Currently, 639 articles are assigned to this project, of which 281, or 44.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
Hi Rock people; An IP made several changes in all related Ramones articles (also some Judas Priest', as i could see) and i'm not sure if those edits are OK. Can anybody take a look and if it's acting in bad faith, please severe warn it. Thanks, Caiaffa (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major Overhaul
Though it seems this great idea has been forgotten about, I've tried my best to change it for the better. Given it a proper banner and am in the process of doing a category thing. Red157(talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles required
I noticed Salt the Wound doesn't have an article when they achieved mainstream sucess espicially this year and Prototype doesn't have one article for any of their albums. I'd take care of this myself, but it's gonna be a pain since my sandbox is already in use of a diferent project, that I'm trying to squeeze time into while at the same time edit articles and do other stuff. YBK
Is there an accepted convention on this? Do we say The Beatles is a four-piece band or The Beatles are a four-piece band? Is it affected by whether the group name itself is a plural? Do we say The Beatles are but The Who is?
Reason I'm asking is that someone just changed all the is to are on Meshuggah (yes, I know, it's not in the Rock genre, but I figured I might find calmer minds here) and I wondered whether it should be changed back. I looked in WP:MOS but it's enormous and I couldn't quickly find anything definitive. A brief survey showed most group articles seem to use plurals but not all. --Rpresser20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus for change is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.
You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).
Two examples for comparison
EXAMPLE 1
Original
Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.[2]
To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...
DA-free
Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.[2]
To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...
EXAMPLE 2
Original
On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.
DA-free
On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.
You should listen to the episode of radio program "The Beat Goes On" on Nick Drake posted on The Public Radio Exchange. Here's a link to a version of the article from September, 2007. I couldn't find any credit given to Wikipedia or the authors, even though the article and the program's narrative are similar. Were the authors of the article involved with this program? Dextex (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles to delete/clean-up?
Hello. I've just found these rock music articles and I've no idea if they are genuine or not. They read like fakes to me but I expect they are genuine and just really badly written. In either case they are a right old mess and need a good clean up by someone who knows their rock music. (Which I dont). [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. The last one isn't really a mess - it just lacks info and sources. Or is it a fake? Setwisohi (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a crack at cleaning up the first example; Steve Overland - adding inline references, expanding the article somewhat and correctly formatting links. It looks a lot better than before but it could still use a bit more work - especially regarding Overland's post-FM career. Kohoutek113800:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Dylan FAR
Bob Dylan 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.
You're welcome
I haven't officially joined a the WikiProject Rock music, but I suppose I will. Here are the music articles I have created thus far:
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arashk
Hello, Please check Arashk, I believe they obviously fail to meet WP:Music , they're unsigned and their albums is self produced, check them at cd baby, myspace and metall-archives.com to find out. Rock on!--Spada2 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something 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. -- K. Annoyomous24[c]06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History and stylistic development - authoritative sources?
The articles on Rock music, and those on its various sub-genres, not to mention all the myriad bands and artists, are in dire need of objective, authoritative and well-referenced sources which can place them all in some form of historical / stylistic context. We may all "know" that, for example, Led Zeppelin's music came out of rock & roll and Chicago blues with a dash of folk, or whatever, but where are the authoritative sources for a statement like that? If someone comes in and says they were influenced by Doris Day or Gregorian chant, where is the evidence that would back up a reversion? (That's not a criticism of the Zeppelin article itself, which I haven't even looked at, just a random example.) Some of us will have various encyclopedias and histories on our bookshelves, but are there any good, reliable, online sources that cover not the individual bands, but the whole history and stylistic development of the music? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing of Australian chart positions in Sweet discography
I am struggling with finding a source for the Australian chart position of the British 1970's glam-rock band Sweet. Maybe somebody from this project can help; especially if you have access to a copy of the "Australian Chart Book 1970 - 1992" your input would be highly appreciated. Please reply over at Talk:Sweet discography#Sourcing the Australian Chart positions. Thanks in advance. – IbLeo (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three original members of the band are now dead and people seem to think that this is lead worthy. I have started a discussion here, all comments and opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion042222:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone keep an eye on the Matchbook Romance article? All the time - every day almost - the article's genres are constantly changed upon it, and accordingly, I appear to be the only one reverting it, the genre is edited constantly by IP adresses (and more recently even users) who change the genre without a cite or much less even a thought of consulting the talk page. All I ask is for someone to at least keep and eye on it and revert the edits made (or add it to their watchlist) instead of me being the only one to do so. GunMetal Angel19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be SOME kind of standard for what genre a band is
I keep seeing articles getting into edit wars with random usage of various sources when trying to describe a band's genre. Has there ever been a discussion as to WHAT is a valid source for a band's genre? Because frankly its tiring, and these types of edit wars typically spill into other articles that involve music and various genres. And it's especially irritating to read comments "debating" the issue saying such things as "Well I removed this genre because I don't think they fit in it." -- TRTXT / C18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BH wants to expand into a real WikiProject and maybe include additional related artists in the future. See WT:BH for discussion. Any input welcomed!
There is some interest in starting a workgroup for Muslimgauze. Currently likely participants are mostly inexperienced Wikipedians, and I am not yet a member of WikiProject Rock music. We could use:
Experienced editors to join the new project so we can raise this kid right.
If anybody's interested - Supertramp has been tagged since October 2008 with "This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Brian Pho and Red Animal War meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC? If Brian Pho is notable, then the band he's in is notable, but if Brian Pho is only notable because he was in a band that somebody else who's notable was in, then neither meets notability standards. AnyPerson (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ever wished you could do half the work for an article and get all the credit?
Then I have a project for you! I would like a neutral, encyclopedic article written about a band called The Blend, and have prepared a good set of references and an infobox to assist you.
I would also appreciate it if several people would watchlist the article.
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 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my flickr friends, who used to be a professional racing photographer, has posted 150 pictures of well-known hard rock bands from the 1980s in his photostream (group). They are all licensed Creative Commons, so the licensing is acceptable. I just uploaded a picture of Kix (band). Would someone go through the group and add images to the Wikipedia articles? He marks the photos that he took with "Photo By Ted Van Pelt", which you need to make sure gets included on the image description page for attribution. You can find an example on this image. Thanks! Royalbroil13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about reliable sources, but allmusic lists only one cover each for Killing Yourself to Live and After Forever. Solitude is too common a title for allmusic to be much use for checking. That said, Lord of this World was recently deleted, despite several covers by notable artists,[7] none of which was mentioned by any of the !voters, and the discussion was closed (early I believe) before I had a chance to comment. That said, I did a quick check for other sources to support an article about the song and did not find any, but if you know of any it may be worth a DRV. Rlendog (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I favor merging, on the grounds that one good album article beats 8 song stubs, and is easier to maintain (sourcing, for instance). I did this with Black Sabbath Vol. 4, and I think Master of Reality, at 9,855 bytes, could benefit from this treatment, even if sources are found for the songs. Merging also beats deletion. / edg☺☭01:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But where will it end? Songs and singles by Sabbath, Beatles, Genesis and ABBA are nominated/deleted. What's next, the albums, then the artists? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord202:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Beatles songs were nominated? Those should be easy to refute, since there is so many sources for every song, so that they probably all pass general notability without having to worry about special WP:MUSIC rules, which disfavor album tracks. Plus, with all the information on every Beatles song, an album article that tried to encompass all the song info would get too long. Unless you are referring to a particular Ringo Starr song, which I suspect will be kept, but there is a big difference between a Ringo Starr solo offering and a Beatles song. Rlendog (talk) 02:46, 15 March 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.
An editor is disputing the sourced genres of the band given in the infobox, and is insisting that there had previously been a consensus for the inclusion a genre term that was not as well sourced, when the term had been long disputed, as evidenced by the article's three archives. So far, the editor in question has not attempted to instigate an edit war, and most editors involved with the discussion have behaved within Wikipedia's etiquette rules, although the disputing editor has made a number of statements that appear to treat disagreeing editors as being wrong or ignorant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Proposed revision to Featured List criteria which may affect many of this project's FLs
Hello, there is currently a proposal for a revised Featured List criteria which would see the addition of a stand-alone list/content forking/notability criterion. If it passes, many of this project's FLs will be affected by it and could be delisted. Any input from any project members would be very welcome. Thanks, Scorpion042214:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated on the ELP talk page. The Blender bit is useless trivia... in fact... similar Blender bits on other Wikipedia music articles have been removed for the same reason. (I can recall the discussion over including a Blender review in the latest Metallica album article is one example where the Blender link was removed by consensus) The Real Libs-speak politely14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'd like it if others would chime in on the talk page, too. We have four editors who have shown opposition to the inclusion (two by their reversions, but only two in the commentary on the talk page), and only one editor keeps adding it. It would be clearer if there was more discussion on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a trivia quiz regarding album covers on a sandbox page. Please feel free to try your luck, and offer suggestions on the possibility of making an article or list out of a collection of such information. Go to The Album Cover Address Quiz. Sswonk (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Radicals
I have nominated New Radicals for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Exxolon (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An editor has deleted (see [8]) the inclusion of David D'Or as a subject of this (and a number of other) wikiprojects. I believe that D'Or belongs. Can someone who is involved in this wikiproject please a look? D'Or sings a wide range of music, including rock, and that is a statement in the article that is sourced (and obvious to anyone who listens to the music). I'm not pre-supposing the level of importance of his music to this wikiproject, but that can of course be reflected in the assessment. If you have a view, pls feel free to express it on the D'Or talk page. Many thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FAR on Yesterday (song)
I have nominated Yesterday (song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a band is no longer in existence, for example Led Zeppelin, The Clash and Talking Heads, the members are listed under Past_members= in the {{infobox musical artist}} coding. In The Beatles, that parameter is reserved for Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe and in The Sex Pistols, for Sid Vicious. Does anyone know why that is? Wiki-politik wise, not existentially speaking. From the infobox documentation, "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field." Sswonk (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to this debate on Talk:U2, I am curious if it should be "U2 are" (the current use) or "U2 is". My understanding is that "are" is acceptable when describing either a British band or a band from a nation that uses British English (supported by searches on British and Irish media), while "is" is used for American bands and bands that come from areas where American English is used. There has been a great deal of debate on this with absolutely nothing resolved so far. What is the proper convention for this? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update. The project has been created at WP:PROGROCK. I will be looking for input on whether to share prog rock articles between both WikiProjects, or if they should be listed under WP Prog rock instead of WP Rock. Any help on getting the ball rolling (esp tagging articles) would be much appreciated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed Ray of Light for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of rock music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has started, and I am unfortunately responsible. The Outline of knowledge is an attempt to formalize in outline form an index of everything known to humanity, with the ability to drill down to any subject and have it laid in front of you in a well organized and authoritative way. Why is that difficult for rock music, you ask? OK, you didn't ask. So I got handed the task of making some sense of the subject and immediately ran into trouble with the section "Persons influential in rock music", which was not put there by me but which I dutifully started to fill in off the top of my head. My head, as are most, is full of "opinions" and as such challenged to maintain a "neutral point of view". But seriously folks, will you take a look at the brand new article and possibly the entire Outline of knowledge concept and lend a hand. Answer questions like "Why is Kate Bush listed under singers and not musicians?" or "Who put Rick Wakeman in with Bob Dylan?" "Rick Wakeman is listed under musicians but you can only find one woman to put in that list?" and my personal favorite, "Who is going to find references for all this?" It is fun to look at but difficult to make work, so help is very much needed. Drop a comment on the talk page of the article, rip me to shreds, add Debbie Harry to the list, anything. Sswonk (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest completing the outline in a sandbox? It already has two tags on it, for merging and questioning neutrality and I'm sure more will follow. I think it may be a good idea for a dozen or so folks with diverse musical tastes to work on the sandbox version, add in references, then unleash it on the world. I would be very interested in being one of the collaborators, I just added a couple of journalists and will look at it more closely tonight when I have more time. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the sandbox idea. I'm happy to help, mainly on the period up to, say, the mid or late-70s, and Britain. Indeed, "Why is Kate Bush listed under singers and not musicians?" As a rule of thumb I'd suggest that singers mainly known for their own songs which they wrote and/or arranged largely themselves (such as Kate Bush) should be under "musicians", and those who sang others' songs or those composed as part of a band (eg Mick Jagger, even as a co-writer) should be under "singers". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I started the sandbox, still wondering how to keep the main page from being edited by the uninformed and what to leave behind. Sswonk (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say get rid of the main page until we are fairly happy with it. The initial stages will have lots of edits so it will be easier if only a few dedicated folks are contributing at first. The next wave of edits will then be easier to monitor. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all have seen certain entries on Wikipedia relating to some rock music topic where there is a huge argument. Part of the reason there is a huge argument and even, unfortunately, "editing wars" is that both sides of the argument have sources, books, websites to back a point made in the entry they are editing.
Here's an example. If you read the Mick Taylor entry, there's a big argument about what year this guitarist is born. Now, it looks like FINALLY they settled on 1948, but consider this: do you know how that argument could be swiftly ended in a satisfactory way? Ask Mick Taylor himself! Do all of you know what year YOU were born? Of course you do! So does Mick Taylor. Now this is probably easier said than done. I imagine it would take some time to track him down and talk to him, but it's not like Mick Taylor is a major, untouchable superstar! It's not impossible. I admit this could take time.
But my point isn't that someone should talk to Mick Taylor, my point is that our entries would be better with better networking. If knew more journalists, know more of the rock n' roll band members, we could make the articles better. Facebook and MySpace could be a partial answer to this pursuit. If you have any thoughts, questions or concerns about this, please let me know. I would like to know your viewpoint! —Preceding unsigned comment added by V Schauf (talk • contribs) 15:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCES and WP:OR. Although your solution seems to apply common sense to a problem, Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge, not a place to publish original research. So, because of that part of the fundamental pillars supporting the creation and editing of content, we can not add for example, Mick Taylor's birthday because he told us. Sswonk (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Sswonk, I understand your point, but need some clarification. I'll give you a hypothetical situation. Let's suppose there was a famous writer who took an interest in editing Mick Taylor here at Wikipedia. What if the same writer had done a biography of Mick Taylor in 2007? Could that same writer cite, as a reference, his own book? I'm hoping the answer is yes, b/c the book would have come before the edit; therefore, it's not original research, right??
Also, I went to your page & couldn't find a way to contact you, so hopefully you'll be able to answer the ?s herein. V Schauf (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mick Taylor example was an edit-war-issue that was compounded by the fact that most of the date argument was settled over a 'supposed' consensus of several editors who turned out to be the same person speaking through multiple accounts ((Tiger Eye 27, Strawberryfiels100... etc) Editors should always be aware of situations like this where there was an endless debate that could have been avoided had someone had enough "Wiki-paranoia" to get an RCU done on the accounts that were chiming and building the consensus. It is supposed to be a "community" project where all editors contribute and share.... but when it is a "community-of-one" like the Taylor fiasco then Wikipedia music pages end up plummeting down into personal fanpages that ignore wp:npov, wp:nor and wp:v. The Real Libs-speak politely15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FLRC for List of awards and nominations received by Gwen Stefani
There was a recent request (edit semi-prot) to change the sales figures in List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael Jackson (again) to 750m. The edits were reverted, because at least one user contests the authenticity of the figure.
I have therefore started a discussion, in the hope of reaching a consensus on the issue.
I would very much welcome input from anyone - preferably brief, policy-based reasoning, of course.
Hi there, no idea if this is a relevant place to post but: an editor has recently added a bunch of articles about Cher albums etc. The editor, User:Kekkomereq4 is keen, but english is their second language, and they don't have access to much in the way of references. They want to get their articles up to GA standard, but without help they aren't going to make it. The articles need someone who can help with sources, and someone who can copyedit. Any helpers out there? This isn't my area, I just came across them because I am a regular GA reviewer. The articles currently include:
Started trying to correct grammar/sentence structure in one of the above articles; anyone should be able to do this type of correction (no rock expertise needed!). I certainly don't know much about Cher and have not changed any of the stated "facts" or references, but have just tried to make complete (grammatically correct) sentences. I will try to get to some of the other articles as I have time.
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article and have delisted it from Good Article status as it no longer meets the criteria nd is likley to need considerable work to regain it. You can see the review at Talk:Crowded House/GA1. If you do not agree with my assessment you may challenge it at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Tango Rhums is currently in very, very bad shape -- extreme violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTFANSITE, the "Essay-like" template: "This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup."
If the article is not up to standard in a week or so I'm going to AfD it, however, we may want to have an article on this band, and the editors may be failing out of ignorance rather than bad intentions.
Therefore, can I ask any interested parties who are accustomed to working on music articles (I'm not) to assist with this article?
(I apologize for asking about this here, however other Wikiprojects which might be more appropriate seem to be inactive, and as I say I'd like to give the article's editors a chance if possible.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to help, unfortunately there is nothing notable about this band. The most I could find is from their label's site which amounts to nothing and their facebook and myspaces pages which again offers nothing. I don't believe any of its members are notable (none have an article on Wikipedia). One of the "former members" is notable, Jah Wobble, who was in Public Image Ltd. but I can't find any verification that he was even in the band. The Pet Shop Boys are listed as an associated act but I can't find the link. Hate to say it but the page should be deleted. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one school of thought which argues that "rock and roll" and "rock" cover the same ground, and another that "rock" is a specific (but widespread) post-1960s ("noisy white men with guitars") development from the 1950s style. There is also a separate but related argument that the term "rock" is limited to that particular genre ("noisy white men with guitars"), and another school of thought which treats most modern rhythm-based popular music - including soul, funk, reggae, hip hop, disco, etc. etc. - as part of the overarching umbrella term "rock music". I'm sure that reliable refs can be found on either side. (There is an important side argument, which is that it is racist to exclude most black artists from "rock music".) What is important here is that the variations of definition are mentioned, and that articles are written which cover all the ground, with good solid links between articles and not too much overlap. In order to do that, some form of consensus needs to be reached.
I think it is a fair point that the article must deal with both definitions, if we can dig out appropriate sources - this would seem to imply we need a definitional section (at the beginning) and that it should be mentioned in the lead. There is a issue, increasingly reflected in modern musicology, that rock and roll itself can be seen as the marketing of a form of black music (rhythm and blues) for a white audience. Rock, as a genre that emerged in the mid 1960s (the sense taken in this article), was music largely performed by and for white males, with some very notable exceptions (both in race and gender). The problem is that rock is often defined in opposition to other forms of music (e.g. it is not pop, not classical, and for many it is not disco, soul, funk or hip hop - although only a very ignorant person could claim it was not influenced by all of those genres). These definitions were based on a social bias, among performers, fans and critics, but nevertheless, this distinction has dominated the genre, which had a clear sense that it had a separate history and identity. The distinction may be a false one (because objectively the "authenticity" of rock music is illusory), but it is one that has existed. I am not sure how we square that circle.
I agreed. That is, I think that there are multiple and overlapping definitions of both "rock music" and "rock and roll", which WP should try to explain. However, in my view, WP should not attempt to find a consensus for stating in article space that one particular definition is "right" and others are "wrong". But, it would be appropriate to attempt to define the scope of WP projects, such as this one.
I think the article should certainly mention both defentions, but not say one or the other is right. Anyway, I was the main contributer to the expanded version of Rock music, and the result is still linked from my talk page if anyone wants to look. Zazaban (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should point out some of the ramifications of taking a broader approach. It will be inconsistent to have main articles on each sub-genre that do not reflect that they can be seen as rock, for example on soul, funk, rap.--SabreBD (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
