brazilians"? Sometimes I will look there, sometimes use HotCat to generate suggestions, sometimes look for links in the article, sometimes just throw it to "Brazil".

So here "Music terminology" ought to be categorised under "Music" and "Terminology", and that means we ought to consult with Category/Project Terminology. My own understanding is that articles will be mainly about terminology when the bulk of the article is devoted to explaining some terminology, and usually that will mean that more than one term be explained. For example, I just added List of musical genres because the names of all these genres are "terms" and so together they form a "terminology". If it's important to distinguish between "melodramma" and "melodrama" as terms, then that really ought to appear in a terminology article. "See alsos" and Italic header disambiguations can be added, so if the difference in terms needs to appear in the articles themselves then the articles will tend either to duplicate one another excessively or else be mutually dependent and incomplete: they will be "articles about other articles". If an article "Melodramma and melodrama" is really necessary then it could appear in "Musical terminology" unless its scope is covered by a sub genre like "Opera terminology". But such differences can also be explained in "Opera glossary" and the like: a special article is probably undue weight.

I had added a diffuse tag and note to the top of "music terminology" based upon the consensus guideline at "Category Terminology" but KZ removed those and then added a note to "Opera Terminology" dissenting from that guideline. He chose to ignore the nested category rule also and reverted "melodramma" and "melodrama", removing the added categorisations of "Dramatic and literary genres" and "Theatrical music genres" which were intended to differentiate the two. I told him I was content to leave things his way for the moment - I certainly do not intend to sweep "Opera terminology" clean and there's plenty more to do elsewhere - so he complained here, mostly about the general fact I am editing at all. I do not mind at all; there is only one more top category to do and only then a body of consensus need be sought to settle outstanding differences. I am more concerned just now about the rickety nature of top-level category interfacing with related subjects like physiology, psychology and physics. To do "Music technology" I have to do "Sound technology"; to do that I have to do "Sound" - but it's getting there. Redheylin (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Using a script to make controversial edits

I'm disappointed to see that Redheylin has re-reverted all my category reversions to Maestro, Melodrama, Convenienze see [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. I don't join in edit wars so I am not participating in one here.

Redheylin has put Maestro into Category:Music people, despite this being a cat for subcategories of music professions (with only one other stray article). He has removed Category:Musical terminology from Melodrama despite the fact it has a specific usage as incidental music and is in no other music cats. And he has taken Convenienze out of Category:Musical terminology and put into Category:Voice types where it doesn't belong.

This would be regarded as simple edit warring, except for one fact: he is using a semi-automated process – Wikipedia:HOTCAT. Wikipedia has strict rules against this practice, see for example Wikipedia:AWB#Rules_of_use:

"AWB Rules of use: Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding."

--Kleinzach 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I knew I'd missed something. Klein is quite correct: the edits Redheylin is making are indeed controversial and he really should be seeking further consensus before re-reverting another editor's reverts. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To explain why the depopulation (in plain English, removal) of this category is so damaging, here are (or were?) the remaining articles left in Category:Musical terminology after (probably) 100-200 removals:

• Tempo
• Index of music articles
• Italian musical terms used in English
• Nonchord tone
• Glossary of musical terminology
• List of pipe organ stops

• List of musical movements
• List of western art-music genres by era
• List of musical intervals
• List of guitar-related topics
• Outline of music
• List of eponymous musical terms

• Glossary of bagpipe terms
• Italian music terminology
• Glossary of Colombian music
• List of ornaments
• List of makams
• Carnatic music terminology

This category is no longer useful for anyone checking individual musical terms.

In contrast, see Category:Opera terminology (128 pages), which was used to make this navbox:

We are unable to make a similar navbox for music, based on the existing set of articles in WP, now the articles have been removed from their only category.

It's well established here that if an editor wants to make changes, he or she can (1) go to WP:CFD to ask for deletion, merging, or renaming, or (2) turn a category into a list before radically changing it, thereby saving the information. Redheylin failed to do this.

If a vandal deletes something, we can revert, if a troll starts an edit war, we can deal with it, but if a rogue editor uses a script to make hundreds of contentious edits we are (in practical terms) unable to repair the damage. Should Wikipedia be like this? --Kleinzach 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clean vocals

This article has been tagged since Sept 2006 as unreferenced. Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of OR to me. Can't imagine how to properly reference it. I say prod it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if there is a way to unearth other articles like this one that have been tagged since the early days of WP without being fixed. Any ideas? --Kleinzach 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked one of the articles lacking sources cats. In fact, Category:All articles lacking sources highlights Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2006 specifically. There is also a chonology which becomes obvious as you start to navigate through these cats. Not sure how to refine to music or what ever yet, though, but there is probably a way. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PRODed... We'll see what people have to say! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a discussion space about this being PRODed or do I just put my opinions here? Because I do have some opinions about this article that I feel like sharing? Thanks in advance. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fire away! What's your opinion? --Jubilee♫clipman 14:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the article is definitely unencyclopedic, considering the lack of sources and lack of organization. I would vote for it to be redirected to Singing if the article can't be cleaned up, because basically, "clean vocals" is just another term for singing; it's just that it is a more widely used term within the metal community. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much similar to my thoughts actually. There is also death growl, however, and the information in Clean vocals could simply go there to help explain what the death growl style isn't... But that assumes there is anything worth salvaging in Clean vocals which I am not convinced there is. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Death growls are not likely to be confused with clean vocals, a single phrase along the lines of "as opposed to clean vocals or screaming" should suffice.136.181.195.10 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Piping the link to singing is certainly the way to go and indeed these singing styles are not likely to be confused. However, the info in Clean vocals is entirely speculative if it remains without any sources so it really cannot be kept. Therefore, discussing the style in an article that relates to one of its "opposites" (as it were) is a better way of doing this. Screaming discusses every aspect of that vocalisation technique in many different contexts so death growl—which is actually quite well sourced—is the only place this information can go. Furthermore, the techniques have to be explained in context. How about (in the death growl lead): "The death growl is a technique used by Heavy Metal singers. They also use the techniques called clean vocals (ie ordinary Singing) and screaming." That would more or less explain what is meant. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - Clean vocals now redirects to Singing which makes more sense, IMO. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

External links guidelines

I started a new talk section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#External_links_to_official_band_sites which is specific to musicians. However, it is related to general music article guidelines for external links as this is the parent project. If interested can you respond there? - Steve3849 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiss (band)/GAR notification

An article under WikiProject Music's scope, Kiss (band), is undergoing a good article reassessment. You can read the listed concerns at Talk:Kiss (band)/GA1. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Project and portal page update

A major update in style of the Project and portal page has been done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music...and .... Portal:Music

Many sub portals have also been done with the new border..

Rock music	Music of Canada	Classical music	Country Music
Electronic music	Guitar	Heavy metal	Hip hop
Jazz	Music of Australia	Punk rock	Rock and Roll
Dream Theater	Rush	Elvis Presley	Motörhead
[[File:|90x90px|link=Portal:Led Zeppelin]]
Led Zeppelin	Heavy metal	AC/DC
The Beatles	Aerosmith	Rock and Roll	U2

Buzzzsherman (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, hate the border! It's been pointed out that the background colour (behind text) of Wikipedia pages identifies its page type, and these borders / boxes appear to be trying to override Wikipedia's style. I hate seeing that on talk pages, but people can do whatever they want on their own pages. Seeing it on a project or portal page makes me shudder. Sorry for the negativity, and aside from the border, thanks for your work in trying to improve the pages. Did you want comment on the table of thumbnails you posted above? I notice a smaller version is on one of the portals. Are you proposing adding the others? I notice some of these thumbnails have copyrighted images; hope all fair use issues have been addressed for this usage. I like the absence of border and change to backgroud colour, in the version you posted here! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, on this project's page (which is NOT a portal page) that you've inserted the "NOEDITSECTION" statement which would seem to discourage editing, probably done to make it look more like a non-Wiki website page, and less like Wikipedia. NOTOC has also been used to remove the table of contents, a standard Wikipedia feature. Who have you discussed this with? It wasn't discussed at this page. What other style changes have you made? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at other changes you made:

• Removal of standard Project banner template at top - why? Templates help make a list of all projects when you look at all pages that use the template.
• Removal of list of shortcuts to project page, which were part of the template above.
• Moved Topic template from top of page to near the bottom, and removed box around it, giving it a non-standard appearance - why?

That's all the changes I see. Nothing too major aside from the border and background colour. But if you've been making this change wholesale at other project pages and portals without discussing it first, your work is likely to be reverted. I see you did the updates to this page via 23 small edits. A much better approach would be to copy the page you want to update to a sandbox page, make changes there, then post a message and ask for comment before making the change live in one step. Project pages, particularly, are a collaborative work, and should not be redesigned by one person who doesn't like the standard appearance of Wikipedia pages. I'd like to see others comment on this; I don't want to unilaterally revert it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against a redesign as such, but the present page has multiple typographical/spacing problems. Maybe it would be better if Buzzzsherman worked on this in his userspace and then showed the project his work after it is completed. In the meantime I think it would be better if we went back to the page the way it was before. --Kleinzach 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I'm sure the changes were well-intentioned, but they should have been discussed before implementation. I would vote to revert to the way things were for now. --Deskford (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fell free to revert anything you dont like...The project page has simply been upgraded (with a title added) to match other newer project pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music that has since has a big influx of editors...Nothing was deleted just moved or formatted... you will also notice that the border [CODE] added to the other portals pages allows the page format to fit any size screen..thus portal pages will appear normal on all screen sizes......This was tested with the Portal:Classical music for the few months to see if code will work ..and it does....so was upgrading all portals to this new in proved codeing...like ....Portal:Aerosmith...And Project info was added ....

• The Music WikiProject is a project that helps to assemble writers and editors interested in Music.
• The aim of this project is to standardize and improve articles related to the various genres of Music, as well as to create missing articles.

  

• To become a member of the Music WikiProject (anyone may join), simply click on the list of Participants - edit page and add {{user|username}}.

Be Bold!! Start a new "Music related" article

More info on project....

Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well all i have to say is Buzz great job. Not sure what this guys are saying the Portal looks much better then before. As for project page I do like the title and new format.99.241.68.237 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL i know its you Bill..tks I stole the Border from your Project page on WWII.... I think people with full screen monitors dont realizes the Portal sizing problem.. I HAVE ADDED BACK

Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done UPDATE Reverted ...ok the border on Project page has been removed....But i have felt the {{/Participants}} template ...so it makes it easier for people to join list and have left the new Portal comment section.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with new project page

The page as it existed on 31 December [5] was simpler, shorter and more coherent. My main criticisms of Buzzzsherman's new page are (1) The list of categories (originally a subpage) needn't have been moved to the main page, especially as this is a non-assessing project. (2) The participants scrolling list is messy and space consuming. This is not a list that needs frequent consultation. Why not leave it on its original subpage? (3) Repeating the name of the project twice in large letters at the top page is unnecessary. (4) The new article link (Be Bold!! Start a new "Music related" article) is too prominent. etc etc.

Three editors have expressed reservations about the design with only one IP (apparently connected to Buzzzsherman) in favour. I suggest we revert to the old, standard unproblematic version. --Kleinzach 08:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done all reverted..Buzzzsherman (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman, thank you for taking the criticism so well! We do welcome improvements, but significant changes require many of us putting our heads together. I'm glad you aren't upset. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

np I have been here at wiki since the start ..dropped my admin long ago to be a normal editor...fighting over styles is not helpful to wiki..The majority rules here and i have np with that... I am not perfect though i do try >>  :)

PS..i have added some Wiki project info to portals ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine to add portal info IMO, but please edit and cleanup before posting. How about using a sandbox? --Kleinzach 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So no bands will do that on other portals ...

Alternative music	Electronic music	Classical music	Country Music
Jazz	Heavy metal	Marching band	Music of Australia
Music of Canada	Opera	Pipe organ	Progressive rock
Punk rock	R&B and Soul Music	Rock and Roll	Rock music

More music portals...

Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask, what determines the order the order in which the portals appear? It's not alphabetical and I can't see any thematic order either. --Kleinzach 10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to put it in order...but for some odd reason if i put Alternative music first ..the chart gets messed up ...i will put them in order when i fugure it outBuzzzsherman (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE ..ABC order has been done...new chart above..Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)