Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page does not require an assessment on the quality scale.
Canadian music
This article is part of the Canadian music WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Shortcut:
WT:CANMUSIC

This is the discussion page for WikiProject Canadian music.

Contents

[edit] Sandbox pages

I'm going to create some sandbox pages for the various genre sub-articles, filled in with basic outlines for expansion and development into articles:

Please offer any comments, and/or help to expand these. Bearcat 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't label k.d. lang as country. She is more pop and folk. Also, you forgot Cowboy Junkies as a country-rock band. Treble Charger is more of punk band or so I have heard them called. I guess in a small way they can be considered alternative. I always refered to them as punk. Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related projects

You may find it useful to transclude {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Related WikiProjects}} at the bottom of your project page

-- TimNelson 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian sources

Figure I can make a personal observation here in the absence of activity. In various Google and Google News searches for articles on (shamefully non-Canadian) bands, useful free sources that keep coming up include ChartAttack and canoe.ca, which are Canadian sources that do a good job of indexing and archiving their articles online, unlike the plethora of other sources that require paid subscription. Eye Weekly and NOW are also good free Toronto newspapers with sections on music, that can help to verify the existence and perhaps popularity of some borderline notable bands. –Pomte 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

LAC provides RPM's charts (1964-2000) on line, which can assist with notability of songs and artists: [1] Dl2000 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charts

We're obviously not going to copy entire charts over here, but I've set up a template so that we can begin listing #1 singles from the RPM era, similar to what the US contingent have already done at List of number-one hits (United States). Bearcat 06:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e
Lists of number-one hits in Canada

1964 • 1965 • 1966 • 1967 • 1968 • 1969
1970 • 1971 • 1972 • 1973 • 1974 • 1975 • 1976 • 1977 • 1978 • 1979
1980 • 1981 • 1982 • 1983 • 1984 • 1985 • 1986 • 1987 • 1988 • 1989
1990 • 1991 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1995 • 1996 • 1997 • 1998 • 1999
2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008

Sources: 1964 - 2000: RPM • 2001 - 2007: Canadian Singles Chart • 2007 - present: Canadian Hot 100

[edit] Template for Talk Page

Hey WP:CanMusic,

I see that you guys have just started out, and to help you guys I've created a Template for Talk pages. It's basically a copy/paste of the one for CanTV, but for you guys. Feel free to change it up as you guys see fit.

Talk pages for articles related to the project should be have the {{Canadian Music project}} template added. It can be added with the text:

{{WikiProject Canada | music=yes
  |class=
  |importance=
  |type=
}}

JQF • Talk • Contribs 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the template to talk pages of some articles (many of the Juno pages, some of the magazines). However, plenty more to do, and other project members are encouraged to add the CanMusic project template to article talk pages. Dl2000 02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding the template to talk pages as well. I reckon we ought to discuss some guidelines for assessing the importance of articles as doing so can be fairly subjective without guiding criteria. Thoughts? Strobilus 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article importance

Been having some second thoughts about the importance field as well. Currently, a rough guide is that high is given to the most prominent subjects, med for reasonably prominent (e.g. artist won a Juno), low for everything else. While we can build something on objective factors such as Junos, Canadian Music Hall of Fame, Order of Canada, sales, charts, volume of secondary sources, etc. even that could be more complication than the project warrants.

Options are:

  1. Base the importance on a checklist of achievements (the aforementioned awards, press, international/national/regional recognition, etc)
  2. Importance level is assigned based on the type of article rather than trying to calculate the prominence of the subject - depends on whether the article is about an artist/band, album/song, genre, event/award, historical narrative (e.g. Music of Canada)?
  3. Some projects don't try to assign an importance level.

I'd lean towards option 2, since it would be fairly clear to maintain and would provide a meaningful distribution on the project page stats chart.

Note that the class field in the assessment seems well-defined in WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ. Dl2000 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've mentioned this I'm reconsidering the whole thing. I certainly don't want to create rigid criteria for the importance rating; the rating is, after all, not terribly important. I brought this up mostly want to avoid raising hackles by slapping a low importance tag on articles that others have invested a lot of time in. That said, I tend to agree with the second option you've proposed as a rough guideline. I reckon all the regional Music of ... articles should be of high importance, along with articles about things like the Junos, MuchMusic, and genres of music. Many of these articles are currently rated mid. I'm disinclined to rate individual artists as high, because it can put us in the position of tagging Corey Hart as more important than Canadian rock or music of Quebec. I think most articles about albums or songs are of low importance, except for say "O Canada" (and maybe "Bud the Spud," or the Hockey Night in Canada theme song, har har). Strobilus 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try this table - the idea is that articles would be assessed with a default importance level based on the article's type or category. However, the importance can be adjusted as warranted (e.g. "O Canada"), preferably with an explanatory note on the article talk page:

Level Types of articles
Top Music of Canada only (should be the premier article, a signature work of the project)
High specific genres, history (narratives, regional "Music of..."); national awards
Mid musicians, bands (people); festivals; regional awards (events)
Low singles, albums, concert DVDs, books (products)

But in the assessment work, we should consider class as more important that importance, at least from an article improvement and project management standpoint. It's more productive to identify articles to improve towards the coveted A/GA/FA zones than debate relative importance. Dl2000 01:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I'd agree with this. While I think it would probably go without saying that not all bands and not all musicians are really of equal importance to each other (The Tragically Hip, frex, are almost certainly vastly more important topic within the scope of this project than, say, Cats Can Fly), but I think you've hit on a very good point: it would be very much a waste of our time to get drawn into debates about the relative importance of artists, and gawd knows that there's a whole class of artists out there for whom that kind of assessment could get very subjective. So let's not do that.
Also, where would we rank books that fall within our scope, such as The Top 100 Canadian Albums, or music magazines such as Chart or Exclaim!? And should we include things like MuchMusic and MusiquePlus in our scope at all (and if so, where?), or should we leave those to the TV project? Bearcat 02:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Books - these are essentially secondary products of the music itself, so could default as Low importance (books on Canadian music generally don't receive a high profile)
Magazines - again, these tend to be byproducts - would suggest Low by default. RPM had a historic role in promoting CanCon and establishing the Junos, therefore justifies a higher importance (it's already rated Mid).
Music video - MuchMusic and MusiquePlus as national specialty networks have left their mark in Canadian music, so should be in scope for the project. But we should avoid individual radio stations that play music (leave those to appropriate broadcast projects; besides, station formats are variable over time e.g. CFTR (AM)). We might consider Canadian music video TV programs e.g. Good Rockin' Tonite or City Limits (TV series) (the forerunner to Much). Individual music videos themselves would be on the order of albums and singles. Dl2000 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed all around (including the TV shows), though for what it's worth I doubt we'd ever have a separate article just on an individual music video — we'd most likely discuss the video in an article about the song. Music-related DVDs such as Escarpment Blues or Heksenketel, on the other hand, would have articles...but they'd go in the same class as albums and singles too. I took the liberty of adding concert DVDs and books to the table above since their classification level is clear and obvious.
Re: MuchMusic & other music video channels, as well as the programs, I think maybe music media (including magazines, actually) should go to middle importance by default. I tend to view them less as byproducts and more as distribution/promotion venues, which to my mind kicks them up a notch. But I'm not wedded to that view, either. Bearcat 07:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This all sounds great to me; however, it think there is an issue now that the talk page template has been merged with Template:WikiProject Canada. It seems that we're now obliged to follow the importance rating guidelines found here as a result. Strobilus (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be too hard to make them match up, the table above is almost perfectly acceptable under the main WP:CANADA importance ratings. As long as you only have 1-2 top importance articles, 5-10 high-importance articles, and makes sure that all the obscure, specific, or regional stuff in in low-importance, you'll be fine. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chameleon (Anglo-Canadian Band)

This article, Chameleon (Anglo-Canadian Band) has been written by a very very new user, who has just received a wiki welcome, and no notification of a pending AFD. Does anyone know this band and can help this new user Talk ie regarding notability? SriMesh | talk 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page template merge

I've modified the {{WikiProject Canada}} template so that you can now add an article to both WP:CANADA and this project in one template by using the parameter "music=yes". It will still add the article to the assessment table for this project, though it would use the same rating that it uses for WP:CANADA. Check out Talk:The Tragically Hip to see what this will look like. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing Neverland

This new article Bombing Neverland has a tag requesting verification and notability. There has been quite a lot of work put into it, but it may be deleted if tags cannot be addressed. Does anyone know this band and can help this new user Talk ie regarding notability? Thank you and kind regards, SriMesh | talk 19:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick google for the band doesn't turn up much besides a MySpace page and a few show listings with no reviews. The band has not yet released an album and the article seems to have been written by a band member. I don't think much can be done to save this one. Strobilus (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red River Valley

I added Red River Valley (song) to Canadian Music. Anyone care to expand on this? Pustelnik (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Is it possible to find some more sources of information on this topic Friends of Fiddler's Green, High Life Music, Mineminemine, Everyone Loves Shabbes but the Chickens? It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting anyone to see if the quantity of notability concern articles can be reduced, and quality increased. For more help see this note or the article talk page for a current discussion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triplicate assessment categories

Category:WikiProject Canadian music articles is currently used for assessment

Paul foord (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)