Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 40: Line 40:


:I sympathise with a lot of this. You can have use a term for a genre that was not used at the time, but it is dangerous. Many genres that were clear at in the past are now hard to substantiate, since the internet was not around. My rule of thumb is that, even if they did not have the name, acts in a genre need to be aware that they are working in the same area, grouping together similar sounding or looking acts, does not make them part of a genre.--'''<span style="font-family:Black Chancery;text:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">[[User:Sabrebd|<span style="color:blue;">SabreBD</span>]] ([[User talk:Sabrebd|talk</span>]]) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:I sympathise with a lot of this. You can have use a term for a genre that was not used at the time, but it is dangerous. Many genres that were clear at in the past are now hard to substantiate, since the internet was not around. My rule of thumb is that, even if they did not have the name, acts in a genre need to be aware that they are working in the same area, grouping together similar sounding or looking acts, does not make them part of a genre.--'''<span style="font-family:Black Chancery;text:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">[[User:Sabrebd|<span style="color:blue;">SabreBD</span>]] ([[User talk:Sabrebd|talk</span>]]) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


==[[Electro house]]==
Could somebody with knowledge have a look at [[Electro house]] and request deletition? --[[User:Subfader|Subfader]] ([[User talk:Subfader|talk]]) 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:27, 2 November 2009

Archive
Archives
  1. March 2004 – February 2006
  2. 2004 – 2007
  3. February 2007 – September 2008

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Genre as a life of its own

A problem I've had as reader of music genre articles is that often articles apply the term to specific bands retroactively (which may, or may not reflect a current cultural trend) neglecting to mention that the particular band was not originally categorized as such. Often, there is not a historical use of the term in the article. Ultimately wikipedia is sourced and therefore if this were to be an issue with any given article it could be fleshed out with references. An example of such a problem is Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR) being referred to as Swamp Rock. With respect to swamp bands (which were from the swamps -- in the South) at the time (1970s) Creedence were not categorized as such. The earliest mention of CCR as "Swamp" that I could find at one time was sourced from an Australian music critic -- not exactly an expert on "swamp" I imagine. I'm not asking for improvement in the CCR article. I'm mostly interested in hearing opinions on the relevence of "historical the use of a term" being encouraged as a project goal. Otherwise, the topic of genre tends to drift with the current music critic trend and suffers from memory loss. Older articles (from a subject matter's time period) are more difficult to find, newer internet articles are to me a source problem for historical integrity. More so than academic history, the history of pop music tends to be constantly rewritten by the latest critics where genre categorization is concerned. - Steve3849 talk 10:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with a lot of this. You can have use a term for a genre that was not used at the time, but it is dangerous. Many genres that were clear at in the past are now hard to substantiate, since the internet was not around. My rule of thumb is that, even if they did not have the name, acts in a genre need to be aware that they are working in the same area, grouping together similar sounding or looking acts, does not make them part of a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]