Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FuriousFreddy (talk | contribs) at 03:38, 29 September 2005 (→ONE article per composition.: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by FuriousFreddy in topic Esoteric discography formatting
Learn more about this page

If anyone is interested, I may will applying Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Wikipedia OmniMusica. This is a proposal to tag articles as being suitable for inclusion in a print version of music-related topics on Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat 09:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Antandrus 15:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I could use some help

The list of full length songs has now exploded - it now contains well over 400 songs, all of which need to be put into (at least) one article, and most of which could go into multiple articles. Help putting them into articles (using the listen template) would be appreciated. →Raul654 10:12, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Musical mark up (sharp/flat)

The policy says:

  • The sharp (♯) and flat (♭) signs are ♯ and ♭, respectively. If they do not display correctly, then of course "#" and "b"

However in my browser (IE6) the ♭ shows with a lot of additional white space, making a notation like B♭7 not display well (the sharp only has a problem after it: F♯7). Alternatives Bb7 and F#7 look better, but as a pair I think Bb and F# look still better (both slanted). Could we perhaps change the preference to use an Italic b for a flat sign if the real flat ♭ doesn't display well? Or can someone find a solution to suppress the extra spacing?−Woodstone 07:43, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

It's a font issue, we just need to have formatting tags specify a better font to display the characters. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:05, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

User "Babel" templates?

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

User:Yummifruitbat (also under his IP, User:82.32.121.68) has created several templates and associated categories that mimic the Babel templates, but for musical skills, e.g. Template:User sax-4. He proposed it at Babel, but received no response. According to a message he left on my talk page

my aim was to produce a system similar to the language one which would enable Wikipedians to highlight their interests and proficiencies in a concise way on their user pages. I don't believe this is entirely unnecessary from an encyclopaedic point of view - it would facilitate communication between users about articles in which they have a particular interest; or perhaps might be able to contribute valuable knowledge. For example, a user tagging articles as stubs, finding one about a composer of music for the violin, might be able to bring up the User_violin category, and find someone with an interest in the instrument who would be happy to expand the article. As a secondary function, these templates would also make it easy for people to find like-minded users, and then see what they'd contributed to

I am not sure how useful this would be and, especially considering that prior notification was given, I am hoping that some people on this WikiProject can give him their thoughts on how useful this would be. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)

I was cleaning out the Wikipedia namespace, and I noticed the proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). I just wanted to make people here aware of it, so it can be commented on an approved as an official guideline, or rejected. (I have no personal opinions on it right now.) -- Beland 23:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend the use of the templates {{AMG Artist}} and {{AMG Song}} (and related) for constructing these links? --Phil | Talk 15:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. Convenient though they might be, they depend on the structure of the AMG website remaining static. If we have thousands of pages linking to their site, and they change their URL syntax (or SQL structure), we're hosed. Anyway, the technical sophistication required to use these templates seems too much for official policy.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point, but what you might have missed is that there are loads of links to the website AMG already. My suggestion to use a template would mean that it would be far easier to keep track of those links, and if the required syntax changes, to change it in a controlled manner. If they decide to alter the URL, it's far easier to do it in one template (or even a set of three or four) than to go around searching for every single URL to adjust manually.
I'm not certain what you mean by "technical sophistication required": the links I have found so far include the "sql=…" information already: it's merely a matter of shoving the appropriate bits into the template parameters. --Phil | Talk 07:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I was more worried about them changing the sql= setup, rather than the URL structure. But you're right, if those are hard-coded already, putting them in a template can't hurt.—Wahoofive (talk) 18:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Music charts

See talk:Mezmerize. I think we should have a list of links to music charts that would be appropriate to include an article. This is what some casual googling turned up for me. Tuf-Kat 22:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please expand, clarify and correct this list:

I can't make heads or tails out of that user talk page, but if you're looking for a place to add this list, how about putting it into Record chart?—Wahoofive (talk) 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I meant it should be on this page, so that people know how to find chart data to add to articles. I guess something similar should be at record chart too, but that's not what I'm talking about. Tuf-Kat 05:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Discography/Album List Style

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's really no mention for a standard way of listing albums by an artist. I've seen a few different styles and this is how I prefer it to look (links omitted):

  • 1990 - Album Title (Record Label) extra note

Since albums are generally listed chronologically the date should always come first. The year should only be displayed though, adding the day and month looks cluttered because of a more rapidly changing pattern. The year could be included in parenthesis, it's a really minor difference. The dash should be included to make it easier to discern between the year and title. Including the record label isn't of major importance, but without it the listing is somewhat bare. The record label, if included, should be surrounded by parenthesis because it and the title will most likely be one or more words and harder to distinguish. It is possible to surround the record label with brackets but requires more complicated code. Both the year and record label shouldn't be surrounded by parenthesis because it creates a kind of odd symmetry. Any extra notes like "limited edition", "promotional", or "vinyl only" should be in small text at the end. I would like to get a concensus going on the style of listed albums so please comment. Tastywheat 10:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Lists of works MoS

I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like. It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout). I thought it might be of interest to the partipants on this WikiProject. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Missing encyclopedic articles

As a subproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics now exists with a list of articles taken from music encyclopedias (by Gmaxwell). If anyone is looking for something music-related to write, there's a list of ideas. Some of them just need redirects: there's plenty of low-hanging fruit if you're not up for a full article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Musician/Band infobox

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am searching for a musician/music group infobox. If there is not one already I am willing to work on creating one, but I don't want to duplicate a previous effort. As there does not seem to be a WikiProject for performers this seems the best place to pose this question. Cmadler 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Members style guide

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any consensus on how to list (and link) band members, the way there is albums ("always OK if official unless compilation") vs. songs ("notable hits only")? I have been red-linking musicians, but I see a lot of articles actually don't wikilink their members at all, unless they're independently notable. There's also the question of naming the members in the intro paragraph, when there is a separate Members section. Sometimes you have Band members as the name, this seems redundant to me. I also think that having Former members as a subsection is a useful way to handle that problem, although in the TOC it looks weird unless you also have the Current members (but then a subsect directly under a sect head looks weird). Then there's the question of how to list the members by duty, and how to handle side-projects, which this section sometimes does. My preference, I think, would be for Side projects (or perhaps Other bands, Related bands) under the Members section, with a text discussion instead of a table. This is the format I like for duties:

Any reaction? If there's a consensus it would be good to get this into the Wikiproject page and/or the Music style guide. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

To a certain degree it has to depend on the band. For example, some bands maintain the same membership for decades, some are really a group of independent musicians gathered for a single project, and some have changed personel every year or two for decades. For a group of otherwise independant musicians, red-linking may be appropriate (these members are more likely to be independently notable). If the personel have changed a lot, this could be noted in the intro and then names (and dates) given in a Members section. If the personel have remained relatively constant, a Members section might not be appropriate. On the other matter, my feeling is that individual musicians should only be wikilinked if they are notable as an individual. However, they may be notable as an individual for their role in the group; these should still be wikilinked. Cmadler 13:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Many of the group/band articles I've worked on have had shuffling lineups (in particular The Supremes, The Temptations, and [The Impressions (American band)|]]). For those groups, I mentioned all of the ntoable members in the article header (for the Surpemes, I managed to squeeze in all 9; for the Temptations, I was forced to only identify notable members). At the end of the article, I created a list of the members and the years they were in the group, and, on a subpage, made a list of each individual incarnation of the group. If the group only traded out a memebr or two (TLC, Dru Hill), I just listed members and dates. In the case of Sly & the Family Stone, I split the list into "original members" and "later members", becasue for some reaso nI felt it suited that article beter. As far as section titles go, I always try to use "Personnel" (or "Members", if another editor objects to "personnel"). As far as wikilinking individual bandmates, I only do it if I can actually write an article about what they've done outside of the group. Not all editors, of course, agree: just last night someone made an article for Betty McGlown, one of the pre-Motown Supremes/Primettes, who I felt wasn't quite notable enough for her own article because I couldn't find any background information about her. On the other hand, I wrote an article for Elbridge Bryant, the "lost Temptation", becasue I was able to learn his birthdate, date of death, and enough biographical/personal information to fill a good-sized article. --FuriousFreddy 19:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Improvement drive

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two related topics, Percussion instrument and Rhythm and blues have been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for Possible jazz project

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The standard of a lot of jazz articles on Wikipedia is shoddy. There are certain musicians (such as Lucky Thompson) who have next-to-nothing wrote about them. However, I have been impressed by the standard of certain articles, which convinces me that there are others besides myself working hard to improve the information we have on this vital art form. Thus, I propose a wikiproject for jazz, with 10 active people at the minimum required. Since other genres such as classical have a project page for co-ordinating efforts, I think jazz could do with one, due the large amount of work to be done. Respond either here or on my talk page. (This includes all forms of jazz, dixieland, swing, fusion, bop etc.)--Knucmo2 19:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

MusicBrainz Templates

I've made {{musicbrainz album}} and {{musicbrainz artist}} for simple linking to the MusicBrainz database.

Please tell me what you think. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:18, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

I've also added the wikilink to the meta:interwiki map to link to the MusicBrainz wiki, but I don't know when the sysadmin will get around to adding it to the actual map.

"MusicBrainz http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/$1"

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:02, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

There are also now {{musicbrainz track}} and {{musicbrainz wiki}}.

~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:52, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Template syntax change: name is now the other parameter in the album, artist and track templates. I'm updating the pages that use them. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:11, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

That updating is done. I finished it yesterday. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:12, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

The interwiki map has been updated, so now MusicBrainz:CyberSkull will work just fine. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:14, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Greatest hits

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to the first rule of this page, "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article." This hasn't really been followed since I put it there a very long time ago, and it irks me because I don't really see how your average greatest hits album could ever be much more than a track listing and a few other details -- I'd rather combine all the greatest hits albums by artist into a single article. Thoughts? Tuf-Kat 04:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

That seems ... drastic. I see a process of creating a template and marking each one (robotically?) for N weeks before any deletions. I do agree with you they're generally unnecessary, but there's quite a few editors who never ever come by the Wikipedia: pages. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It is drastic, but if there's consensus to start doing it that way, it will slowly spread. I wouldn't mind doing some of the grunt work, but I'd like to have some agreement beforehand. And there's no need to delete anything, as greatest hits titles should redirect appropriately -- leaving a few notes on talk pages isn't so hard. Tuf-Kat 17:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
The only reason I've ever created articles for greatest hits or compilation sets is (a) to complete the navigation for an act's albums, as was done for Boyz II Men), (b) if the compilation is very important or well known (like a comprehensive box set for a group), or (c) if the group released a single from the greatest hits album (see The Temptations' Greatest Hits & Greatest Hits, Vol. 2, and Big Boi and Dre Present...OutKast). That being said, I'm sure I've created articles for several of them that could be deleted. I won't miss Jackson 5: The Ultimate Collection or similar articles if they're deleted, but the issue does bring up a question: Should greatest hits albums be included in the album navagation (the little "last album, this album, next album" thing), or should this be reserved only for studio LPs? Also, as far as greatest hits albums containing a lack of information, there are several things that can be picked up on a number of them (for example, all of Michael Jackson's Epic greatest hits albums, for example, have some sort of notoriety surrounding them, and Sly & the Family Stone's Greatest Hits is considered one of their most notable albums). But your proposal to combine all the artists' greatest hits articles into one article...hmm, that's not a bad idea; I guess the article would be using several different infoboxes. TUF-KAT, can you take one of the artists I've mentioned and format one in that way as sort of a example? --FuriousFreddy 18:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Some other, unrelated quesstions I have:

  1. (I should probably post this one at Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums, but I'll ask here too): what do we do with infobox colors for Christmas albums? They're never considered official studio rleeases, so I've been filing them as "covers and tribute albums" with the plum infobox color coding. Is this correct?
  2. How much information is too much information, when it comes to album/single sales and chart positions? Several articles (50 Cent comes immediately to mind) are cluttered with cumbersome chart positions and sales records, and then there's the case of all of the Mariah Carey articles, which are special cases in themselves. On the artists' actual article, how much detail should we go into when reporting sales records and chart positions? One user has started adding tables to each article, and I followed suit, buit do we really need all of that information?
  3. Can we make it policy for people not to bold #1 when writing out discographies?
  4. Where can I find international chart position information to include in articles that I write (UK charts, Austrailian charts, etc?)
  5. Does anyone want t help me fix up and split apart List of number-one R&B hits (United States)?
  6. What is the cutoff for writing song articles? I've arbitrarily set my limit at where if my article is only going to be a report of what the song itself is about, who made it, and how well it did, I won't write the article (there's no point)? But we've got articles (long articles turning up about singles that weren't even actually released (again, see Mariah Carey). What do we make of this?
  7. Finally, do we really need seperate, long articles for cover versions of songs popularized by other artists? --FuriousFreddy 18:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
We don't need separate articles for covers, except in a few extreme cases (maybe). On fancrufty articles about crappy pop singles (or not singles), I don't mind having them too much, as long as the info is factual, verifiable and not too mind-bogglingly trivial. On discography formatting, we ought to have a basic template on this page (or a subpage), and then you could revert people who bold #1 and point theme here for guidance. On chart info, we ought to keep as much of it as possible, though it could be moved to 50 Cent chart positions or something. No idea on Christmas albums (we could always just change plum to "Other (covers, tributes, Christmas, etc.)"). I'll come up with a greatest hits page as soon as I get the chance. Tuf-Kat 20:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Proper capitalization of titles

See album rule #10, titling.

Isn't the last word of a title generally capitalized, too? Reference. User:Mxdxcxnx/sig 23:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Unknown music genre

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see my question at Portal talk:Music#Unknown music genre. mikka (t) 20:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Classical works infobox

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created a new infobox to detail information on classical works in a similiar manner to the infobox for music albums. An example can be seen at Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff). I would welcome any comments at Template talk:Classical work infobox. Cheers! TreveXtalk 00:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

ONE article per composition.

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This needs to be established as set policy, because the seperations of articles covered by different people is ridiculous. It makes the encyclopedia cumbersome to read if a user has to click multiple articles to read about one song. Many of the splits border on the arbitrary, and without consistency, the Wikipedia is going to continue to look lobsioded and non-credible in the eyes of much of the public.

Articles on songs should not even be that big of a deal, or large to the point where a split is neccessitated. Or shall we simply sit and wait for someone to make articles for every major version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before this issue is handled? --FuriousFreddy 05:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is already policy for all of WP. Why not just merge the articles or put a {{merge}} tag on? Or list them at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles?
Or maybe I don't understand. Can you give more examples? Are you saying there are duplicate articles for the Star-Spangled Banner? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
There's seperate articles on "I'll Be There", "I Will Always Love You", "Lady Marmalade", and generally anything else that Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston ever recorded. There is also something of an issue as far as "how much information is too much information?" The plethora of chart positions, and detailed analyses of chart performance, could be seen as padding. I've already tried VfD once, and so has someone else, the decisions end in deadlock because there's a literal gang of editors who work on them. --FuriousFreddy 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I admit I don't get it either. The solution is to merge when appropriate, though in rare cases individual compositions certainly deserve separate articles -- taking your anthem example, there's God Save the Queen, My Country, 'Tis of Thee, and Kongesangen. Not to mention To Anacreon in Heaven. Those are all obvious separate articles, not merge/redirects. If you're talking about situations where there's information in both a specific song article and its album/composer's article, those are obvious candidates for merging details to the appropriate level. --Dhartung | Talk 18:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
But, although they use the same melody, those three anthems are seperate compositons because they have seperate lyrics. Sort of like "Super Freak" and "U Can't Touch This" (half joke). --FuriousFreddy 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I believe he's referring to separate stub articles on different cover versions of the same song. For (a fictional) example, having a very nice article on Bob Dylan's eminently notable "Subterranean Homesick Blues" and a separate article on the Red Hot Chili Peppers cover which often consists entirely of "is a cover of a Bob Dylan song" and maybe a date and album name. I don't think he's suggesting that in all cases, all songs have to be merged, but that the standard should be assumed to be a single article per composition. Under unusual circumstances, such as if the article grows very long or unbalanced, then it may be appropriate to split by versions. Tuf-Kat 18:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't want a fictional example. If there aren't any real examples, it's a non-problem.—Wahoofive (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Real example: "Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To?)" points to a disambiguation page. Apparently, Mariah Carey recorded a version which was almost a single. Real example #2: "I'll Be There", which somehow had an entirely seperate article written for Carey's 1992 cover. --FuriousFreddy 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Esoteric discography formatting

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See The White Stripes#Discography for an example. I'd like input; is there any consensus on this sort of thing? --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

One thing is certain: you sho'l don't do it like that. The standard format is to use either a list or a table. No pictures, and just the year for the main article. --FuriousFreddy 03:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music&oldid=24290430"