Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pop music issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion moved from the project page

As briefly discussed in this talk page ("Refactoring planned"), I've moved earlier discussion from the project page to this talk page. -- Hoary 03:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved OmegaWikipedia's comments here from the top section, with references to the sections he was discussing, as per his comments on the talk page. Discussion should be kept here, and the top should remain clear of discussion. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While much of the information is indeed helpful, the articles tend towards biased and POV editing, and then reverting/protesting when anyone else tries to fix their work. Several editors, among them OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs), Ultimate Star Wars Freak (talk · contribs) and DrippingInk (talk · contribs), would not, for quite some time, let "outside" editors near the Mariah Carey article or related articles on her songs or those of other pop artists. Such articles were therefore filled with biased POV writing. Admin Mel Etitis dedicated himself to attempting to format and clean up the articles' grammar, capitalization, and wording, only to have one of the persons in question go back and revert them. For such reasons, both parties and others have been blocked several times for violating the 3RR.

I have to heavily disagree with this statement, which I feel is inaccurate almost to the point of casting a false light in this situation. Several "otuside" editors since the creation of the articles have edited the articles, so that in itself is not a true statement. The articles in the first place were not filled with heavy POV writing. When Mel decided to edit the articles and to remove section that he felt were POV, we explained that we did not have a problem with those edits, but some stylistic changes. Eventually, Mel decided to use rollback on all his edits, so rollback was used on our parts. After some edit wars on the matter, we refrained from using rollback and POV sections (which were never meant to be reverted) were removed (although Mel continued to use it) and only reverted the parts we felt needed to be reverted. The main issue concerned the usage of numbers in written words (number-one) or as numerals.
From the Wikipedia:Manuel of Style, ("Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."). The issues with Mel continued and acted contrary to the MoS, because he explained that he had personal manuals which stated different rules. While, Mel may have manuals that say different things, the MoS clearly states that they can be written out as numbers as shown above. OmegaWikipedia 08:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Omega and Mario. --Anittas 22:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Then there needs to be consensus and a clear resolution reached by both parties. Interjecting my own suggestions, the MoS is somewhat vague on this issue. "Number-one" through at least ten should always be written out in prose, and "twenty-third" should never be written as "23rd" (at any rate, "#1" or even "#56" should not be used in reference to music articles). These are general guidelines of scholarly writing that any English professor (such as Mel) can point out. Perhaps the manual of style needs to be updated with clearer guidelines, or these guidelines need to be clearly defined for song articles. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

In what level of detail should a song's sales and airplay performance/charting statistics be covered? Should there be an upper limit? Is it necessary to list positions for all Billboard charts on which a song appears, or should there be a limit on the number of charts covered?

While Sweetheart and We Belong Together may stand out due to their circumstances, most articles do not go into that great of detail on their chart performance. If there is any POV language you feel is in the article, feel free to remove it, and you'll see, contrary to your claims, that we not just revert anything. However, if this is relevant chart information, there is no reason why to delete it and to pretend that it never happened. You have mentioned on several pages that you feel that only, R&B, Dance, and AC stats should definitely be mentioned and that the other should be removed. However, others may feel that the R&B charts are irrelevant and that they should be removed. Seeing, as there is disagreement here, all national charts from Billboard are presented to avoid any PoV on the charts. OmegaWikipedia 08:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
In the past, edits to these articles have been reverted, and the number of articles involved makes it an issue beyond something one person can handle. The mentions of hot 100, pop, R&B, dance, and AC charts only being included only apply to Mariah Carey, as has been explained several times. Those charts are chosen because those are the4 most frequently cited for R&b artists such as Carey in other professional music writeups. The R&B chart, especially pertaining to black artists, is essential in providing information on the chart performance of a song, although this is probably truer of older songs (especially ones from the 1980s) than newer ones. For other artists, these will be different; the point is discresion must be at hand. This isn't about what others feel; this is about being consice and working to identify which charts are the most important, which are simply component charts for others. Articles should not be over half made up of charts and lists. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the Wikipedia require separate articles on different recordings of the same composition? If it does, should every major hit version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" be given Wikipedia articles, or just those of certain performers?

I believe seperate articles on covers that have become singles are necessary. As part of an artist's singles chronology, the project suffers a great deal when single articles are merged. There is no reason why an article has to be compacted with another version of the some song, just because two people have performed it. Each article has information about its recording, song information, chart performance, music video, etc that is exclusive to its release. When combined, it only makes the article look messy and unprofessional. When I read information on the Jackson 5 version of I'll Be There, information on the Mariah Carey version on the same page would be distracting and poorly formatted. OmegaWikipedia 08:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a way both articles can be combined, if the writing is done properly. Nevertheless, there should be consensus on what should be done. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I think what you're trying to propose here is going against the general ideals and principles of the project. If you remember, Wikipedia is not paper. There is no reason why we should delete relevant chart information or combine articles just because they are of the same song. While the song may be the same, that is their only similarity. The recording processes, the chart performances, the release and reception, and other factors are elements unique to each project which would clutter the articles if merged OmegaWikipedia 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
One matter of dispute is the level in which some of these songs need to be covered. In most cases, the articles appear excessively long, and it simply is not a good precedent ot establish to have seperate articles for individual recordings of the same song (Imagine how many different versions of several pop standards could result). And although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and "not paper" does not mean that limits should not be placed on the information included. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
At the end of this day, this seems to be a very unnessacery write-up. From what I can sumarise, there are only two main issues: covers and chart infomation. I have no idea why any conflicts with writing a number as (#1 or number-one) have been brought up, unless it was your intention to attempt to discredit the disagreeing party. I would suggest that this information be removed as it's irrelevant to the issue of covers and chart info. OmegaWikipedia 09:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The numeral issue was brought up because it was an issue of dispute, and has lead to edit wars. This write-up is neccesasary, because there are longstanding issues that need to be resolved with a consensus. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Policies

  1. Where is evidence of each of these claims? Especially Wikipedia:Captions? I removed a tag by accident once, and later apologized. Remember that actions in Wikipedia are based on good faith, and it does not make sense to complain about an accident OmegaWikipedia 09:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Several of these were already mentioned to you by Extraodrinary Machine on your talk page. I can make mentions of specific references to the others, and I will do so later. --FuriousFreddy 13:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be having a problem here. First and foremost, User:DrippingInk NEVER made a major edit to a Mariah Carey article. I am aware that he added a chart position or two, but never did he once make a large impact on one of her articles. User:FuriousFreddy is using inaccurate information to take him further in the RfC.
Second, he thinks "my" side is obsessed with Mariah Carey. Very interesting claim, seeing as I don't think very highly of her at all. The reason I was editing her articles, however, was to do what I'm supposed to do on Wikipedia: improvement and expand upon.
Third, apparently chart trajectories are disgrading because they offer "competition" between the song articles to see which single performed better. This, I might say, is utter [censored]. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but this is an encyclopedia. Chart trajectories are useful for the song articles because when someone wants to retrieve one on the internet, the task can be very difficult (believe me, it really is). So when the chart trajectories are all on Wikipedia, it is easy to obtain all the ones you want, as you don't exit Wiki-boundaries. This is the same case with the chart and Billboard positions.
Fancruft. No one obviously understands what this word means. So quit using it. --Winnermario 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
#Talk:Cool (song) Winnermario declared the article "her baby", and proceeded to inform Mel Etitis that he should leave the article alone and allow her to fix it up, essentially telling him that he was "not welcome" at "her" article.
Irrelevant and inaccurate. I did not state or hint that he was not welcome at the article, I just did not want him removing some notable information (one of which he removed). If he wants to clean up the English, then he may. Next time you want to point something out, make sure you know what you are talking about. And this issue is also completely irrelevant to the matter. --Winnermario 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Dispute on "Cool"? What? There is no dispute on "Cool". That was FuriousFreddy and Mel Etitis bombarding the article and claiming that my edits were, of course, "fancruft" and PoV. --Winnermario 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This went very wrong, very, very fast. With everyone else's permission, I'd like to restart the debate, and try and get a sense of order added so that it can be clearly seen who is saying what. --FuriousFreddy 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The page needs refactoring. I cannot read it as is. I'd suggest, however, that perhaps some third party do the refactoring, after the objection raised about moving the commentary further down the page. Jkelly 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
No. No, we're not going to start all over. It is your fault for filing the RfC so early, Freddy. It is also your fault with providing inaccurate information in this RfC. So don't plead to start over because of your mistakes. --Winnermario 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The right place for comments

As this is an unprecedented type of action, I'm not sure how the proper way to respond to it would be. If I've responded the wrong way, my comments can be moved. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 08:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Only the user be able to move his or her comments on the top page. Another user has alrady informed this user to move his comments and he should be allowed to move them himself.

Considering Hoary left a message on my talk page requesting that I move the article myself, I find it very dissapointing that Freddy decided to ignore his opinion and to do whatever he felt like doing anyway. Freddy, be courteous and DONT move comments from other people without contacting them first. While my comments can be moved, I would have appreciated you letting me know before you actually did it. OmegaWikipedia 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
You said they could be moved, so I moved them. I apoligize; I was just doing what your comment said to do. --FuriousFreddy 22:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sections created

I have divided the article page for this RfC into sections for a statement by the originators (first parties), a statement by the second parties (those whom the originator says are violating the MoS or introducing fancruft), and outside views. The statement by the originators should consist of the comments of Furious Freedy, Mel Etitis, or any other signers. I suggest that those responding should move their comments into the section for second party comments.

Keeping the RfC divided into sections will make it easier for third parties to understand who is saying what. It should also make these move wars and revert wars unnecessary. Robert McClenon 20:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We should probably just stop and start over again. People are replying to the wrong sections, and sockpuppets are already making comments. How am I "obsessed with R&B" and immature? I didn't join this project to have to be insulted by people who don't even know me. --FuriousFreddy 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring planned

I will, at some time in the next 24 hours, be refactoring these comments to move all comments by second parties to second parties, and all responses by first parties to first parties, and all unsigned comments to a sort of limbo. If I see any comments deleted, I will write them up as vandalism. Do not move any comments except to put them in their proper places. Robert McClenon 01:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, Robert. In the meantime, I'll refrain from doing adding anything to the page. I think that Robert's job will be made much easier if others also refrain from adding anything. There will after all be plenty of time to contribute after he has worked on the page. -- Hoary 02:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I added sections; if people consider themselves the subject of the RfC, they can contribute there. If people want to add an alternative statement of the dispute, they can do that. Anyone who wants to add an outside view can do that too. Guettarda 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that sections had been added (thank you!), but I also noticed that the whole thing was still a dog's dinner. I have "been bold" in deleting one author's signed interpolations within another's signed statement, and have alerted the former author, inviting him to re-add whatever he wants but in an appropriate place. And I was about to "be bolder" in deleting the entire "Discussion" from the project page, moving it here, and adding a notice to the project page telling people that any discussion should go here. Would that be too bold of me? -- Hoary 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that - I missed it. Might as well leave the discussion section - no point in making the involved parties feel even more marginalised. The point of this is not to drive them away. Guettarda 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There's certainly some truth in that, but what I fear will happen is that 20kB of moderately clear, uninterrupted statements and responses will be followed by a tiresome 100kB of "Did!" "Didn't!" "Did too!" Let's keep up the S/N ratio of the project page. -- Hoary 02:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then go for it. Guettarda 03:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
You can certainly include my comment that refactoring needs to be done in your refactoring. Jkelly 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I was about to reply to Guettarda with a simple "Done!" Well, I have indeed done what I think and hope he OK'd: simply shunting a large and rapidly growing amount of discussion from the project page to this talk page. I haven't done any other refactoring, though, and right now don't intend to. -- Hoary 03:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring has happened

I will not be refactoring the article page because the other contributors have already done that. Thank you.

I think that this discussion will proceed much better if we discuss in our own discussion sections so that it is clear what the different points of view are. Thank you to everyone for cooperating. Robert McClenon 11:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a place to endorse the description of the problem? Jkelly 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Example of issue

I guess we're still in the process of restructuring, but here is an example of some of the issues at hand as they relate to articles on songs. This example uses not a pop song, but a hip-hop song by (Lil') Bow Wow, "Let Me Hold You" (hopefully this example should show that this is not about pop music vs. R&B music--which as of current are almost the same thing anyways--or a personal vendetta gainst coverage of certain musicians)

This is the edit, primarily written by OmegaWIkipeida (and what appears to be his sockpuppet), as I found it while browsing and cleaning up articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Let_Me_Hold_You&oldid=25574639.

First of all, no, that name is not a sockpuppet. The other name is OmegaWikipediaA. There is no need to make malicous accusations. I used to use it when I was very meticulous with my watchlist, but dont accuse me of using a sockpuppet when you dont know the defintion of one. 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Please sign your posts. I said "appears to be", not a definite "is." --FuriousFreddy 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a revision I have done (linked from the revision history, because it will very likely be reverted): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Let_Me_Hold_You&oldid=25974008.

First of all, no I did not do a full revert. However, I believe music video information and charts should be restored.
Please sign your posts. That is the issue; your opinion and my opinions cannot dictate what is include in articles. That is why this issue is being presented for comments from outside persons. Your reversion re-inserted a "Song information" section written in a colloquial tone ("instead of focusing on the sexual aspect of a relationship like many young men often do, he realizes that embracing is also an important aspect causing him to rap"), names the writer of the sample as a writer of the song (and fails o mention that B. Russell wrote the sample used), POV language decribing chart positions on various charts as "low", "relatively low", and "strong" (an editor saying something did well or poorly, not working from an actual quote, is showing their point-of-view). THe chart information for the R&B and rap charts is given in parentheticals, even though those two are among ththe most important that should be mentioned here as far as US performance for a hip-hop song goes. Bow Wow's girlfirend is called a "honey" (not only POV and a colloquialism, but archaic as well). The description of the music video is overdetailed, reading, as mentioned below, as a shotlist/scenelist moreso than a summerization of what goes on on screen. And no mention of the music video director in the prose? Although in this case it is not manditory, the article should at least have some discussion of the song's impact on pop culture, showing why it is notable beyond a recitation of catalogue information, chart performance, and music video cutting commentary. --FuriousFreddy 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you left that part in, so I thought you were ok were it, but I would be glad to tone it down. Those can be remedied. OmegaWikipedia 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I left what part in? That quote I pasted here was revised in the revision I made to remove the "like many young men do", and the "causing him to rap" is also a colloquialism (and an incorrect one as well). --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I missed those two OmegaWikipedia 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed were POV analyses of the song's performance on the pop charts (the point-of-view pertains primarily to the describing a song's charting performances as being good or bad, well or not well, etc.), references to component or otherwise minor charts (no, Wikipedia is not paper, but an article on a song should not be overwhelmed by details on its chart performance, unless it broke important records--and even then, that information should be presented concisely), summarizing cutting commentary description of music video--some of which delves into original research/POV suppositions and speculation about the video, and some minor formatting and revisions in other areas. Also, removed from the infobox were the songwriter, music video director, and certifications sections. Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs only requires the items that remain i nthe infobox; adding one or so extra items is not a serious problem, but it can become one if the infobox becomes excessively long. I am not sold on the idea that songwriters ( especially in the case where there are more than two) and music video directors should be included in the infobox; single certifications are a good addition, but only in the case of singles that are actually certified (if it was not certified, it does not seem likely that saying the song was "uncertified" is neccesary). Of course, the infobox formatting is just a suggestion; the prose and tables in this case are the important items of focus.

And what of the producers makes it more important than the songwriters? The songwriter actually wrote the song. Often producers are just generic studio musicians who get handed the idea and create the track. A songwriter has to actually write the song. And it would make no sense to list one without the other.
I've also "de-Poved" any sections that might come off as not POV. If you feel the section is still POV, then please edit, as you can see, no, I'm not some fiend like you paint me out to be who reverts POV edits. But please, do not remove the section as the video actually does have a plot which we talked about. OmegaWikipedia 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It's simply an issue of infobox legnth. The thing that makes the producers more important than the songwriters is that the producer is in charge of making the record. He is in charge of making sure the song is written, running the recording sessions, managing the budget for the song, supervising all musicians involved, and (sometimes, not always) doing instrumentation himself. The songwriters defer to him, if he is not one (or all) of them himself. A producer is never a "generic studio musician"; a "ghost producer" might be, however. Primarily, it is simple an issue of infobox legnth: the more songwriters you have, the longer and more unwieldy the infobox becomes. Perhaps we could include songwrters (seperated with commas, not spaces), but limit the number included to three. and place a other or see also note.
I think if we can information on the exact date an instrumental track (not even the main vocals) was recorded, adding songwriters should be fine. There's no reason to limit it to three songwriters. So if a song has four songwriters, we're going to go "Ok, we're listing three, but we arent listing the fourth"? What about songs with more than three producers? OmegaWikipedia 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
If songwriters are to be included, they should be seperated by commas, and not breaks, at the least. Articles like "Through the Wire" are almost all infobox and next-to-no prose. The same rule could be applied for songs with more than three producers as well. I beleive an issue like this was handeled at Fantasia (film) by forgoing including the (numeous) writers and directors of that film altogether and placing them in an appendix (Which I then did some formatting on, and still need tp fix up some). And what makes recording a song's instrumentation more important than its main vocal. Is it more preferential to you if only the dates were provided instead of the notation of what happened on those dates, or should such a section only include a generic year? --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Songwriters should be handle by breaks not commas, otherwised we'd have names split between the lines. Why are you complaining "Through the Wire"? Yes, right not it is a stub, and will eventually grow, but there is no reason to complain about it right now. It also doesnt make sense for you to compare that this to Fantasia which is a collection of several songs. This is one song. No, you got it the other way around. A song's vocals should more important than an instrumental. And I also don't think its right to mention dates, because nowadays vocals and instrumental tracks are recorded over several days and then re-recorded again, and then again, and then touches are added and tweaked. There is no one true recoring date as vocals are spliced from different takes into one track. Also many times the instrumental track was from a synthesizer and thus no real "recording" (in the traditional sense) ever took place OmegaWikipedia 04:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
My point was about the infobox. And that "Through the Wire" article looks about as long as it's going to get for quite some time. My comparison to Fantasia was not a comparison betwee nthe subjects at hand, but as far as the formating of the infoboxes. Reguarding song recording dates, that is probably true of modern songs; in that case, month/year spans or simply a year would suffice. "Recording" refers to the actual process of using a studio to record audio; if a song was made on an MPC, that doesn't count, of course. IF a song was recorded with live instruments in a studio, that does count. A band's liner notes (for example, the Roots) will sometimes state when they recorded a song. What are the opinions of others on this? And why should a song's vocals be more important than its instrumental? That certainly wouldn't hold true for a song like "TSOP (The Sound of Philadelphia)", or any jam session recorded by a band. --FuriousFreddy 04:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
And while this video has a plot, it is albeit a fleeting one (actually a scenario more than an actual plot), and not one that needs to be described in such minute detail. The article essentially describes nerly every scene in the entire video (Which is what is meant by the term "cutting commentary"). A video with a plot is something like one of several Michael Jackson videos, TLC's "Unpretty", and others. --FuriousFreddy 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how trivial this may appear to the outside opinion; this is just my attempt to improve the quality of music coverage in the Wikipedia, and make sure that the articles all conform to the guidelines and projects that have already been laid out for them. --FuriousFreddy 03:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The quality of the article is fine, Freddy. Just like you add the B-Side to the singleboxes in the articles you write whihc is not in any guideline. Why are you making such a big deal out of adding these if you can add the B-Side, which imo is more irrelevant. OmegaWikipedia 03:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, one or more additions is fine, but an infobox ahould not have to scroll in a 1280 x 960 window. There should be a limit as far as how long it is. However, that's not really that much of an issue. And anyone familiar with older music will tell you that a b-side is important to mention for older singles, especially in cases where the b-side is also a notable song. --FuriousFreddy 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
And just the same way the music video director is very important to today's music OmegaWikipedia 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
But a music video director's involvement in a song is solely from a marketing standpoint; he isn't involved in the creation of the song. B-sides are actually included on the other side of a 45 single. Songwriters should be included in an infobox long before a music video director is (especially since "music video director" barely fits in the infobox, and has resulted in inconsistent ways of fitting it). Including b-sides in the infobox, of course, isn't 100% vital or neccessary, they can be easily removed if requested. The main issue is that the infobox has gotten too long, maybe the use of the infoboxes should be reevaluated, and a clearly defined and permanent system of formatting them devised. It really doesn't look good to have one set of articles formatted one way, and another set formatted another way. --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Edits to make Freddy happy...." ? A rather disrespectful edit summary comment by OmegaWikipedia. This is not about making me happy; this is about trying to establish consistent guidelines and formatting. This is not a "me" thing (and I would strongly request the views of outside parties in this discussion). Doing this is not going to make me happy; but, hopefully, it's going to make the articles better. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

? That was not meant to be a disrepectful edit summary, and if you took offense, sorry. I just put that in because you seem to mention that we dont listen to your suggestions when we do, and try to find a middle of the road compromise (making much of the article a bit inaccurate). OmegaWikipedia 04:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
One can easily read crassness into such a remark. I would ask you to refrain from such comments in the future. And how does removing point-of-view writing, speculation, and colloquial language make an article innacurate? As it stands, the largest section of the article reads like something one would read on a fan page, not in an encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy 04:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Jkelly 05:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, I hope you can refrain from making accusations when the other party has clarified the matter. By the same token, if you're going to be liek that, we can easily read crassness and bias in many of your actions. And no, I wasn't referring to that as inaccurate. Once again, please think , reread what I said, and think before you speak and accuse people. No, that is not something that one would read on a fan page. It has already been very condensed. It you want to see a description of the video on a Bow Wow fan page, the description can easily take up the whole page - this is a concise description of it. 09:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have made no remarks or comments here or tonight with crassness inherent in them. Reguardless of whether you mean it or not, please do not make such comments in the future. Besides being percieved as rude (reguardless of whether they were intended as such), they also undermine and trivialize the issue at hand, as if you're only doing this because I am "forcing" you to, or because this is some unfounded attack on "your" articles. Reguardless, you should know that such a comment is not proper for any sort of a professional discussion. And if someone else agrees that the description reads like a fan page, then you should take that into consideration. That is not concise, it is not scholarly writing, and it is not the type of writing one would read in an encyclopedia. And, again, how is "trying to find a middle of the road compromise" "making the article innacurate"? Explain this, please. --FuriousFreddy 11:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As unfortunately expected, any attempts to clean the article up so that it reads as a scholarly encyclopedia article instead of a fan page or an entertainment magazine article have been met with resistance. Perhaps it is because I am the one doing the cleanup. I would like to ask that another editor give his view on the status of the page, and/or do a cleanup theirself. --FuriousFreddy 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary revert

Well, I definitely want this situation to be handled right. That said, I don't think this has been handled correctly. First of all, another user's comments (Wscott) were excised completely from the page! I'm not sure if this was a total oversight as Guettarda did talk to this person on his talk page, but in his or her attempted reconstruction, did not include his/her comments for some reason. Second of all, Annittas has made a comment. Why were his commments moved without him recieving permission first? Nobody even left him any message on his talk page. Third of all, I'm not sure any comments by anyone should have been moved in the first place without contacting and getting approval of the other party as is normally the custom here for RFC comments. That includes FuriousFreddy, WScott, Guettarda, and you too Hoary. Also as is this page had gotten too far, before an attempted revision took place, the so called "discussion" doesnt read like a real discussion, but instead a very loosely constructed attempt at recreation of various snippets and comments. I understand the factors that were involved, but I think its misleading, due to the real "discussion" not actually being like this, and this being just a recreation. OmegaWikipedia 08:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In this edit (02:18), I removed all your interpolated comments; in this one (02:24), I notified you of this.
In this edit (03:00), Guettarda agreed with my proposal to move all the discussion from the project page itself here. In this edit (03:30), I put it here; in this one (03:31), I deleted it from the project page.
There was no "attempted reconstruction"; it was a straightforward cut-and-paste job. I'd be surprised if anything got lost in the process. I did not check that nothing had been removed before I cut-and-pasted; I have not checked if anything has been removed after I cut-and-pasted. Yes, the discussion doesn't look like a real discussion, but it is as I found it. I didn't seek everybody's permission for the move because this seemed likely to take time, during which the discussion could well balloon.
You call this a "temporary revert". Are you going to "unrevert" it, and if so, when? If you are not going to do this, what would you like to be done, and by whom? (Or what does "temporary" mean here?) -- Hoary 09:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This wasn't done as a direct user conduct RfC, which requires notification and such. The nature of the issue involving so many articles and people, I didn't know how exactly to format it, and asked for asssistance in doing so. However, before that could be done, people replied incorrectly to the discussion, many of them making (WScott especially) making comments which lack professionalism and could be constreued as personal attacks. Not only that, but all of these comments were placed in the wrong section of the page, leading to a confusing read (especially when there was already a "discussion" section marked off). If the persons who responded want to speak on the issue, then let them make their comments over again (only ones that are actually written in a professional voice, and make sure they are signed this time). --FuriousFreddy 11:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that moving comments isn't the first choice, but it's the best given the available options. An RFC isn't a talk page, it isn't primarily meant as a communication between the involved parties - instead, it's a recognition that communication has broken down and input is needed from the wider community. By breaking up the statement of the dispute with comments it has been rendered incomprehensible. Wscott went further and inserted unsigned comments in the middle of sentances. There are only two alternatives - moving the insertions or deleting the insertions. I think the fairer option was to move the comments.

As for notification - if someone posts a comment in the wrong place, you move it. There is no requirement to notify someone that you have fixed their mistake. It isn't a big deal. If I had deleted comments, I would have felt the need to inform people so that they could re-insert them in the proper place. Guettarda 12:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda wrote: An RFC isn't a talk page, it isn't primarily meant as a communication between the involved parties - instead, it's a recognition that communication has broken down and input is needed from the wider community. By breaking up the statement of the dispute with comments it has been rendered incomprehensible. I agree. That is a good clear statement of why RfC pages must have a structure, and why the insertion of comments is confusing and inappropriate. Robert McClenon 15:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Next elements of issue

These two points have nothing directly to do with the persons in question; it has to do with the qualities of certain articles.

  • The articles for Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson contain numerous instances of POV language, and are also very long (Mariah Carey was 61 K the last time I checked). In a related issue, the Michael Jackson page is also very large (and is vandalaized pratically on-the-hour); and it may need to be reduced (although I do this every two weeks) or split.
  • The articles on The Emancipation of Mimi and We Belong Together, which both document current releases, are also excessively long. The former in particular is far too long for anyone not wholly dedicated and determined to reading the article to be able to do so. Cleanup is certainly neccessary, but I do not know how to begin (my first thought would be to start over again with a stub, and determine the important points ot include to build up an article of higher quality).

There still also exists the issue with seperate articles on different recordings of the same song. Such editing is questionable, certainly in the cases of standards such as "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town", which could very easily result in dozens of articles on various recordings of the same song if the example here is to be followed. When said articles are nominated at AfD with the intentions of having information on the recordings moved to an appropriate album article, several of the editors band together to vote "keeps" in order to retain the articles, resulting in several "no consensus" AfDs. Often, no rationale is given for why the articles should be kept (insults for nominating them for deletion sometimes occur as well), while some users provide rationales such as "it is a part of *artist's name*'s official discography" or "the text is too long to mere". This brings up the following questions:

  1. How notable does a song need ot be in order to warrant having a Wikipedia article written about it. Is every single by a notable artist inherently notable?
  2. Do we need seperate articles in the Wikipeida on different recordings of the same composition? And, if so, why?

This was previously being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs, although dicussion seems to have tapered off there. --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest that in the preceding discussion, FuriousFreddy showed us in micro- level detail where some problems with Wp's music articles are. I'd like to interject and follow up this point with some macro- level concerns. I just spent some time going through the album articles for the Rolling Stones, The Beatles and David Bowie. The vast majority are unreferenced, informal, and contain personal speculation, and this is actually referred to as a model at the project page. Having said that, they are by no means as troublesome as some of the articles FuriousFreddy has been trying to direct our attention to here, but I suggest that they set a questionable example. These articles, unlike the ones under discussion here, do not have a body of editors edit warring to preserve their current state, but it would take a significant amount of effort to clean them up nevertheless. FuriousFreddy mentioned me in passing on the RfC page, in connection with some Madonna albums. What seems to have happened there is that User:Beautifulstranger, perhaps after reviewing the standard set by the Mariah Carey articles, set about working diligently at turning them into competitively flattering and marketing-material-oriented. At the moment, however, there is no Madonna fan base to back up those changes, and that user (who I am not holding up as an ideal contributor) left the project upset. I don't want to move the conversation into some abstract discussion about how the Music Project needs some help (the general problem is much less distressing than the immediate problem we're discussing here). Instead what I am trying to convey is that the Music Project is not at the moment able to deal with aggressive unencyclopedic editing on its own, and the matter very much needs outside review. Jkelly 01:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Really? I've only briefly glanced at those album articles, although I've read several of the singles articles. Many of those cited several books written on the band, which is where I figured the imformation came from. But if these also contain speculation and such, then a closer look at them is also needed. I'll go ahead and put myself up to the test: is there anything, upon first looks, that needs to be done with, say, any of the articles in Category:The Temptations albums, all but one of which I wrote primarily on my own? I've come across several articles on, for example, Michael Jackson, Jackson 5, and Marvin Gaye albums/singles that I've been cleaning up as I get time (since the cleanups to those articles did not get reverted or disputed, there was no serious issue at hand there).--FuriousFreddy 03:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough. In fact, I added links to a number of singles articles to the Wikiproject Songs page as models, including ones by The Beatles and The Temptations. I meant specifically the articles on albums that I was just looking at. Since it's listed at WP:ALBUM as a model, take a look at The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. In any case, I wasn't trying to suggest that this RfC should get into the details of the WikiProject, or that there weren't FA-standard articles in it. Jkelly 03:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, FuriousFreddy!

There is no question that a lot of "singles" pages are either not needed and/or need extensive cleanup. Case in point: "Last Night a DJ Saved My Life", a hugely influential dance song performed by Indeep, and also the name of a best selling book (which has become a definitive guide to the history of DJ culture and in fact, is named after the Indeep song), is another Mariah Carey page on Wikipedia... a Carey single that received almost zero airplay and sales, both in and out of nightclubs. At the very least this title needs a disambig page which leads to the song (not just Carey's version) and the book. The Carey page makes a slight reference to the Indeep original. A newer example would be the "Hung Up" page for Madonna's newest single. The article lists twenty-two different charts (most of them iTunes charts specific to different countries) and a US Dance chart trajectory... and the song just debuted this week.

As long as we are speaking of article accuracy, I would like to also draw attention to the growing trend of discography/singles tables within artists' articles. Recently the Madonna discography page listed new single "Hung Up" with a number 25 peak position in the Dance chart column, which in fact that is only the song's debut position. After questioning this practice on that article's Talk page, User:Red-Blue-White willingly removed this misleading information, although a similar situation now exists on Depeche Mode's page, with current single "Precious" showing a Hot 100 peak of number 99 in the singles table when in fact the track makes its debut appearance on the Hot 100 this very week. It may sound anal-retentive to bring this up, but I believe it to be unencyclopedic and comepletely erroneous. Yet there are editors who are inserting incomplete discography tables throughout Wikipedia and updating chart postions week by week before a song has even reached its peak.

I suggest people in this community not only review the overly-detailed singles pages, but also the accuracy of singles info and chart data right in the artists' articles. Just my $.02. -- eo 03:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chart data and Wikidata

I'd like to point out the Wikidata project, which is a proposed Wikimedia project that I think will likely come about fairly soon. It would be a home for extremely detailed data such as sales performances, and could be displayed in any number of ways. This way, it would be easier to include only the most important data while still making it simple to link to more details. Tuf-Kat 06:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Tables_for_charts Jkelly 17:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inactivity. Why?

The Wikipedia will never be able to sustain a standard of quality if there is no group involvement. This issue needs the attention of more than a few individuals; what it really needs is for rules to be set and established. --FuriousFreddy 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Three thoughts. The FA process on Cool (song) deserves a mention here, as it brought in some commentary on articles about contemporary pop music singles. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts that Cool (song) can, and perhaps should, be used as a model for similar articles now that we have a FA standard to compare to. The other thought is that there is no Music project guideline for bands or recording artists, and drafting one, along the lines of WP:ALBUM, might go some distance towards getting a lot of discussion about articles on artists. The last thought is that, just from what I have seen around Wikipedia, articles on movie stars and their products aren't generally great, articles on athletics figures tend to not suffer from what I've called a "marketing material" look, in spite of the fact that sports stars also have energetic fans and it is easy to imagine gushing praise and long table-formatted lists of achievements. It may be worth trying to figure out what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sports is doing correctly. Jkelly 00:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I have posted links to the RfC article page on the user talk pages of the four Wikipedians who are alleged to be problematical editors. Are they willing to respond to the concerns expressed by the signers of the RfC?

I, like the signers of this RfC, would much prefer to see it resolved by improving the way pop music articles are edited and by improving their quality, rather than by treating it as a user conduct issue. Are the enthusiastic pop music fans willing to work with the signers of the RfC? Robert McClenon 18:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

OmegaWikipedia has asked me, on my user talk page, what MoS edits are being reverted and ignored. Can one of the signers of this RfC please identify a few examples? Robert McClenon 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)







Note that the above are purportedly User:Mel Etitis' edits. Clicking on the "older version" and "newer version" links will take the reader to edits that undo MoS edits. Also included in the above are removals of copyright infringement in the form of using "fair use" images outside of WP:FU policy, which were then reverted. This is a cut-and-paste copy from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior, which User:Mel Etitis referenced under evidence in this RfC. One link has been removed because I mistakenly believed it to another user. Edits immediately before and after those listed may not always correspond with edits by involved individuals. Jkelly 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment: "Cool" on the Main Page???!!!!

I generally agree with the RfC description, from first-hand and current experience, having even witnessed the Return of WinnerMario, who showed up yesterday to weigh in on the FAC procedure for Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl". The situation as far as song article quality on this and "Cool" (the two in this fanatic category that I've checked out) is ridiculous, the behavior is, well, kinda fascinating and kinda part of normal (Wikipedia being what it is...)... My specific concern is when all of this carries over into Featured Article, and on to the Main Page FAs.

Case in point, yesterday's Main Page feature for Stefani's "Cool". I couldn't believe it. In the summary, it explains:

The song's musical style, and its production by Austin, were heavily inspired by pop music from the 1980s

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Can anything be more vague and confused? Only, perhaps, the redirect for "pop music from the 1980s"... And there is no further elaboration, really, nothing on the music itself, in the rest of the article, just lots of stuff about the lyrics and "meaning" and chart performance and plotline for the music video.

HOW CAN THAT HAVE MADE IT ONTO THE FRONT PAGE??!!!!??

So, I think that, besides rules and stuff, it's also practically important that one decent standard example for this type of article should be created, even if only to protect the Main Page from more "Cool"-grade articles. Perhaps not for a target artist, but for some other borderline consequential song that won't get raided...

Also, finding out that ONE PERSON alone picks the FA for Main Page, with no criteria beyond FA status, a summary section, and a pic, is also somewhat alarming. Another reason to make sure FAs deserve it... --Tsavage 07:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. It is, however, typical to let some reasonable amount of time to pass after an article has passed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates before listing it there. Jkelly 09:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I discovered FARC soon after discovering FAC, which all happened by accident maybe 3-4 days ago. This seems like an instance of a "typical" situation in...our society, where a small number of people are active in ways that have big effects, but on things that only seem on the periphery to most, most of the time. Like, FA. You see the front page pick, maybe read it, but... Until one catches your eye, usually, for a negative reason...you don't think about the mechanisms behind it, and the relatively few people involved in the decisions. So anyhow, after two years or so, and a fair bit of contribution, I discover this FA world, Raul654 as lone gatekeeper, etc. FA procedures is not an obvious area to find, even to the Wikipedia-involved. It certainly narrows down the wide open free spaces of Wikipedia feeling pretty quick, as in, A) few people involved in the FA process, B) one person with final authority. Of course, this is human nature, people operate in hidden spaces until the lights go on... Hmmm, that's kinda dark... (Why wait a reasonable time after Main Page FA for FARC, if the article is SOOOO bad? To make "us all" not look silly? But I automatically did that, I lodged my complaint on the Cool talk page yesterday, and figured I'd let it sit there for a while)> --Tsavage 15:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)