Talk:Grammy Award

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We need to include info about how people are nominated exactly. I.E: Can Joe Schmo just call up his local grammy office and nominate someone..?

Georg Solti is listed as having won both 31 and 38 Grammy awards - pick one. The Grammy Award search page [1] only returns 31 results now (May 9) when a search is done on Solti. It seems inappropriate to write he is "listed for 38 Grammys"

I'm not sure what links we should have on this page. Are we going to have articles for each of the awards? I think they work for the Album of the Year and so on, but I'm not so sure that we should have individual pages for Grammy Award for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocal and so on. What do you think? -- sannse 20:38 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think we should have one listing all the winners (and even nominees) in each category. The information, even for the dorky Grammy Awards, is encyclopedic and proper for inclusion into the Wikipedia, and the best way to do it (IMHO) is to have a separate page for each award, dorky or not. Tuf-Kat

Interestingly, immediately after writing this comment, I wrote an article at Synchronicity (album) and it turns out it won the Grammy for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal. Tuf-Kat

OK, I'll add the links. Thanks -- sannse

Ugg, I'll add the links tomorrow, it's more work than I thought it was. -- sannse 22:12 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

What do people think about renaming the year pages to 1st Annual Grammy Awards and so on? The introduction for each year would still list the year awarded in and the year awarded for, so we wouldn't lose information. It would just clarify things a bit. -- sannse 14:39 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

---

moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music standards

Is there a convention that would apply to the Grammy listings? For Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Performance and the year pages we have: Artist, Title but for Grammy Award for Record of the Year and some of the other awards we have: Title Artist. Which is best? -- sannse 22:42 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say it depends. For a Best Recording award, the title should go first. For a Best Performance/r or Best New Artist, the name should go first, IMO. Tuf-Kat

That would make the year pages quite confusing and difficult to do (presuming we would need the same format for the individual listing on the year page as for the corresponding overall page). I think it might be better to have the same format right the way down the page, and on similar pages.

There are also quite a few awards that don't go to the artist or the song, they go to the producer or writer or whatever. Maybe the format should be,

[[Award winner]] for ''Title'' performed by [[Artist]]

And if the artist is the award winner then just,

[[Award winner]] for ''Title''

It seems to make sense to have the award winner listed first. -- sannse 23:41 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't thought of that... Yeah, then I like your scheme. Tuf-Kat

That makes sense to me, Sannse -- I've been adding lists as I get the chance (Grammy Award for Best New Artist, for example), I'll look them over and switch to that format where necessary. (I'm not exactly a follower of the Grammies -- I was a bit confused to discover that Best Pop Vocal can go to either a song or an album, but I believe I've got them all straight now -- wouldn't hurt to have another pair of eyes look.)

I haven't looked at the year pages in depth, because they look like they've been built pretty haphazardly. I think we should agree on a template, probably based on the Grammy page as far as being broken up by category. Once we've agreed on one, I'll be happy to start filling them in. (and to think, I got sucked into this because one band I like won a Grammy once, and there was no place to mention it on the Grammy page....) Catherine 17:00 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Heh! I got sucked into it too - trying to fix the entries that were as someone thought they should have been rather than as they actually were. I'm not a fan of the Grammys either.

I have started standardising the year pages using the Grammy page as a template. Grammy Awards of 1971 is in that format for example. I'll switch to the above arrangement for the individual listings, I think it should work well. -- sannse 16:42 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Looks great, Sannse. Let me know if/where you need help. On another note, "Grammy Award" currently redirects to "Grammy" -- do you think it should be the other way around? People are more likely to type [[Grammy]], but "Grammy Award" sounds more complete.... Catherine 17:24 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think you are right. The main page would be better at [[Grammy Award]]. [[Grammy]] would still be a redirect so there would be no problem with links to that. I'll do the move now.

I've tried the new arrangement on Grammy Awards of 1971. Any thoughts anyone? -- sannse

Again, looks good. Just one question -- the Pop awards are titled "Best Contemporary [whatever]" -- is that the official name of the award? Did it get changed to "Best Pop [whatever]" at some point? Should one title redirect to the other?

Also -- we should probably move this discussion to the Grammy talk page, no? Doesn't really belong in Music Standards anymore.... Catherine 19:58 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

Yep, I've moved it here.

It looks like they did change the award names. Grammy.com lists the awards as "Other Pop/Rock&Roll/ Contemporary Awards or Instrumental" and don't differentiate between the five different awards given out that year. So I looked at infoplease.com (warning: lots of pop-ups!) and got the more precise names from there. It looks like they used these award names for the 10th to the 13th. Possibly it would be better to list them on the same page as the equivalent current award. Maybe with a note on the page to explain the change? There is a similar problem with Academy Award for Best Picture etc. Personnally I find that page a bit confusing, so I'm not sure how similar the Grammy pages should be (in particular I think listing all the nominies makes the page too cluttered).

To be honest I sort of postponed thinking about this. I was going to do the year pages and then consider how to arrange the individual award pages and whether to change the links. There may be other similar complication with other awards changing names, I'm not sure. These things do get complicated ;) -- sannse 20:40 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be decided right away. I think the overall page for an award should be titled with whatever the current name is -- "Best Pop [whatever]". Then on that page, we can note that "from 19xx to 19xx this category was called "Best Contemporary [whatever]". Link text should reflect whatever is chronologically appropriate for the award being discussed -- i.e., older awards given the old title, which would redirect to the page with the newer title (or use a piped link to send it there).

I've been getting my info from http://www.rockonthenet.com/grammy/, which has it in fairly simple lists, but I'm not sure how accurate they are on award titles, so help me out if I err. Thanks! Catherine

That sounds good. OK, we'll give it a go! As time permits of course, I know you are busy with lots of other Wiki work too :) -- sannse

LOL -- actually, I just added Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, and its adjunct Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance -- apparently for three years, there weren't enough female contenders in the rock category! (Just a surmise on my part; if you find out for sure it might be worthwhile to add it to the text on the page.) Catherine

---

There is an orphan out there called Best Comedy Album...can someone save it? Kingturtle 06:43 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Done, moved appropriately (Grammy Award for Best Comedy Performance), and filled to the brim with chocolatey goodness. Catherine 23:47 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

The introduction does a good job of discussing the negativity aimed at the Grammys, but it needs some de-weaseling. Here: "Some feel that because Grammy voters tend to vote conservatively, and are marketed to by record companies, the most widely-recognized Grammys tend to go to either well-established artists or those being hyped by the recording industry. Hence, the Grammys are not taken seriously by some musicians and music fans" "Some music fans believe that the competition between these awards shows (and the controversies that come with it) only press the need for a unified awards system" These are valid topics, but if we can't figure out a better way of phrasing things (with examples and whatnot), I may be forced to delete these.

Contents 1 Beyonce 2 The "Latin" Controversy 3 Crunk 4 Plural 5 Most awards for a female 6 Georg Solti 7 title 8 significant artists 9 Category?? 10 Norah Jones/Christopher Cross 11 Clarification -- Age Records 12 GRAMMY or Grammy? 13 Nominees 14 The Beatles 15 Incorrect years 16 Most Valuable Player/Virtuoso 17 Norah Jones 18 "Criticism" 19 Youngest Latino 20 U2 Vs Mariah and Kanye 20.1 And the winner is... 21 Problem with GRAMMY articles 22 Question 23 Title? 24 Records? 25 Records 26 Other fixes 27 Grammy.com database

[edit] Beyonce

is she really a part of the voters?

she probably is...i think the requirements are that you have to have worked on at least 6 albums (destiny's child, the writing's on the wall, 8 days of Christmas, survivor, dangerously in love, #1's, and b'day are seven).

[edit] The "Latin" Controversy

The Latin Grammys represent works of achievement in music of Spanish and Portuguese speaking artists. However, the term "latin" indicates the language that originated in ancient Rome. When speaking of latin peoples, it refers to people of countries who speak a language that is derived from the original latin. Therefore all Spanish, Italian, French and Portuguese speaking artists and countries should be included in the Latin Grammys. "Latin" refers to all people with origins to any of the romance languages listed above. The "Latin Grammy Awards" should come to include Italian and French artists because they too are "Latin" If Italian and French cannot be included, then it has been suggested that the name be changed to "Hispanic Grammy Awards". The misuse of the term "latin" is upsetting to some and has become a rising issue for debate.

Thank you for expressing your concerns. The term "Latin" in this case is used simply because the name of the organization that issues the awards is "The Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (see http://www.grammy.com/Latin/ for more information), and they are the ones who selected the name of the award. It is unfortunate if the term upsets some people, but it would not be appropriate to change an encyclopedia article to a more politically correct term simply to avoid upsetting some people, when that would no longer describe the topic of the article. If enough people are upset about the term, they should probably discuss the matter with the Academy directly. Even if the Academy changed the award's name at some future date, this article would likely remain, because this is the name under which the awards were originally issued. Please remember that Wikipedia is a record of information, not a commentary on society. --Willscrlt 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammys are germanic grammys? because if there are latin grammys for latin languages (spanish, portuguese, french...) could be germanic grammys for germanic languages (english, dutch, german, swedish) --84.120.243.154 00:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crunk

Is there really a "Best Crunk Album" category? Someone seems to be doing a little vandalism.

[edit] Plural

Is the plural of "Grammy" really "Grammys"? Shouldn't it be "Grammies"? (Although that does engender visions of little blue-haired old ladies.) Al 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The "correct" plural of Grammys is the GRAMMY Awards. A GRAMMY Award is the correct singular. You may also state a person is a GRAMMY winner, or a person has won several GRAMMY Awards. I presume the reason for this is that GRAMMY is an adjective that describes the noun (the award, the winner, etc.). This is likely due to U.S. trademark issues, wherein adjectives can be trademarked, but not nouns. (Kleenex-brand facial tissues is correct, but referring to all facial tissues as Kleenex is not. It would be silly to ask for Kleenexes tissues, though people commonly and mistakenly ask for Kleenexes.) Note also that GRAMMY should be capitalized in full to be proper. See http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Awards/ for correct examples. --Willscrlt 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Searching deeper through www.grammy.com, I did find an example of the pluralized abbreviated form of GRAMMYs at http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/News/Default.aspx?newsID=1763&newsCategoryID=7 I think it would be safe to assume that the singular, lower-case s following the all-capital GRAMMY really is a proper way of refering to the awards show and probably also the award statues, too. --Willscrlt 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most awards for a female

How can both of these statements in the artical be true?

Legendary Opera Diva Leontyne Price has won 18 awards.

Alison Krauss has the most Grammy's for a female. Aretha Franklin also has 17 awards to her name (if one counts her Lifetime Achievement Award)

Yep, the second is wrong - Leontyne Price has more awards (checked with Grammy.com). I've removed the wrong bit -- sannse (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

hey can u list the nominations to all the genre fields like u did on the general field it looks right like that.

As of the 48th (2006) grammy award ceremony Alison Krauss has the most grammy's for a female. She won three this year bringing her total to 20.

[edit] Georg Solti

Georg Solti is listed twice in the records section. The first time it says he won 31 times and the second time it says he won 38 times. Chiok 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The lower number is right. If you look him up at the grammy site (winners search), there are 38 wins found, but of those, six are wins for the engineer and one is a win for a soloist. So he personally won 31 grammys.

[edit] title

you do realize that the purpose of not using the 's' at the end of an article title is to prevent the use of plurals. "Grammy Awards" is not a plural thing. it is a singular award show. sure, the physical statues would be plural, but this article is not about the statue.

[edit] significant artists

Are Motley Crue and Def Leappard really "significant" bands?

Hell yeah, what would strippers dance to if Motley Crue never existed?, also everyone remembers Def Lepard as the band with the drummer with one arm (cant remember any song by them though).

[edit] Category??

Is there a category for Grammy Award winners? If yes, where is it? It's not at Category:Grammy Award winners. AndyJones 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forget I spoke, yes it is. Didn't come up in a search for some reason, but I've found it now I've typed a link on this page. Sorry to have bothered you. AndyJones 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norah Jones/Christopher Cross

Norah Jones and Christopher Cross are listed on Wikipedia as being the only two artists ever to have one the "big four" Grammys in one year (Album, Record, Song, and New Artist). But according to the page Grammy Award for Song of the Year the song for which Norah Jones "won" was written by someone else. Isn't Song of the Year awarded to the songwriter? If this is all true, then Norah Jones didn't win the big four.

[edit] Clarification -- Age Records

The article says the LeAnn Rhimes is the youngest person ever to win a Grammy at 14 years old, but then goes on to say that Joss Stone is the youngest person to be nominated at age 17. Considering that LeAnn Rhimes won two competitive awards, she had to have been nominated before actually winning, making her younger than Stone at the time. Additionally, I'm quite sure that there is a gospel artist by the name of DeLeon Richards who holds the record for being the youngest nominee in Grammy history (she was nine at the time).

The article currently states that 12 year old Billy Gilman is the youngest nominee ever, but a visit to DeLeon Richards' page supports that she is the youngest (age 9). Some quick Googling shows a bunch of sites purporting each case, but it seems that Gilman may be the youngest solo artist to garner a nomination and Richards may have earned hers as part of a group. In either case, Richards deserves a mention of some sort, so some further clarification would be great. Pumpkingrrl

Who is David L Cook? According to Grammy.com there is no David Cook as a Grammy Winner. It does state on his Wik.page that he was the youngest inductee in the Country Gospel Hall of Fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.50 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GRAMMY or Grammy?

While the award foundation spells the name "GRAMMY", neither the L.A. Times[2] nor N.Y. Times[3] do so. They use the normal spelling of "Grammy". Since the name is not an acronym (it's short for "gramophone"), why should we capitalize it? -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's an objection, I'll move it back to "Grammy Award". -Will Beback · † · 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not impartial because I was the one who moved it. :-) However, the reason why I moved it and made the other changes is because the Recording Academy is extremely consistent throughout its Website, its press releases, and all other public facing materials that I could find, to always capitalize the word GRAMMY, even within the term GRAMMYs. As I explained above, the GRAMMY is a registered trademark in the United States. Companies often choose unusual capitalization in trademarks to make the trademark easily distinguishable and also to make it clear that the trademark is not a word, per se, but rather intellectual property owned by the company. It could be compared to writing IKEA as Ikea, GM as Gm, or eBay as Ebay. I wish that the Recording Academy had an official style guide available on their Website, because that would clearly explain the proper way to type it. Short of that, I can only suggest we follow the established styles they use consistently throughout their Website, press releases, and marketing materials. I will continue to change the rest of the pages and references over to all capital letters if the consensus is to proceed that direction. If it is to revert back to lower case letters, then I will be willing to make the reversions back myself, unless Will Beback would rather do it. Either way, I'm just trying to help improve the accuracy of the provided information--not cause conflicts. --Willscrlt 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see an explanation for the unusual spelling in any of their materials. If it was logical it'd be different. "GM" is an abbreviaiton, the full name is "General Motors". "IKEA" is an acronym. On a related issue, we always try to keep our article titles in the sungular. See Emmy Award, Nobel Prize, etc. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I admit that GM was a fairly poor example. Additionally, I did not know that IKEA was an abbreviation. It would be difficult to argue that eBay should be capitalized as Ebay. I have checked the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) database (see http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm and click "search" in the right-hand column, then do a "Basic" search if anyone else wishes to confirm this) and GRAMMY, GRAMMY AWARDS (only the plural, not the singular), and several other GRAMMY terms are all registered trademarks. That really does not help our discussion, however, because all the text (including AWARDS) is capitalized in most of the registrations. If you look at GRAMMY SALUTE TO JAZZ, you will notice that only GRAMMY is in all-caps, and the rest of the words are capitalized as normal English. Another example on www.grammy.com that clearly shows how The Recording Academy always capitalizes each letter of the word can be found in this press release or the other releases on the site. In each case, GRAMMY is always all-caps, and The Recording Academy has the "The" capitalized as well. I'm really not trying to be petty here. I think it is important to refer to the awards, the show, and its winners by the properly spelled and capitalized name of the award as the awarding organization refers to it. Maybe the L.A. and N.Y. Times do not capitalize each letter. They probably have artistic reasons for choosing not to (they probably think it would confuse people and make them think they are looking at a subheadline or an abbreviation), but which source is more accurate: the originator or someone else discussing something second-hand? I know that WP seems to view third-party reports sometimes more authoritatively than first-parties, but when it comes to the name of a product being presented, I think the originator should be considered the authority. If desired, I will happily contact The Recording Academy and request that they post a clarification to their Website. If they say it's not important enough to them to bother doing that, then I also will care less at that point. If they do feel it worthwhile to do so, then I think it only right to follow their standards.

Honestly, do you think am I taking this too seriously? My only motivation here is to be as responsible as possible in helping WP provide accurate information to the public--especially on a page used as a source by the media. If style (meaning matching WP's established styles and formatting) is more important than substance (and there is something I can read documenting that philosophy, rather than askimg me to blindly trust it is so), then by all means, feel free to change it back, and I will find other windmills in need of tipping. :-) --Willscrlt 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the Timeses that use mixed case. I checked Google news [4] and out of the first 100 responses only one, a press release, uses the upper case. Actually, it appears that the title the Recording Academy would really prefer is "GRAMMY (R)", but we sure aren't going to use that unless there's a major change in how we name articles. The general rule for naming articles is to use the most common variation, not the formal name. So we don't have an article named "McDonald's Corporation"; we do have "McDonald's". If we do go back to mixed case, we should probably include a note indicating the Academy's preference. See WP:NC. Also, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#All capitalized trademarks on this exact topic and the editors seem to prefer using mixed case for non-acronyms. -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those articles. I looked (to avoid appearing like an idiot), but did not come across those. Given those guidelines, I'm all for reverting back to the mixed case. My only remaining question is if the term should be all-caps within the article, or mixed case throughout. I agree about noting the article with The Recording Academy's apparent preference in capitalization and pluralization.

I'd say that we should use mixed case, except where we explain the RA's usage. -Will Beback · † · 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed everything back to "Grammy", and adjusted redirects appropriately. -- The Anome 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on the thanks. :-) --Willscrlt 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominees

Shouldn't the nominees for each award be listed on the appropriate pages? Butterboy 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

The Beatles won 29 grammys (i think, oh, well you look [[5]]) did anyone else win more (in rock)?--Kingforaday1620 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles have won 7 awards as a group. Per Grammy.com winners database —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.44 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect years

From the article: "Years reflect the year in which the awards were presented, for music released in the previous year." This really should be changed, because it means that Wikipedia doesn't match with its sources—if someone is looking for a 2005 Grammy winner, those winners shouldn't be listed under Grammy Awards of 2006. -- Rynne 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Was just checking something and the year as stated in this article is calculated wrong. For example, looking at the John Lennon/Yoko Ono example under the heading Grammy Awards - Overview is WRONG. If you look at the official website (grammy.com), the album Double Fantasy received the 1981 "Album of the Year" award, NOT the 1982 award as stated in this WP article. Newbie 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For example the article on Grammy Awards of 1992 is labeled disputable because of this. The current practice is unintuitive and should be changed.--Qtea (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most Valuable Player/Virtuoso

DOes anyone know where we can get a list of these? (I know (assume) they're not Grammys, but still of interest.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:29 14 January 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Norah Jones

In this article, it states that Norah Jones did not actually win Song of the Year in 2003. However, in the Norah Jones article it says she did. Which one is right? 86.131.179.105 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism"

I have reinserted the "criticism" section as I feel that it presents information that is relevant to the article. The Milli Vanilli scandal did hurt the image of the awards, and the thoughts of the lead singer of such an important and pertinent band as Tool are certainly relevant. -albrozdude 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section should stay, as long as it follows WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As it is, the descriptions of the various criticisms are not well-sourced, so anyone interested please provide more. There should be relatively brief mention of criticism that applies to any set of mainstream awards, as well as more in-depth criticism specific to the Grammy Awards procedure, if any. Pomte 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There certainly needs to be a more adequate "Criticism" section that reflects longstanding issues concerning such awards. The article in question contained references from the Grammy Awards' own website, thus negating any criticism of "neutrality." Whether sufficient and credible sources were quoted, the fact remains that this is needed in the article.

I had added the start of a criticism section, stating that the Grammy Awards do not reflect less mainstream music and this has lead to the speculation of the awards being controlled by the major recording labels. This was removed however. I do believe that a serious criticism section needs to be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.151.70.198 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I added back the earlier criticism write up--it still adds better to building a fair criticism section than having it all removed. I think the trick now is to just organize the criticism more fluenty. Events such as milli vanilli were very prominant events when they happened. In addition Maynard's quote reflects greatly the reason behind the whole criticism. Perhaps a quotes section could be created if this creates conflict? - Spudst3r

[edit] Youngest Latino

"Christina Aguilera is the youngest latino to win a Grammy. In 2000 she was awarded Best New Artist at the age of 19." I'm not sure of the relevency of this statement. Why isn't the youngest African American sited, or youngest Brit, French, Irish, or Polish singer, for that matter.

I agree. If the youngest latin person is identified, in fairness you must identify other racial groups, and I think that's unnecessary. Stating the youngest winner, youngest nominee, oldest winner, and oldest nominee would be suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U2 Vs Mariah and Kanye

The article claims U2 won 5 grammy awards despite selling much less that their competitors Kanye West and Mariah Carey. As I'm aware, U2's 2004 album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb has sold over 10 million worldwide and this is the album that won the award. I looked on the Mariah carey article and her album also sold 10 million worldwide. Kanye West however I'm not sure of, but I believe it will be around the same. Because of this I am deleting that sentence. 217.44.10.167 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Youngest Latino

Christina Aguilera isnt Latin she sang An album in spanish (MI REFLEJO) but that doesnt make her latin..Thats wrong..

[edit] And the winner is...

Has anybody been nominated for "Best New Artist," "Album of the Year", & "Record of the Year" the same year? Who & when, if so? Anybody win them all? Trekphiler 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with GRAMMY articles

Hi there,

I was recently researching for O Brother, Where Art Thou? and found that the official Grammy website says that the soundtrack to O Brother won Album of the Year in 2001 and the 44th Annual Grammy Awards. You can see that on this search. However, the O Brother article said they won in 2002. When I went to 44th Grammy Awards I found that it says that O Brother did win that year. I looked at [[6]] and found that it said they took place in 2003, and that "Come Away With Me" won that year. Come away with me did win Album of the Year at the 45th Grammy Awards, but according to the official website, the 45th Grammy Awards were held in 2002. It seems that all the individual articles on the various Grammy Awards ceremonies have the wrong year on them. Having said that, I was very confused when I found that, according to the website, the 49th Grammy Awards took place in 2006. I'm very confused about this, but I presume there's a reason? Thanks. Davidovic 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

If an actor wins a Grammy Award, does the project he/she starred in win the award too? TobytheTramEngine (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the catgory that they won in. If they won for a particular project and the project itself was part of the Grammy consideration, then, yes the project and the actor would win. However, if the actor was just nominated for having an involvement but the project was not a part of the consideration, the, no the project would not be entitled to the Grammy. On a side note; Should the actor win because of a participation, or the project won and the actor was involved, whomever owns the project or the actor could request a Grammy trophy for his or her participation. However, just because they possess a Grammy trophy does not make them a Grammy winner. Hope that helps Junebug52 11:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

While the page is at the proper location, Grammy Award, should the bolded title not also be Grammy Award? And I've never seen a page title marked with a trademark symbol. Should this not be removed? TheHYPO (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the trademark symbol as it is not needed in an article about the subject in question. I do not know why other editors have not removed it by now. I believe the rest of the header is fine like it is. Junebug52 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My understanding came from MOS:TM, which gives general style guidelines for use of trademarks. It seems to prescribe not using GRAMMY as all-caps even if the GRAMMYs do, and it doesn't seem to distinguish between the page name, and the body of the article. I'm going to convert GRAMMYs to Grammys, and if anyone disputes this, I'm happy to discuss it, but I believe the MOS is pretty clear on it. TheHYPO (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Records?

I think this article needs its records section retooled. The sections on "most wins by a group" etc. could easily be pared down to a single line a-la List of National Football League records (individual). While other records like consencutive appearances on albums that have won might be a little larger, it would still make the section a lot shorter and have the same information. There is no reason to randomly select portions of winning records to display (eg: there was no reason for the article to mention U2's number of wins for song of the year, best album, etc. unless it was listing what all 22 wins were for, which it wasn't. A simple reference link to the Grammy database for U2 will show all of their wins, and that's the best way to reference this. I'm going to rewrite the award section so it takes up far less space and doesn't have a dozen headings. TheHYPO (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I don't see the factual value of the record section at all now. I tried to improve the section to single lines, and realized how bad it is. These are such random records ("Most wins of the Grammy for Best Female R&B Vocal Performance" while no other performance category is mentioned), inconsistant records (Most wins by a female solo artist includes wins by her as a duo or group, wins for Stevie wonder include ones for production, the number previously was incorrect, etc.).

Further more, this all amounts to original research - without any source that says "the record for most awards is [blah]....", this is original reserach - IE: no reader can verify the records by looking anywhere that is cited (the reader can verify the numbers of awards shown for each record by Grammy.com search, but to verify that it is a record, the reader will have to search every artist to confirm there is noone with more. Until there are sources, I would like to delete the records section entirely as original research and not great research at that. There are way too many variables for what counts (Do Stevie Wonder's wins for collaboration or group end up counting in a record for solo male performer? Production? Do Alison Krauss' awards for being in Union station count? The only legitiimate count would likely be "most awards" period (or male v. female). I can't think of any other consistant way to do it, and without a source, it's original research anyway.

I will be deleting it unless there if there is no opposition; if you disagree, please explain why the section isn't original research. Thanks. TheHYPO (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are some issues with the record section, but I think it has it's place. I am not for deleting it. I think it should be maybe put into a sub-category. The fact that some of this might be redundant or it is felt the info is in need of updating is fine, but I still feel that the records should stay. What makes it hard is that even on Grammy.com, there are people who have won Grammy's yet are not listed on their site. There were several divisions of Gospel and World Music, not to mention Club Mix Disco that were not catagorized and the academy has still not listed it's winners in those divisions. These categories were pretty much overlooked for their importance. Anyway, I think we need to leave the records where they are because they do have an importance to the article as a whole. Junebug52 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it's not cited. It's completely original research. The only way to verify it right now is to goto grammy.com and search every artist and compile your own list. Unless some independant source can be listed to show the records, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As well, because, as I said, there are so many ways to count awards, even doing your own original research is subject to disagreement (what grammys count for a record? Do "special" awards (as defined in this article) count? I can't see any way for this to be encyclopedic without a verifyable source. They may be "important" (arguably - if they were LEGITIMATE sourced records, they might be important, though I don't know if that's necessarily true), but without sources, even important information isn't necessarily true. I'm not sure what Grammy.com ignoring certain categories have to do with keeping the record section? TheHYPO (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As an example, I was trying to work on the Stevie Wonder "most by a solo male performer" section. The section originally said 20 awards. Someone changed the number to 25 awards, which seemed more accurate. Then I looked it up on grammy.com, and found that he had won 25 awards, but three awards were album of the year in years when he was given two awards for having produced himself for those albums, meaning he won 28. But do you count those as wins? The paragraph also mentions that he has a lifetime achivement awards, which grammy.com doesn't list. Is this his 29th? 26th? Do his collaborations which won "best group" or "best duet" count for a solo record? Does his production award count for a performer? etc. etc. It is not our place to decide such things and declare records. TheHYPO (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As again, I can agree with the argument on one hand, but, then on the other hand these individuals did win the Grammy(s). The question remains the numbers. I agree that it is original research to a certain degree. Catagories such as Youngest Artist Ever Nominated are catagories that have a place in this article. Those are things that of genuine interests. I think to come to a meeting of the minds on this thing, we might want to take out those catagories in which huge amounts of Grammys are listed. Even then I feel we are robbing from the article. It may seem like original research, but everyone who reads the article has the right to go and look for the information and confirmation on their own. It is a hard call to be made here I agree. But, I think we need to lean towards the inclusion of the "Records" section into the article to remain. Junebug52 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question about the reference of Stevie Wonder's records. I think it would be clear that the only record that would stand would be that of the awards he won as an artist on his own merits. That would not include things he did with other artists or projects. It would not include Lifetime Achivement awards and so on. It would just be how many awards he won as an artist for his artisty. (Performance) That in itself would do away with many questions. I think if you look at the title of which his awards were mentioned; "Most by a solo male performer" the fact that is says "solo male performer" would answer anyones questions about the origins and count of his awards. It does not say "Grammy's in total" That would be available through the Grammy site. Junebug52 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect your desire to have a records section, but your argument just proves my point. You have outlined what awards would be in the record for Stevie Wonder. That's your opinion. I respect it, but it's not consensus, and it's not fact. Anyone could have their own opinions, and anyone could add their own awards. Most awards won by an artist in their 20s. Most awards won in the 1990s. Most awards to a self-produced artist. Most non-performance awards by a performer... etc. What's a male solo performer? Is Stevie Wonder the highest winner for his solo efforts? a LOT of his awards are for collaborations. who is to say his solo acts are the most? Without a source, you don't know that he has the most just for performing, and unless there's a citable source, you have no idea if Stevie Wonder's diminished total is less than anyone else's (if it was even truely the most as a total). "Solo performer" is arguable. Is a conductor not a solo performer? Stevie Wonder usually has a band behind him on most albums just like a conductor has behind him? Some would argue that the conductor is a solo performer. I'm not saying it's true, but I'm just showing that definitions that seem obvious are not necessarily so.

This article is not a list of Grammy Winners. I have no dispute as to whether they won; The fact that U2 has won 22 grammys is quite notable for U2 - it is lovely in their article, but in terms of the grammys, is it notable? Maybe if they have a record - but the problem is that it's not proven that this is a record. I have no clue if Wonder is the most prolific winnner among male performers. I'd have to check every male performer to prove it AND know what criteria is being used. While it may be notable, it's only notable if it's true. It's only true if you can cite proof to show me and the rest of the readers that it is true. If it's cited, add the citation to prove it's true, otherwise, it's just a guess or an assumption that the person who added it was correct.

I have to disagree with you "Youngest Artist Ever Nominated" seems like one of the more trivial, not notable. The age of a performer isn't all that notable compared to the most Grammys - quantity implies lasting Talent, while Age simply denotes early talent. I'd say that a record showing lengthy talent is more notable than a young person being nominated (not even winning). But either way, I have no clue what other people have been nominated, since Grammy.com doesn't even list nominees. How do I know that in 1977, someone younger wasn't nominated? Unless you can cite a source, no reader has any way to confirm the truth of that record. It sucks, but that's wikipedia policy. I really think it ought to be gone, and as citations become available, records can be re-added where cited. I don't usually hate record pages or anything, or advocate for their demise, but this one seems extremely inconsistant and unproven, and while an NFL record is well documented on many websites, articles, and in league media guides with lists of records, there doesn't seem to be any way to easily confirm these records or an easy set of criteria to use. I can see the clarify of saying "most wins in the Rock categories" or most wins in the big 4 categories, but most wins by a male performer is subjective, as I mentioned.

Let's be perfectly clear - I have no problem with a record secton, but it has to be cited, or it's pretty much "What guy who added it thinks is the most Grammys for a male", and that's no good for wikipedia. I wish to see a cited record section added, I'd love that. But if not that, then it should be nothing.

As a token note, I appreciate the civil discussion on this point, and though we disagree, this isn't getting heated or angry as I've seen occur occasionally in the past. I respect that we may not see eye to eye on this in the future, and suggest that we may need to looked for a third opinion or submit a request for one at wp:THIRD - If you still think that the record section ought to stay without citations, I would suggest that we might want to go the 3rd opinion route. Cheers - TheHYPO (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypo, I see no need to get into a heated discussion about this issue. There are problems in the world that far out weigh the article about the Grammy awards! I think we should send it up for a third party discussion. I do know several admins that we could ask as well. I am in the process of sending requests to some of them. I think we are both on the same page, it's just that we are trying to get to the resolve in different ways. That's what makes this a wonderful outlet for editors like ourselves. Let's see what some of these admins have to say and we will just let it play out for itself. Also, thank you for your civility Junebug52 03:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

My you two have had quite a discussion up there!

Just a "flit by" suggestion... kill the sections in what are referred to as records—unless you can add enough prose to space them out visually quite a bit more... which is unlikely! Suggest you convert to a table format... "Record Title" and "Holder/details, etc." (See and perhaps copy and empty out {{1632 links}} and reformat into that sort of table...) which at least won't be so ugly.

I can agree that such "records" are of interest, and some are like that whole classification of things interesting, in truth though all really trivial, but one man's junk is another man's treasure, so grit your teeth and be tolerant.

I have to firmly agree that such claims need some citations. Those that can't be substantiated from websites should certainly be supportable by google searching in such a "prominent and much discussed" field of (ahem... <clears throat>,... twice) "knowledge". In any event, applying {{fact}} for a week or two while things are referenced up properly is NBD, and takes POV out of the equation all together, since you will in all likelihood end up citing news sources. This is a good situation to include the actual text you are quoting, not just a url. Using "|quote=" in the cites templates is useful in building the page. After things settle out, unclutter the references section by revising that to "|Quote" keeps the quote, but takes it out of the references since the preprocessor simply swallows it.

Good luck, but tidy it up and cite such claims... someone will be reporting the same thing, so google by phrases and key words, and most will turn up if valid pretty quick. // FrankB 06:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I really did want to keep the section - I honestly got about 5 awards into making them all into 1-liners in the style of NFL record articles, but everytime I came to the next subtitle I found a new inconsistancy. Without researching myself, I couldn't find any way to make the table and keept the existing facts that still made sense, so I had to abandon the edit because I wasn't willing to retool the records section by choosing which inconsistant information to keep, as I couldn't even figure out which info to use for some (eg: the conductor - 31 awards or 38? Stevie Wonder - 20? 25? 28? 29?) etc. I was stuck trying to do that so I had to quit it. I also note in atop this talk page that some legitimate media actually have cited this article. If that's going to happen, the article needs to be held to a pretty high standard of citation and fact checking. TheHYPO (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes my friend Hypo and I have had a few conversations about this topic and I feel that we both agree that it needs citing. I am in agreement that the items are slipshod, but, I also feel as what Frank said is true as well. One mans junk is another mans treasure. I think we need to find a happy medium somewhere in here. If anything, maybe we should create a Trivia section which isn't as serious. I would just hate to see the page loose some of it's funner parts. I do agree fully however in what Hypo is doing and I will help him to accomplish it. I would also like to say that as a respected musical historian, we do not take these things as gospel. Grammy.com does not list all of their winners in their database. Stevie Wonder ho was mentioned throughout this discussion is actually a reciepient of 42 Grammy's. Many of which are not listed in the database because the academy does not look at the awards as notable or worth mentioning. It is a flaw in their system I feel. I am fine with whatever needs to be done, but I still feel these items should not be nixed. Junebug52 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Records

I'm going to start a new section to list all inconsistancies I see in the records section so it is at least documented for anyone who might read this page and be curious:

• Most Grammys in a lifetime: says he "personally" won 31 (which grammy.com confirms) and is "listed" for 38. What does this mean? Does this mean someone else won an award for doing something to an album he conducted on, so he's listed in the album credit? Is this like saying that an artist wins an award for best songwriting when a song they performed wins that award? I don't know why the other 7 awards are counted for him. And the question then becomes, was 38 the record or was 31 the record? If 38 was being used as the record, and we agree only 31 should count, do we now know this is the most anyone has won? Would need citation.
• Most Grammy Awards won by a band: Seems to be one of the more straight forward ones. U2 has won 22 awards by name, as far as Grammy.com is concerned. No proof of this being the most of any band tho.
• Most Grammy Awards for consecutive albums: Consecutive years is one thing, but now we look at consecutive albums by an artist? Sounds like a lot of original research to me in finding out what years artists put out albums and whether or not they won, etc. - "Pat Metheny and the Pat Metheny Group have won 17 Grammy Awards in total" - Are they the group's albums or his own albums? Only one of him or the group should be record holding. If it's a mix of both, it shouldn't be a record.
• Wins in most different categories: Listed under the previous award - 6 categories? Just off my previous search, Wonder has Pop Collab, Male Pop Vocal, R&B Duo/Group, R&B Male Vocal, Instrumental Arrangement, R&B song, Pop Duo/Group, Album of the year (as artist and producer), Producer of the year. That's 9 Categories (not including both for Album of the year or his Lifetime Achievement). This immediately discredits the Maheny "record" in my eyes, which is why I feel if any award on the page can't be cited with proof of truth, there's a significant possibility that they are inaccurate, whether in good faith or by vandals who want to pimp the Maheny band by inventing them a fake record.
• Most consecutive performances on albums that won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year: I think the convoluted title of this record speaks for itself as a trivial invented record just for the sake of saying "Hey, Hal Blanie was great - look he played on 6 consecutive Records of the Year!" - if there's no similar record for album of hte year, it's clearly just a ploy to show off Blanie's achievement. It's notable in HIS article, but someone trivial in this one (and that's only if it's the record).
• Most Grammy Awards as a male solo artist: I think I've well documented this one - 29 grammys he seems to have earned, includes a lifetime achivement, 3 double-wins for AOTY for performing AND producing, 2 (I think) other wins for non-performing categories, and several awards for collab or duo/group. While it's easy enough to agree on which of those awards should or shouldn't count towards a record, whatever number is arrived at has nothing to compare to for other artists to see if the whittled down number is still the record.
• Most Grammy Awards as a female solo artist: Kraus is clearly listed as having won 20 awards including those WITH Union Station, a band. So why are those included? Is it most awards by someone who HAS performed solo? Has at least one solo award? Is it any single (solo) person of the gender who has won the most awards for performance (whether in group or not)? If so, any member of U2 might beat Stevie Wonder for just performance awards. Who knows? Not me - that's why cites of a proper record source are needed.
• Most wins of the Grammy for Best Female R&B Vocal Performance: again this seems like a record invented strictly to say "aretha franklin was great - she won many grammys. Let's find a record to make her look good". No other genre award has a "most wins" record.
• Most Grammy nominations in different categories: The section lists 9 different awards, which as I showed above, Stevie Wonder has won in at least 9 categories. I'd check if he'd been nominated in more than that, but since grammy.com doesn't list nominees, I can't even confirm if Bela Fleck's nomination categories are true.
• Youngest person to win a Grammy: Grammy winner ages are not listed, so this isn't even confirmable through original research on grammy.com by looking up all winners. We don't list oldest winner, fattest winner, tallest winner or any other distinguishing feature other than Gender (only somewhat fair because Grammy itself splits awards between female and male in some categories)
• Most Grammys won by a record producer in one night: Now we're getting into single night records? Nothing wrong with the award itself, but it seems like "hey, a guy won a lot of awards that night - let's make up a record that covers it.." There's no listing for "Most grammys in one night" period - why are we presenting a record for the more specific "by a producer" (which should really read "for production", since a producer could win any awards.
• Most Grammys won by a Male Artist/Female Act in one night: Other then unverifyability, the only issue I seem to have with these two is that the it's Male Artist, but Female Act. Why?
• Quincy Jones holds the record for the most Grammy nominations with 79: The wording for the conductor in the first award when I found it was (besides his 31 award wins) "he was also nominated for an additional 74 awards". this implies to me that he was nominated for 74+31 = more than 79. It's probably a typo, but since there's no citation for the facts, let alone the record, I can't confirm or deny.
• Most nominations without winning: Other than uncited, no issue
• Youngest person ever to be nominated: Uncited, and the age issue I had above for winners.

Additionally, there is no citation that the "big four" awards are considered "big" or special or anything by anyone. While it has a ring of truth, it should be supported with fact that they are considered prestigious, or else it's not neutral POV. The record of only one person winning all in one year is another uncited "record".

[edit] Other fixes

Do we need a full list of the venues in this article? There are already links to each award show by year - since it's not like 1959-73: one place, 1973-1988: second place, 1988-present: third place, but a new venue almost every year, it seems like it's info that is better relegated to the individual years' pages.

In addition, The critisism section presents many POV flamings of the awards without a single attributed source citation. That's extremely problematic. For all a reader knows, this is one guy's rant that he just stuck in the article. Critisisms are especially sensitive to requiring citation; if not cited, that section simply has to go.

Those are my 8-14 cents. I hope they are helpful in explaining all of the specific issues I have with this article. TheHYPO (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypo, I really like you! we should join forces and rid Wikipedia of some of this fluff crap! I have taken the liberty of doing some rewrite on a lot of this stuff. I rewrote or reorganized rather the first half of the article and I added some verbiage. I also moved stuff around to create a better flow. I moved the records and labled them as trivia with a disclaimer. I also felt the same as you did about the critisism area, so I went in and started placing cites for the stuff. It should be a little better now. I am all for cutting this article down to the bones and starting it all over again! LOL Lawd could you see the war issues we would get ourselves into? But it may be fun! Anyway, let me know what you think. I will be doing more work on it as I get more time. Junebug52 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest splitting some of this up into sub-articles. For instance, the 'list of Grammy categories' takes up a huge section of the page. Changing that over to a separate list article with just a brief description and link to the new article in this one would make sense. The other article could then be expanded with information about when each category was added, updated to include categories which are no longer awarded, references, et cetera... which would seem impossibly bloated if all included in a single article. The list of venues mentioned above is another example - a separate page could go into how the venues are chosen, brief information on each event (with the link to the article on that year's show), et cetera. On the award records section discussed above - the first thing which came to mind was that it should be easy to find references... people (usually) don't just make up those statistics, they cite what they've heard. So I checked the first two, and sure enough a Google search turned up dozens of newspapers which backed the claims (though I had to search around a bit to find ones which don't charge for their archived stories). Better organization would certainly help (and moving this out to some kind of grammy records page per the above might be a good idea) and the references definitely need to be looked up and included, but if the references are added there is no reason not to include this information. --CBD 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Addenda - The award records should also be cleaned up to only describe the actual record, rather than the record plus various other Grammys the person/band has won. Information on all the Grammy awards / nominations should be included in the article for the actual person / band, but if this is a 'records' section it should only have info on the records. That would also allow greater specificity as to exactly what criteria are being used in arriving at the count. --CBD 13:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sub-article theory. Esp. for the list of awards. I'm iffy on list of venues, as I think where the awards were held is extremely trivial to most people (if anyone wanted to know a specific year, that year's grammy page has that info - I can't see the lot of readers interested in a consecutive list of the venues, and I think a "how its chosen" (if someone can find reference for such info) could fit into a section on this page, but if it is felt that the list should be in a subarticle, I don't have a problem with either option of subarticling, or deleting the list.

My only concern, which unfortuantely can't be valid for wikipedia, is that news reports themselves could easily have sourced wikipedia for their records. I hope none of them did, but I have definately seen wikipedia info which is wrong used in real news articles. It then becomes cyclical that someone cites the news article as justification for the wikipedia fact and there you have it. But there's really no way to inspect or protect for that in this case.

Doing a yahoo search for record "most grammys" brings up a lot of news from when things were broken (eg: a 2000 article noting that Santana beat the record for most in a year) - but it is important to note that this is only accurate as of when the article was written (2000) - so be aware of that when citing. Another article found on the first page notes that in 2005, Ray Charles won 8 awards, but doesn't say he broke or tied a record. So... Either way, citing Santana and Jackson via a 2000 source would seem to be to be leaving out Charles, but again, I don't know. I don't really have the time to start a grammy-record-research-project (GRRP - trademarked). I see a lot of results for santana and beyonce on the first pages, but not much else. I would warn against looking up specific people though - eg: "most grammys" "stevie wonder". That's just going to find results that list Wonder and exclude results that might support someone else being the record holder - since as I suggested above, criteria are debatable, it should be investigated whether the media reports all cite Wonder, or if there is some split - searching for Wonder won't find that info though.TheHYPO (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypo, great work! I think with both of us ontop of this article, we should be able to bring it up to par. CBD is always a great admn to go to as he is very fair! Let's work together to get this thing done! Again, thanks again for all of your understanding and civility! I love it when a plan comes togetherJunebug52 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on my talk page. At first, I thought I should bow out, since I know nothing about Grammys, but then decided to dive in anyway, since I do have a fair bit of general Wikipedia experience. We shouldn't call this section Trivia, trivia sections are discouraged. I renamed it back to Records. We can't have a big disclaimer at the top of this section that it needs to be verified, because that's true about all Wikipedia, not just this article, or this section. I cited about half of the entries, there are reliable sources that write about this stuff, so it's not useless. The remaining ones can be marked {{cite}} or something, and deleted individually if no citations are found in a while. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, thank you so much for chiming in! I can always rely on you! I changed it to trivia and put the disclaimer on until we had some admins to look at it. I was not going to leave it that way. I just didn't want anyone to look at it and take the stuff as biblical if you know what I mean. But, I do appreciate the help and we will whip this thing into shape. Thanks again Junebug52 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As was done with U2, I believe all records should be cited by date of the source. The 5x women winners is cited from a 2004 article. There is plenty of room for other women to have caught or passed those women since then. In addition, I'd discourage the use of linking As of xxxx. All that does is redirect to the year itself, which really has little or no use to anyone reading that section of the article "2006? what's that?", but that's personal preference. Records should be marked with the year of the source, though TheHYPO (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy.com database

It should be noted that many editors are basing their reversals and edits based on the Grammy.com database. It should be noted that this database is not a complete and comprehensive look at "ALL" of the grammy award winners. The database does not list individuals who were given "Specialty Awards" nor does it acknowledge award winners in catagories that in years past the academy did not hold as notable catagories. This does not mean that they did not give awards in those catagories. Catagories like "Best Accordian Performance by an Individual or Group" The catagory did exist, but the academy does not list the winners. Christian Country is another catagory that they did not acknowledge yet awards were given. So, when you as an editor are editing, you cannot stop at grammy.com as a know all see all for citing your sources. Stevie Wonder has won in reality, over 32 Grammys, yet I believe the database holds a lower number. Just be aware of this issue when editing. Canyouhearmenow 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)