Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music
Project		 WikiProject Musicians
Discussion
Music
Portal
To Do Guidelines 1.0 Assessment Stubs Infobox Navbox Categories
Discuss Discuss Discuss Discuss Discuss Discuss Discuss


This is the talk page for discussing the WikiProject on Musicians.
  • Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).
  • Create new topic sections by clicking the "+" at the top of the page.
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.
Archive
Archives
  1. March 2006 – August 2006
  2. September 2006 – June 2007
  3. July 2007 – December 2007

Contents


[edit] Band logos in infoboxes

Just wondering if a consensus was ever reached on whether the use of band logos in infoboxes is permissible or not. It's been popping up a lot lately, and in most cases not even a logo but just stylized lettering. I would argue that it's not permissible under fair use guidelines and should be discouraged, mostly because the logo is not being discussed at all in the infobox. Most on the other side will argue that the logo provided identification of the artist, but that's not really true. A free image of the artist provides ID, not a logo. If we can come to some consensus on this or make a declaration based on fair use guidelines, I think we should add that decision to the main project page so we have somewhere to point people when removing the images. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Especially with copyrighted material, free alternatives are easy to come by (ie: plaintext, opposed to copyrighted logo). In cases where it's less clear (using sylized typeface), I think we have to consider that most fonts or other sylized lettering are copyrighted by somebody. Given that, stylized lettering should be discouraged to further the goal of being as free as possible on Wikipedia. However, I don't believe it should be a hard and fast rule. If a logo or sylized band name can be shown to be under a free license or not copyrighted at all then I think it should be left up to editors of a particular article whether to use it. Note that I believe the burden of proof is on the inclusionist. Zytsef (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think logos really do identify some bands, and ought to be included in those special cases (with an appropriate fair use rationale). Stylisation and special fonts are best avoided imho. --kingboyk (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree they can be included, but the infobox isn't the place (and certainly not the top banner of the infobox). A separate image box with a discussion of the logo would be perfectly appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution to this might be to add hidden text into the infobox template telling editors not to use logos in the top banner of the infobox, but rather just the artist's name in plain text. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting the issue of whether logos help identify bands aside, since it's extremely contentious, I'm not sure anything about logos needs to be included in the template itself. Overall I don't think it's an extremely widespread practice. Probably worth mentioning in the template guidelines, though. Zytsef (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion continued at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. The consensus is: No logos in infoboxes. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, it's still on. These things can take a little longer than 28 hours, no need to hurry. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes the consensus is quite unanimous and has several admins who are already making mass logo purges across numerous Wiki articles. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear sir, there is no consensus, the discussion is ongoing. And the very fact that a call of consensus was disputed (right here) should have been a sign of that. Thank you. -- Pepve (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes the discussion is ongoing, and you are invited to participate in it at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Logos. However, the clear majority of editors involved in the discussion at present have made it clear that the overall consensus is in favor of plain text in the name field of the infobox, rather than an image. Therefore several editors and admins have been bold and begun removing images that are clearly in violation of fair use criteria or are strictly decorative. Feel free to participate in the discussion, but don't be alarmed at the "purges." As with most things on WP, nothing is ever final (not even consensus). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for people to see the consensus when they disagree with it. There was a clear consensus among editors to use commas as standard delimeters in the musician infobox but a minority of editors chose to be blind at that consensus and a small group of them made a personal agenda to br as many articles as they could so that they could try and generate a false 'comma count' to weight the arguement in their favour. It just resulted in a lot of clutter and "white space". This debate sparked a much more philosophical discussion since it really boiled down to the most solid fundamental structure that Wiki was built on.... "Free-use whenever/wherever possible". There is nothing more "free-use" then plain text. And the clear consensus among most editors is that's how it should be. It's worded best on that template discussion talkpage by admin John. :D . 156.34.208.112 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me assure you that I am not a hypocrite (nor a superhero, for that matter). I am not opposing the call of consensus because I'm against the decision (I generally agree). I'm opposing it because the discussion is ongoing (you should know that, you commented last). There's nothing wrong with calmly waiting a bit, then editing the new found consensus into the guides, and avoiding turning people into hypocrites. -- Pepve (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artist - Colin Hay article needs some work...

If there's anyone in this Wikiproject that is a big 80's New Wave fanatic, could you take a look at the article on Colin Hay, lead singer from Men at Work? The article has been stale for a while, needing improvement. I've added an infobox, started paring down the trivia section, and corrected some info, but the sections need building. If anyone's interested, please msg me on my talk page. Thanks! Edit Centric (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Providing link for other lazy people: Colin Hay. -- Pepve (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dethklok?

I just asked this question on the Biography Wikiproject, and they directed me here. Is a cartoon heavy metal band truly within the scope of the musician project? I notice the actual musician of the show, creator Brendon Small, is supported by the biography project but not the music one. Perhaps this should be rethought? Thanks. --Boradis (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they have actually released an album in the real world that charted and the article mentions the two guys who actually do the music. So, it's not entirely fictional, just more along the lines of a band with fictional stage personas taken to an extreme. I'd say it's within the scope. Zytsef (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say it's within the scope on the same level as Gorillaz or Josie and the Pussycats. Though all of those are fictitious animated bands whose recordings were actually made by real, behind-the-scenes people, the records are released under the band's and characters' names so it makes them "musicians" in a sense, though the articles should obviously discuss the nature of the fictitious group and the real persons responsible. The fictitious band should be within the scope of Musicians, while the real people should be within Biography (or both, if they're a notable musician in their own right ie. the guy from Blur who is behind Gorillaz). --IllaZilla (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining it for me. --Boradis (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cristal Marie

I've been editing this article Cristal Marie and was re-directed here, I'd like to know if the article qualifies for the project or to be added on what projects. The references are mostly in spanish and I've been aided by several contributors in terms of advice for what sources to cite or not but it's still presenting warning problems. How can I get someone else to help me with the article? Or is this article ok to stay? I'm new, so patience please, since I'm trying to be as accurate as possible in the writing of that article so that i may work on other notable dominican musicians. I don't know if there's a page dedicated to musicians or artists per their country. Does it exist? Particularly for those of Dominican Republic? Or would it be possible to create one? Sorry if I'm asking a lot of questions, I'm just hoping to really help out in the articles concerning the most important and accomplished artists from Dominican Republic

Kcsilver (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks pretty good so far. I think it's safe against someone trying to delete the article. If you're not sure about a topic just compare the article you're thinking of starting to the notability guidelines. In this case you would want to check the slightly more specific notability guidelines for music also. As for a page for musicians by country, check out Category:Musical groups by nationality. You can find Category:Dominican musical groups as a subcategory there. Similarly, for individuals instead of groups: Category:Musicians by nationality.
I've gone ahead and added the article to Category:Dominican Republic singers and an appropriate infobox, so go ahead and add more information to it as you see fit. Hope it all helps. Zytsef (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

Two questions about article assessment, one general and one specific. (1) Is there a process for editors to request that an article about a musician or music group be assessed? If yes, can it be mentioned on the project page? If not, can one be created? See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Requests for assessment. (2) Not a huge deal, but Kingfish (band) was recently assessed as a Stub. Can someone take another look at it please? I'm really thinking that it should be Start. Besides having almost a screen's worth of solid narrative, it has a complete discography, 8 references, an infobox, and a category. It's also properly Wikified, with a fair number of links in both directions (to and from the article). I think it would be helpful to distinguish an article like this from what I think of as a "stub", which is a very short article that lacks some or all of these features. Thanks! — Mudwater 13:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I've been working on cutting down the total number of unassessed articles the past few days so I've been assigning assessments pretty quickly and based mostly on the total amount of content in an article and whether it has inline citations. If you feel it meets the criteria for a start class article please change it. Zytsef (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In general, how to decide between Stub and Start assessments might be a very good topic of conversation. But for now, does anyone have an opinion on the idea of creating a place for editors to request an article assessment, similar to how WikiProject Films does it? — Mudwater 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea. I'll go ahead and take a look at WikiProject Films and see if I can manage something similar. Hopefully it can spur a little more activity in this project. Zytsef (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't so hard. Check out Assessment#Requests for assessment. I have the page watched now, so at least I'll respond if something goes there. Zytsef (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! — Mudwater 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Zytsef, I'm not sure if you looked at the history of what WikiProject Films had in their assessment area, but a while ago they were adding comments there to explain why they had given an particular assessment, sometimes with a few brief suggestions for improvement. They would then leave the article on the list for a while. I think they might have marked the title with a strike through also, to make it obvious that it had been assessed. Just a thought. — Mudwater 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinating division of labour

I'd like to gauge the interest in actually getting editors coordinated to cooperatively get certain tasks within the project accomplished. Lately I've been working on the backlog of all the unassessed articles, a task that appears to have been neglected for a long time. I'm wondering if anyone is interested in helping me out, or maybe banding together with others to get some articles improved.

For instance, a group of editors could keep an eye on articles in need of attention and try to take care of the pressing issues there. Or maybe just focus on the articles that need infobox help. Another group could work on trying to get all the top- and high-priority rated articles up to good article status. There are just a couple of ideas I came up with off the top of my head. I'm not thinking of anything very formal, just a little support to make dealing with the huge number of articles we cover less daunting.

If you like the sound of this or have some ideas for other coordinated efforts please leave a note here. Maybe we can get a few articles up to snuff. Zytsef (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been assessing articles from the unassessed category regularly for months, "helping you out". So: you are not alone ;) BNutzer (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been going around adding the project template to the talk pages of articles that weren't tagged yet, and also updating old tags (needs infobox, living, etc.). I've been doing this somewhat randomly, by going through category lists ie. "Category:British rock groups". It's not really a coordinated or organized effort. Is there an easier method or a way to make it more organized? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your method is probably best, IllaZilla. I've just been adding the project template randomly to articles as I happen across them. Maybe if anyone else is interested in adding articles you could divide up the categories, ie you would take "Category:British rock groups" and the next guy could take another category, so your efforts don't overlap. Since finishing up the backlog of unassessed articles I've (very slowly) started to add infoboxes to all the tagged articles, starting at the beginning. Thanks for your help assessing BNutzer, I didn't notice anyone else was on the job because my eyes tend to glaze over when I'm doing it en mass. Keep up the good work, all! Zytsef (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comma's vs Linebreaks

Hey, I presume that this is the right place for this question. I was just wondering, as there have been a few arguments on the matter, whether the MoS for band infoboxes when it comes to the genre section is to list them as commas (like this) or as, what seems to be the vastly more popular line breaks (like this). Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Also if a link could be provided to the official MoS for this matter on Wikipedia would be great; I've looked around on WP:MOS but can find nothing - unless I'm not looking hard enough. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed periodically, but I don't recall a consensus. I would say do whatever looks good, and try not to let a list get too long. I prefer to use commas, whether or not the list is with line breaks, since some items carry over between lines. -Freekee (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, whatever looks good. If you look at the two examples near the bottom of the page at Template:Infobox Musical artist, one has commas and one has line breaks. — Mudwater 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help, guys. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. But I alluded to a guy who reverts my edits even if there is enough place under the infobox. Compare for example this infoboxes: this with this or this with this. There is mostly still enough place for expanding of the lenght of the infobox and the linebrakes make the single genres or associated acts much more transparent and clear. For me it is pretty confusing with commas. Genres or associated bands blend together and look as a text in sentences. For me as a reader of an article it looks better ordered and synoptic with linebreaks. And there is mostly some of space under the infobox, and if not, it is not such a problem if it helps the infobox. For me the infobox fulfils its purpose only if it is as tabular as possible; that is why we use infoboxes... I have nothing against commas when it really comes to such a lists of course, but I think I gave an explanation why should the linebreaks be allowed too.Lykantrop (Talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nonagaye.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nonagaye.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

It appears the uploader has been blocked.--Rockfang (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion with David Briggs

There seems to be almost universal confusion between David Briggs (producer) who prodiced Neil Young, among others, and "David Paul Briggs" (a musician, who also produces) and, bizarrely, does not have his own Wikipedia entry.

See here http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:dzfyxqlkldae~T4 and http://www.alamhof.org/briggsd.htm

This page talks about the confusion; http://hyperrust.org/General/BriggsObit.html

"David Briggs was often confused by fans and journalists alike as being the same session musician
and producer who owns House Of David in Nashville. Since parts of the country album by Neil Young
called, Old Ways, was recorded at House Of David this only added to the confusion. The David Briggs
who played keyboards for people like Elvis Presley, J.J. Cale, Arthur Alexander, Bob Dylan and Joan
Baez was the other David Briggs and he lives in Nashville.

"They are both David Briggs, they both produced records, and they both always got miscredited," Bernstein
insisted. "If you look in the Record Producers File, that came out like twelve years ago in Scotland,
they put under David Briggs name all the albums they both produced. Our David Briggs (who lived in California)
always referred to him as the 'other' David Briggs."

This Alice Cooper album, Easy Action, is the Nashville Briggs and reference to it in David Briggs (producer) is obviously also the Nashville Briggs, so is incorrect. (Actually, this is the Neil Young Briggs so ignore that - Trephination (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm sure there are more examples.

Where to start? Trephination (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you could probably make a case for including the Briggs that doesn't have a page, especially if you have a few good sources. You could go ahead and write up a stub, maybe at David Briggs (American musician), then cross link with the disabiguation page. It would be nice to see Wikipedia be a source of reliable information when so many other sources get it wrong. Zytsef (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've made a starton David Briggs (American musician); written a little bio, provided a few links etc. Can someone have a look to see if I'm on the right track, please? Trephination (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article or exemplars

Just checking out this page hoping to find some good article or exemplars to the project, to help me to better to understand editting styles. Just a suggestion to add to the project page, or if someone knows where I could look to find such things in this project. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC).

Check out Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles for the best examples of articles currently in the project. Zytsef (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline proposal

I'd like to propose the style guidline per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Bands. Guideline proposal is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Style. It is an quick sollution (WP:ALBUM#Style modified for bands), so please fix errors if you find them. --Qsaw (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it so far. I fixed it up a little and generalized it to include individual musicians since they're in the scope of this project too. In the past there have been efforts to compile some guidelines but nothing got pushed through ever, and I think this is a better start than most of the suggestions that have been made before. Thanks for bringing it back up. Zytsef (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, though I think there are probably more things that could be added to it. Next question is where should it go? -Freekee (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned it at the (mostly inactive) discussion for article guidelines, just in case anyone's lurking there. Zytsef (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD notice - 220 or so "(nationality) (instrument) by genre" categories nominated for upmerger

Following inconclusive discussions about categorisation of musicians at WP:MUSCAT last year, in particular as to whether this level of category was a good idea, a recent CfD initiated by someone coming fresh to the issue led to a consensus to upmerge. I have now nominated 220 or so similar categories for the same treatment - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_25#Category:American_bassoonists_by_genre_and_similar_categories. BencherliteTalk 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BAND

I'm not sure whether you noticed the change, so here it is: WP:BAND now redirects to this project, since it deals with bands. It used to redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (music). The shortcuts for that page are WP:NMG, WP:MUSIC and WP:MUS. -Freekee (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. Over 25,000 pages link to WP:BAND, and I'm assuming that most of them aren't trying to link to the WikiProject. I think there needs to be more discussion before this redirect is changed. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for update of Template:Musician attn

The following Code box details a preliminary layout that I initially formatted on some of my articles in alpha for an updated Template:Musician attn based on Template:Ambox:

This article is in need of attention. For more information see Category:WikiProject Musicians needs attention. 
{{Ambox
| type  = content
| image = none
| text  = ''This article is in need of attention. For more information, see [[:Category:WikiProject Musicians needs attention]].
}}
<includeonly>[[Category:WikiProject Musicians needs attention]]</includeonly>
<noinclude>[[Category:WikiProject Musicians templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

As I understand things, Article Message Boxes are now standardized to the WikiMedia Ambox specification. Do inform me on the go-no go of this update adoption. - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this duplicate the function of the attention flag in the WPBiography template or is this another annoying (and extremely unspecific) template to put at the top of an article? Zytsef (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, to my understanding Template:Musician attn is unrelated to the needs functions in Template:WPBiography, which assigns Booleans for items needed for Infoboxes in Articles on persons, musician and otherwise. Template:Musician attn and its talk-page companion, Template:Musician attn talk, are specific to this WikiProject for the purpose of standardizing Articles on musicians. - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, but you can set the "attention=yes" flag in the WPBiography template to make something show up in Category:Musicians work group articles needing attention, which seems to duplicate this template's purpose. Also, there are tons of cleanup templates that address specific concerns which I feel are better than a generic message saying "This article needs attention, but I'm not telling what it is specificly". Zytsef (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I see what happened. This is an old template that appears to be depricated but never got deleted. I'm going to look into doing that now. Thanks for bringing it up. Zytsef (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, recommend a procedures clarification this Project Page concerning the aforementioned Attention boolean in Template:WPBiography and commence Template for Deletion proceedings on the original Template:Musician attn per User:Zytsef. Do put up Template:Musician attn talk for discussion, too, as it too may need a Delete or Merge, depending on whether a talk Template:Subst equivalent to Template:Biography attn talk is available. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal register

Hi. I just translated the article for Orange pekoe (band), a Japanese pop-jazz duo, from the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm afraid I have no expertise, however, in musical terminology, and stumbled on one particular term. The vocalist's register is described as 中低音, which literally translates to "middle low sound". Since 低音 (low sound) is the term used for "bass", I translated it in the article as "middle bass". But I have no idea if this is a valid term in English, or what would be best. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alison Wheeler

Anyone want to shower some love on Alison Wheeler, an article that has come to my attention for various reason but someone I don't know much about. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Mraz‎

Back in July 2007, Jason Mraz called on his fans to edit his Wikipedia article to make up as much info about him as possible. To quote Mraz: "Reality is Malleable. It's constantly changing and shifting and becoming something different each day. Because of this amazing quality of life, I am challenging each of you to help me create an exciting new life courtesy of the loopholes at Wikipedia.com, basically I'm encouraging everyone to visit the Jason Mraz page at Wikipedia and make minor amendments until the entry sounds as absurd as humanly possible. Keep in mind you'll likely be notified at least once by the Wiki-Police for vandalizing Internet real estate, so be careful. Feel free to add that I'm settling down in Sweden with my beautiful blond wife with our blond dog and cat in our blond house. Mention my Pulitzer Prize for online journalism as well as my many awards for philanthropy and breakthroughs in stem cell research. And don't forget about the New Gregory Page Ep, Knife in my Chest, produced by Jason Mraz & G. Page that is now available thru GregoryPage.com as well as Myspace.com/GregoryPage." Since then, a lot of nonsense has been added. I've removed a lot, but I'm not sure I've removed all. Please help review the article. AecisBrievenbus 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brok'n Arrow

Family jamband/rock/improv act made up of the Smith Family. Founded in 1995. Brok'n Arrow's members are

Jeffrey Smith..guitar/vocals Jeremiah Smith..guitar/vocals Joe Smith..Bass Cinnamon Smith..Vocals Billy Robinson...Drums/Monster From the Fox Valley area of Wisconsin. They are composer/musicians.Jeffrey7 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Jeffrey Smith,03-18-2008

Did you have a question or something, or were you trying to start an article about this group? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band Nationality in Introduction

I should like to suggest an effort to modify the introductions of each band from the United States of America. Most of them start off saying something like: "(band name) is an American (genre) band from (town, state), formed in (a year)". The problem is American is too ambiguous of a term. It does not simply suggest being from the United States of America, rather it suggests from being anywhere in the American continent(s). Saying "AFI is an American rock band", does not explicitly suggest AFI is from the United States of America, rather it is from the American continent(s). Therefore, I suggest an effort be made to change introductions to something more along the lines of: "(band name) is a (genre) band from (town, state), United States of America, formed in (year)". Or something else if someone suggests something better. Bands should not be referred to American though. Rather as from the United States of America. Dale-DCX (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see how it might be confusing, but your assumption about the meaning of "American" is incorrect. "American" is the demonym for inhabitants of the United States. See the infobox of the United States article and also these sections of the "American (word)" article:

The standard way to refer to a citizen of the United States is as an American. Though United States is the formal adjective, American and U.S. are the most common adjectives used to refer to the country ("American values," "U.S. forces"). American is rarely used in American English to refer to people not connected to the United States.

-and-

The word can be used as both a noun and an adjective. In adjectival use, it is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States of America"; for example, "Elvis Presley was an American singer" or "the American president gave a speech today;" in noun form, it generally means U.S. citizen or national.

Each country/nation in North and South America has a different demonym, ie. "Canadian", "Mexican", "Brazilian", "Panamanian"...so there really is no confusing the meaning. If you were referring to something or someone from the continent as a whole, you would say "North American" or "South American", ie. "Argentina is a South American nation. People from Argentina are called Argentines or Argentinians". --IllaZilla (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware the United States of America does not have its own unique denonym. American is both a denonym for a person (or thing) from the United States of America, and for anything from the Americas. As outlined in the page you highlighted.
Each nation in the Americas does indeed have a different denonym, with the exception of the United States of America. If I were to refer to an Argentinian, I would do so as such, but it would also be correct to refer to them as American. Just as it would be correct to refer to a German as a European. The usage of North or South is irrelevant as simply American refers to both. The American denonym may be in use, yet it being so results in a sometimes confusing and non-specific outcome.
I should suggest that regardless of what citizens and things from the United States of America are called, it would be clearer to refer to them in the way which I have outlined. Also, I see no negative impact of this change. It will still be clear the groups are from the United States of America, and there will never be any question of what exactly is meant by American.Dale-DCX (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the usage of North or South is irrelevant, because North America and South America are almost always classified as 2 different continents. But I digress...in almost every case I've come across where the lead sentence describes the act as "...an American ____ band", "American" has been piped to the article on the United States. Also in almost every case this is followed by some form of "from <city>, <state>", so it makes it quite clear where the artist in question is from. I don't have any objection at all to the format you're suggesting, but I think either way is fine and communicates the same information so I wouldn't think it necessary to go through numerous articles changing the lead sentences to all be the same format. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason North and South are used is to differentiate between the two continents which comprise America (or the Americas) and does not necessarily suggest that North Americans are different, from South Americans, only in as much as they live in different parts of America. Stating a Pole to be an Eastern European can be used, but it is also (and possibly more) correct to refer to them simply as European. As is also the case with Americans.
I definitely understand the current phrasing presents very few problems. However, I think it best to move everything over, to avoid any possible issue whatsoever. Besides, many may have no clue if the city and state are in the United States of America. Perhaps I do not need to suggest a mass and immediate change. Perhaps just whenever you come across an article, modify it so there is no possible issue. Dale-DCX (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The only people who seem to have a problem with this use of the word "American", which I promise you is used quite regularly, every day, by people all around the world, are people from Latin America, who seem to have difficulty understanding that the usage and nuance and meaning of the word "American" in English doesn't have to correspond to their own conceptions of the Spanish meaning of the word "Americano". Anyone who isn't of that persuasion will read "so-and-so is an American band" as meaning that they come from the US. I'm sorry if language doesn't always make sense, doesn't always follow the most logical course, but there is no word such as "US-ian" in common usage; this is what is used, and so you just have to deal with it. Wikipedia doesn't deal in what we want to be correct, it only reflects what is actually the case. LordAmeth (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is not about what we want to be correct. The fact is that people DO have issues with the term American and it best to completely remove any possible issue. No doubt language is quite ridiculous and we can do our part to make it easier to deal with. Thus, it would be best to list bands as from the United States of America, rather than American. Dale-DCX (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree entirely. What you're talking about is political correctness, changing what we say and how we say it in order to conform to some people's impressions of what is less offensive. Changing what we call something, how we talk about it, is really little different from changing the way we represent the facts themselves, and that is right out. If you want a Wikipedia that conforms to what a segment of the population thinks is appropriate, you can go use the CCP-controlled Baidu Baike. Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia is not censored, it is not a place to represent original ideas such as what you think things should be called; it is not a soapbox for your "we're all Americans and you need to invent a new word" agenda. Meanwhile, the most common demonym in English, regardless of what some native Spanish speakers may think of it, is "American", and people throughout the world, outside of Latin America, are perfectly fine with this. That's the true situation on the ground, and that's what Wikipedia is here to represent - the verifiable, the true version, not the artificially concocted politically correct version. LordAmeth (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa buddy, settle down. I am not attempting to propose any sort of mass censorship or political correctness dictatorship. Chill out. This has nothing to do with what I think things should be called, rather with what things indeed are actually called. Things from America are called American, so are things from the United States of America call American. Making a more specific reference, has nothing to do with being less offensive or politically correct, and only to do with being less ambiguous.
The "true situation" (as you put it) is that American does not only reffer to the United States of America and we should take care to represent this. There is no grand fabricated politically correct conspiracy behind my suggestion. Only one of disambiguation. Also, since you seem to have some sort of anger towards Spanish speakers, I will point out I am not Latin American, nor do I speak Spanish. However, I am an American, but am not from the United States of America. See, if I were to say I was simply American, it would not follow that you would be able to determine which nation I am from. Again, chill out. Dale-DCX (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influences in infoboxes

Looking thru artists and bands, I think there's definitely scope to add "influences" and "influenced" to the Infobox, as in Template:Infobox Philosopher. I dont really have the musical knowledge to start adding them, but I'm sure there'd be many who would. William Quill (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is so much edit-warring and POV arguments already over the "genre" field in most articles, adding fields like "influences" and "influenced" would simply compound the problem. Plus, most musical acts have many influences, too many to list in the infobox. Conversely, a majority of acts likely have very few other acts that they have influenced. This is information that would require detailed sourcing and is best left in the article body; it would be extraneous in an infobox which is meant only to provide information about the act which is the subject of the article, not other acts that they may have influenced or been influenced by. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be an "invitation for pov and original research". It should not be added. As mentioned... if referenced it can go in the article. The box already has enough cruft magnets. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion is concerned with the Musical Artist infobox, I'm moving it to Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#"Influences" field. Please continue the discussion there. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes order

Do the genres, labels an associated acts have to be separated only by a comma, or can they be written on a single line each? I think it is much more transparent when every e.g. genre is on one line rather than everything put together. That is why we use infobox - to be tabular, well arranged.--Lykantrop (Talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is ongoing debate over the genre field. The other fields should all be comma delimited. For the Wikipedia album project the genre field is separated by commas. This can be found in their wp:album guidelines. It was a consensus decision in that project to use comma spacing and not the <br /> break code in order to keep the box length short. The musician project has yet to reach this decision as there is a very vocal minority who prefer breaks instead of commas. Their reasoning for this has never been properly explained. If there are only a couple of items in any of the fields then using breaks does not extend the box length by very much. If there are 3 or 4 or 5 items (or more) in the box then using breaks extends the box too much and breaks up the flow of the remainder of the article by putting a large gap between the article lead paragraph(s) and the main body content. Line breaks also impede any visually impaired Wikipedia readers who are using third party reading software. It if for this reasoning that the majority of editors use the comma spacing pver the line breaks. My own personal opinion on the subject is that the musician project should try to match the consensus view of the album project since the two project have so many shared pages within the scope of their project mandates. Peter Fleet (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answerLykantrop (Talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a Band where another Band exists

I recently came across an article which claimed that people use Wikipedia to search for information on their favourite bands / artists. With this in mind I decided to add a biography for my husband's band Ulysses. Only to discover that another band called Ulysses is also listed (although they are American). While the American Ulysses entry is very valid - where can I then add the English Ulysses? I love how useful Wikipedia is and I don't want to contravene any regulations. Some help/advice would be much appreciated.

Here's the link to the article for your information: http://mashable.com/2008/03/22/music-wikipedia-search/

Lilylimpet (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The best thing would be to add the English band to Ulysses (English band) and request to move the American one to Ulysses (American band) Mdebets (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When there is a difficulty creating multiple articles about things with the same name, Wikipedia uses a diambiguating phrase in parenthesis in the article title (for example "_____ (band)" or "_____ (film)"). As Mdebets says, in this case it would mean creating "Ulysses (English band)" and "Ulysses (American band)", and making sure both are listed on the Ulysses disambiguation page. You can find out more about article disambiguation at WP:DAB. I also encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, since you are proposing creating an article about a subject to which you have a close personal relationship. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help - I have looked at the conflict of interest guidelines which is why I wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. I will make sure that the article is factual and biographical and refers to the correct sources. Hopefully this article will help other bands who want to do the same thing.
I would also suggest that you look at the musician notability guidelines, so as to avoid being disappointed or annoyed when your pet band (have they released any nationwide or worldwide albums?) gets deleted. LordAmeth (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Now now Ameth, no need to bite. Lilylimpet, definitely take a look at those notability guidelines though, and let me know on my talk page if you need any help or clarification. I'll be happy to help point you in the right direction. I'm not an admin or anything, but I can direct you to some helpful resources and pertinent guidelines. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for logo images

Just an FYI to all: There have been a couple of categories/subcats created for musical artist logo images. They are:

The parent category for both is Category:Musical artist logos. When categorizing images, however, [[Category:Musical artist logos]] should not be used unless neither of the above subcategories applies, per WP:SUBCAT. If you have uploaded logo images for musical artist articles, or if you come across any during your editing, please make sure that they are placed in one of these categories by adding [[Category:Non-free musical artist logos]] or [[Category:Musical artist logos ineligible for copyright]] to the image description pages as appropriate. This is purely for organizational and maintenance purposes. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SnowGhost Music?

Anybody care to take a stab at this ? Dudeschlep (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't manage it without damaging my monitor. -Freekee (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... not sure I follow you. Dudeschlep (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Bad joke. You asked me to "stab" it. -Freekee (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Acts

There's a minor edit war brewing at Neil Young over whether to list Pearl Jam in the "associated acts" field of the infobox. On the one hand, Young has performed with them often and recorded an album with them. On the other, he's certainly never been a member, and pretty well every other act listed in the infobox is a band of which he's been a member. Is there any consensus as to under what circumstances an act is associated? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the subject coming up before, but I would assume that the term is used for bands that actually share members. Not just someone that played with someone else, unless they really made a career of it. -Freekee (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Sound Nomination and participation

Hey all. Whilst trawling through wikipedia i cam across the Featured sound page. I noticed that there was a significant lack of regular participation in this process. At the moment there are only 15 audio rerecording that have reached featured Status and I was wondering whether it would be possible to get more involvementfrom people interested in music and also generally audio recordings so that the best audio on wikipedia can be truly appreciated. I hope to you participating on the page more often and that a greater community consensus can be formed here. Seddon69 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Jackson

Janet Jackson has been nominated for Featured article. I'd like as many editors as possible to help review it to ensure passing. Thankyou. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_27#Category:Bands_with_female_lead_singers. Badagnani (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dann

Mark Dann is a redirect created earlier this month. Right now it's pointing at Marc Dann, the former Ohio Attorney General. All the incoming links, however, refer to the recording engineer/bass player[1]. Normally I would create a new article and disambiguate with hatnotes, but the musician doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline. His studio sounds like it could possibly be significant if references could be found. I was hoping people in the project would know/could find out if either the musician or his recording studios are notable enough for an article, or whether I should just remove the incoming links. Thanks! —Ashanda (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get much on Google besides his studio and the services he offers, which is about as much most editors will do if you create a page for Mark and it goes up for deletion. I also get nothing on musicbrainz (which isn't indicative of anything except how incomplete it is), so it's pretty tough to tell if the recordings he's worked on qualify him with the notability requirements. Given the lack of immediately available information my first reaction would be not to add the recording engineer, but if you have some good sources and feel he meets the guidelines then go for it. Zytsef (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than remove the incoming links (as more are likely to appear) how about turning this redirect page into a disambiguous page that links the politician and describes the musician, but does not link a new article. - Steve3849 talk 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought of that, but per MOS:DAB and WP:DAB, that's not what disambiguation pages are meant for. —Ashanda (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Mark Dann > Credits at Allmusic make anything easier? BNutzer (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Tedder

Can someone add a marital status thing on a musical artist's infobox or is it not possible? I think it would help a lot specially in the cases of frontmen whose female [and sometimes male] fans always wonder if they are married or not. Just asking a question :P UnkEdit (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move/rename Vanness Wu

I'd like to move Vanness Wu to "Van Ness Wu," as this is how his name is written on all official sites. Any objections/discussion? Thanks! --Hamuhamu (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Supremes

The Supremes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album Sales

A lot of people come onto Wikipedia just to check how much albums a certain Artist or Band has sold. I've noticed that a lot of articles don't emphasize Album Sales, they just simply put it in the first paragraph among the rest of the text. To make WikiPedia more successful, I personally believe that we should do one of the following:


1. Put Album Sales in Bold text, or

2. Add a section to the Infobox that tells how many albums the specific Musician has sold.


I began to do the first option with some Industrial Metal artists, (Rob Zombie, Rammstein and KMFDM), and the article seemed "better" in a way. Then someone undid my edit to Korn, so I decided to discuss this idea here. -Xaremathras (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is this isn't very widely applicable. Comparatively few bands have album sales numbers available. Also, I do not believe bolding sales numbers seems "better" at all. It over-emphasizes what I feel is a relatively minor part of an article. I wouldn't be totally opposed to adding to to the infobox, though. You might try bringing it up at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist, but if past attempts at similar inclusions are an indicator expect heavy resistance. Zytsef (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
While I understand what you're getting at and appreciate the potential usefulness of easy-to-grab, soundbyte-style info to some Wikipedia users, I agree with Zytsef that this isn't very widely applicable or important, and such info isn't all that easily available. I have always found soundbyte statements that "such-and-such has sold X number of albums/singles/whatever" to be somewhat propaganda-ish, used to illustrate or justify an artist's success (or lack thereof). As the reader, I don't really know what that number represents. Is it just for the US? Does it include compilations and/or remix albums? Does it include what the US calls EPs? Does it include legal digital downloads? Is it based on real sales or estimates? Is it based all or partially on radio airplay? Etc. Thus, to a critical reader, it's not a very useful soundbyte statement, without the background information to flesh it out. Additionally, many/most(?) artists that operate primarily (or solely) outside the US aren't going to have this information. In fact, the definition of "album" varies outside the US. Lastly, sales of individual releases are often reported in discography tables, like in Ayumi Hamasaki or Utada Hikaru. I find these tables useful because they allow the reader to decide how they want to weigh the different types of sales the artist has attained, which I feel is more in line with the nature of an encyclopedic source :) -- Hamuhamu (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] musicians stubs talk

I just opened up the musicians stub sub-project talk page with a thread about the completeness of the stubs list. Please check it out. — eitch 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal for Discography sections

Please take a look at this proposal and express your support or objections. Keep in mind we currently have no guidelines for Discography sections whatsoever, so this would at least be a start. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)