Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

RfC on creating a "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson" article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Wikipedia article?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Genius (genius.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Genius.com. — Newslinger talk 11:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Callum Adamson

There seems to be a lot of superfluous CV/resume-type material in the Callum Adamson article which makes it difficult to assess the notability of the subject. There are refs, largely to reliable sources, but mainly in regard to him being the son of a notable father. Is there wheat amongst the chaff? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on restructuring the Michael Jackson article with respect to child sexual abuse allegations

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Michael Jackson#Request for comments on restructuring the article. A permalink for it is here. Restructuring has been suggested in light of the recent Leaving Neverland documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass category inclusions

Just wanted to bring this here, a new user Sc2353 (talk · contribs) has been adding artist to multiple categories "tribs. Not sure if this is OK or not. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Enrique Iglesias for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Enrique Iglesias is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Enrique Iglesias until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:David Guetta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:David Guetta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:David Guetta until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Adele for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Adele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Brandy Norwood for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Brandy Norwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brandy Norwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Bobby Vinton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Bobby Vinton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bobby Vinton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

MC Pitman

I'm wondering if someone from WP:MUSICIAN could take a look at this and assess it for notability. I came across the article becuase someone started a discussion at WP:BLPN#MC Pitman about it. The article has been around for awhile, but has pretty much been unsourced the enitre time. I tried to do a bit of WP:BEFORE, but I'm not finding any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which might show how he meets WP:BAND or even WP:BIO. Someone posted on the article's talk page that the subject is Wikipedia notable, but none of those things are really relevant to determining notability and the BBC article mentioned is more of an PR fluff type interview than critical coverage in a reliable source. Anyway, I'd figured I'd check here before starting an AfD just in case some is able to find any WP:NEXIST type of coverage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I found the same and nominated for AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Da Tweekaz

I don't know how this article got onto Wikipedia, but it needs some serious work around the edges. I'm a bit concerned about notability as well. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Selena for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Selena is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Selena until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Kesha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kesha is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kesha until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Marvin Gaye for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Marvin Gaye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Marvin Gaye until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Shakira for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Shakira is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Shakira until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying (band)

Hi guys,

So I started an individual GA reassessment on this metalcore band's article nine months ago...yeah, you can say I got distracted, ahaha. I managed to let a whole season from my favorite hockey team come and go by before I finished the halfway done review. Anyway, I was reminded in March, and it had been bugging me at the back of my mind until today when I found time to do it. I have completed the reassessment and I am willing to keep it open a good long while - like a month - for improvements (it's only fair since I did accordingly). I am letting everyone know immediately, since there does seem to be a hefty chunk of work that needs to be done in addition to what I've already fixed, although I believe saving it is possibly feasible. Please let me know, either here or on the article's talk page, if you're interested in putting some work in. Thanks for your attention! dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Musician Portals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the following musician Portals are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted.

• Portal:Drake (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Fergie (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Lady Gaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Jessica Simpson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Lana Del Rey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Nicki Minaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Portal:Usher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The pages will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drake (musician) (it's a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the pages during the discussion, including to improve the pages to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a makeover

Someone at the teahouse suggested I seek the assistance of the WikiProject Musicians. I am not a musician nor a music expert. I like big band music and I went to read about a songwriter Will Hudson and became overwhelmed by the terrible layout of the article. I have made a few changes, and intend to make a few more, but I am inexperienced with discographies and would like input (or help, if you are so inclined). Is this type of... format... acceptable according to the manual of style? Should it be easier to edit? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Milen Manoj Earath

Milen Manoj Earath seems notable enough, but the draft needs serious work. The author has a CoI, and it shows. Maybe someone here is interested enough in a piano child prodigy to lend a helping hand? If assistance is needed with the German references, I can help, but beyond that I'm not interested enough in the topic to spend the effort needed, which may well amount to rewriting major parts of the draft. Huon (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello, I have been working on a draft of an Indian pianist: Milen Manoj Earath. I would be grateful if someone specializing in this field from around here takes a look at it and possibly even re-review it? Thank you, Yours Sincerely, Refluxdonut (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nina Grieg

Please help fill out this stub with additional information and citations. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

God Street Wine

Could some editors from this WikiProject take a look at this article? It was recently expanded quite a bit by an WP:SPA (who might have a WP:COI). Lots of promotional sounding content and name checking with some sources that look a bit iffy (WP:BOMBARD). The band seems notable per WP:BAND, but the article probably could do with some major trimmning. I started doing a bit of general cleanup, but it would be helpful for others more familiar with this genre of article to also take a peek and figure out what more needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The SPA has clarified that they don't have a COI, but the article still probably needs some fresh eyes to help clean it up a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

New media available for early 20th-century media and media persons

Cellist Jean Gerardy

I wanted to let this project know that I am uploading a few thousand new public-domain images to Commons that might be useful to you. The images come from the collection of J. Willis Sayre and were digitized by the University of Washington. They date from the first quarter of the 20th century and are largely portrait shots of various people involved in theater, film, and other media at that time, and shots of scenes from plays and films.

You can make use of these images in articles, and we also need help categorizing them on Commons.

All the images are in Commons:Category:Images from the J. Willis Sayre Collection of Theatrical Photographs. The upload will be finished within the next day. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

GAR

I have nominated The Shirelles for a Good article reassessment, which you may see here. Please participate if so desired. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Various

The article on Various, an electronic music duo, is the single most viewed page related to electronic music, according to this list. It beats Madonna (entertainer). It's also the third most viewed musician page overall, according to [this list], behind only Keanu Reeves and Elton John.

That can't possibly be right, can it? Looking at What links to the page produces an eclectic list of articles with no connection to the subject. It seems people are erroneously linking to Various. For example, see the infobox in National Grandparents Day.

Is that where the disproportionate number of views is coming from? Do we need to rename the article to Various (band)? Or something? Popcornduff (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing a large proportion of the links are from editors using "various" instead of "various artists" on compilation albums. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: This strikes me as something that may require some sort of disambiguation, but I'm not sure it fits. I know you're active in that area, any opinions on how to unwind this? I suspect nearly every link to Various is invalid for it's current topic. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff, Richard3120, and Ferret: Gud catch; thanks for the ping; and, ouch!

I've seen problems like this before. A DAB page is a good solution, if one can be justified; and here I think it can. The Various, a novel, is a full title match for 'Various'. Move the current article to Various (band), say, and turn Various into a DAB page with those two entries. WP:TWODABS can be ignored on WP:IAR grounds, because the link is causing the serious problem of pointing readers to the wrong place. The see-also should contain the useful links Various artists and Various authors, which is probably where many of the bad links should point. Others will be pointless links to the everyday word, which should simply be removed.

User:DPL bot reports bad links to DAB pages in WP:TDD (today's horrors) and in Disambiguation pages with links (all horrors). However, we WP:DPL members appreciate any and all help at cleaning up bad links, especially ones created by this sort of justified page move.

Feel free to {{ping}} me again. Narky Blert (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

An afterthought. I now think that Various artists and Various authors should go into the main body of the DAB list, so killing any possible TWODABS objections. Various artists is often abbreviated down to 'Various'. Narky Blert (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Complex disambiguation stuff is beyond my ken so I'm happy to go with whatever is decided. Let me know if there's anything useful I can do. Popcornduff (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll give this problem another day or two to allow time for further or better thoughts. If there are none, I'll take steps to set the process in motion, and post again here. That won't break anything, but it may reveal an alarming number of errors which need correcting. (I've seen worse. Vinyl was once a long-time redirect to vinyl group. As you can imagine, only about 10% of the 2000-odd links were correct, and most of the others related to LPs, floor tiles, or seat coverings. It took a day or two to sort everything out; but once that had been done, it was done for ever.)

WP:FIXDABLINKS says, fix everything before making a change like this. It's a counsel of perfection, and not always easy or even possible. The important thing for the encyclopaedia is to fix the errors ASAP; even if the change is most conveniently made first for technical reasons, as it would have to be here. Narky Blert (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Narky Blert Thanks. So would it be useful for me to get started manually changing the erroneous links to various? Or is there a more efficient way to handle that? Popcornduff (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Anything you can do to point links to Various in the what-links-here list to better places, even if it's just some low-hanging fruit like Various artists, would be very helpful; both in terms of the cleanup and for readers. Everything has to be done manually, to make sure it's right. (With Vinyl, I made an early stab at the chemistry-related ones; being a chemist, the obvious ones jumped out of the list at me just from the article titles.) Leave any links which should be to Various (band) as they are for now: a round-robin move (which I can do) is slightly more fiddly than a straight move. Ignore any links which include colons, e.g. Talk:, User: or Wikipedia: – they're unimportant. Narky Blert (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff, Richard3120, and Ferret: I've moved the article about the duo to Various (band), turned Various into a DAB page, and dealt with all the incoming links. It wasn't as nearly as bad as I'd feared: only about a hundred incoming links when I began to look. Some of them, however, were dreadful; who knew that 'various' is, among other things, a genre, and a venue, and a recording studio? The numbers in Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music/Popular pages should now start to behave themselves again. Narky Blert (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Nice job! Various has already dropped to number 35 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music/Popular pages. Is it really possible that simply via about 100 dodgy links Various became more viewed than Madonna (entertainer)? I find that hard to believe. Popcornduff (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: it seems possible. I doubt many readers are going to click through on Madonna – who doesn't know who she is, even if they can't stand her? Links to Madonna are basically there so that readers can mouseover and think, ok, right, Madonna. But, they might click through on Various, expecting to find something they didn't know; only to have been disappointed.

Another horror example I didn't mention. Several K-pop band articles have setlists from non-existent albums called Various. Those links might have collected lots of views from eager fans wanting to add a missing album to their collection. Narky Blert (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, didn't have this watchlisted. Thank you for the cleanup, @Narky Blert. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding (which could very easily be wrong) is that the lists are based on page views, not clickthroughs. Is that not the case? Popcornduff (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs, but my guess if someone clicks through on a bluelink, it will count as a page view. Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I assume too... but what I'm saying is that I can't believe that only 100-ish bad links could contribute so many page views to make Various the most viewed electronic musician article. Do you see what I'm saying? Popcornduff (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I do. But, I've put some really feeble unsourced articles which have had remarkable numbers of pageviews up for WP:AFD, and they've been nuked. There is absolutely no guessing what readers will click on. One of my articles which I thought really niche (and then some), A Choice of Kipling's Verse, has been getting a steady 20 views/day for the last 2 years. Narky Blert (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Red links/unlinked items at nav boxes

Hello, I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything in the archives. Over the past years I've had disagreements with two different editors regarding the interpretation of WP:WTAF when it comes to adding red links or unlinked items to navigational templates of musical acts.

They believe articles should be created before being added to the navboxes because the purpose of such templates is to allow users to navigate between existing pages. My interpretation, based on that essay's fourth paragraph, is that adding such links is acceptable if they are part of a set. I believe omitting an album or a member from a band's template just because there's no article on them is simply misleading.

I totally understand how pointless it would be to have an avalanche of red links in a template just because one or two items from that group have articles (example: a band has released 40 singles but only two or three have articles). But I'm talking about the opposite situation - a red link that is likely to become blue being added to a template that mostly or completely consists of blue links.

I'm looking forward to seeing what other editors think of this. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks in articles are acceptable if they are notable but have not been created yet. Red links in nav boxes are problematic because they cannot be navigated to. Your example of 40 singles is a perfect one: nav boxes are not lists and should not be treated as one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Walter - navboxes are for navigation, not information. If a subject is notable and has no article, create the article, then link it in the navbox. If there's no article, it doesn't belong in a navbox. Popcornduff (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Popular pages

Greetings, For "Assessment page", I added a section for "Popular pages", a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft check

Hi I am trying to write my first article on a Ghanaian musician, I was rejected for not having significant references which I disagree with since I used established media like OkayAfrica. I redid it and I am trying to see if I have met the requirements for using correct references, could someone please check out the page I have drafted? Thanks.

Emmaford (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It won't be accepted without better references that establish notability according to NMUSIC. If La Même Gang can be shown to be notable, according to those criteria, $pacely can be covered in its article, which you could start working on if you think you've done all you can for $spacely. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

New article Henge (band)

Hi

Can someone please go and give it a quick look?

I will be adding to it over the next few days, hopefully anyway.

I have added the BLP Project Musicians banner to the talk page also, and rated "Stub".

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Are there two Jimmy Millers?

Please see talk page at WikiProject Record Production. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fenne Lily

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at this article and assess it per WP:MUSICBIO? It was only recently created and it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON at the moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are a few reviews of her self-released album, but I'm not certain that the review sites are RSes. I cleaned it up a bit and removed some of the advertising content (future tours) but I'll let someone else take it to PROD or AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I making too much of this non-issue?

A single editor keeps adding what I think is innuendo to an article about a well-known Christian worship music performer who has started to publicly question his faith. I started a discussion on the article's talk page and would appreciate a few non-involved eyes on the issue. Discussion at Talk:Marty Sampson#Evangelical innuendo Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Slugs

Lots of content, but almost all of it is unsourced. Neither any of the bands members nor any of its music appear to be independently Wikipedia notable, but there are some pretty old comments on the talk page about the songs being used in TV shows, etc. which might meet WP:NSONG. Article has been tagged with {{More citations needed}} since May 2014, but most of the content of the article appears to have been added before the end of 2012. A very cursory WP:BEFORE Google search gets the Wikipedia article as the first hit, but not very much after that even going a few pages deep. I'm not seeing much here per WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, but there could be older sources out there somewhere. Article was WP:PRODDED early on after it was created in 2006, but deprodded (mostly based upon WP:OSE reasons) per discussion on its talk page. Way back in the day, OSE arguments might've have been given much more weight since there were so few articles in comparison to today, but don't thing that's really considered to be a good reason for keeping something these days. There does appear to have been some COI editing really early on, but not sure if that matters now. Anyway, there might be enough for a stub here, but so much of the content is unsourced that a serious trimming seems to be in order if there is. Any other suggestions on what (if anything) to do with this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't set much store by "their music has appeared in TV programs" – all TV production companies have a department whose job it is to find background and incidental music for their shows, with the result that almost everyone who has ever set foot in a recording studio has been featured as background music in a TV scene at some point. Besides, without any reliable sources to verify this or demonstrate notable use of the music, this argument is redundant. The best bet might be to see if someone with a subscription can check past copies of Chicago newspapers for articles and interviews with the band, but from the comments it sounds like they were just mentioned in gig listings. Richard3120 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I did some more looking for sources, but still wasn't able to find anything indication NBAND or GNG; so, I brought it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Slugs for further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dimash Kudaibergen

I need some help here. I cleaned up the article some. It was over 200k and full of all kinds of inappropriate stuff. I split off the discography, and started pruning the article, removing Instagram "references", YouTube videos, completely excessive and wordy material (typically sourced to YouTubed interviews)--the usual. On the discography, I removed a ton of spamlinks. Anyway, there appear to be two editors who claim ownership over the article, one of them (User:Фада) even claiming on my talk page to do this with the subject's familiy's permission--yeah. Anyway, I could do with some seasoned editors having a look at this and trying to bring this article into acceptable shape. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Vocal range categories

I just had a short edit war with Rockercar32 (talk · contribs) over the addition of Category:American contraltos to a few articles. The articles on which it was placed and from where I removed it, had no sources to support the claim but Rockercar32 was stating that it's "well known fact". Feels like a truthiness claim, but I'd be happier with a WP:RS Am I wrong to push back on such claims? Should we be checking all of the articles in that cat (and other, related cats) to verify the claims? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The very first sentence of WP:CATV states "Categorization must be verifiable" and links to WP:V; so, "well known fact" sounds to me a little like WP:VNT and trying to add categories based upon one's interpretation of a person's voice sounds like WP:NOR. It seems that the categorization of a musician's article should be no different from the categorization of any article in that the RS sources cited in the article should help indicate which categories might be applicable. If there's some disagreement over this, then talk page discussion should ensue to see if a consensus should be established either way. I don't think this really too different from how disagreements over article content are expected to be resolved. It's OK to be WP:BOLD when adding categories, but WP:BRD should be followed when they are challenged by others and this is not really the best way to try and resolve things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you can put someone into a category for their vocal range unless it's explicitly stated in a reliable source – I've said before that people's vocal ranges change over time so someone won't necessarily stay in one vocal category. Aled Jones has had UK chart hits as both a boy soprano and male baritone, for example, and I don't think anyone will deny that Paul McCartney and Elton John don't have the top end of the vocal range that they used to, or that Kate Bush and Madonna have noticeably deeper voices than on their first couple of albums.

I don't get some of the categories that aren't based on facts – yesterday I came across Category:Inspirational songs, which sounds purely subjective to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Inspo, as it's sometimes called in the industry, is legitimately a sub-genre of contemporary Christian music. Think "easy listening" meets "CCM". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I would agree if the category was kept purely to Christian music. But have a look at it, it just seems full of any songs that people consider "empowering". Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand. In this case it's an editor misunderstanding or possibly conflation of a broader term not unlike how singers who write their own songs have been called "singer-songwriter", when that was a genre in the 50s. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing articles from categories unless there is a supporting text and source in the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

RE

Ok to settle this for once and for all.. I got a question are you familiar with The Pointer Sisters or The Clark Sisters have you listened to their music? Rockercar32 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:IKNOWITSTRUE. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have listened to their music. I am not a reliable source when it comes to who is singing what nor in what range they're singing.

Have you read the points made above? Do you understand them? Would you like to address those points or are you going to continue to make the same argument that brought us here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically what you seem to be arguing here Rockercar32 is that Wikipedia should trust your ear to determine which category should be added. What's to stop another editor from claiming the same or even that their ear is better than yours and removing the categories. How would such a disagreement even be resolved? That is why the relevant guideline advises us to rely on what reliable sources are saying on the matter. Even the opinion of an expert on such things would still be only considered to be original research unless reliable sources had referred to the singers as such based upon said expert's opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: The Killers

The Killers was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in 2008. (It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Jan 2019.) I have done a GAR, and I feel that the article doesn't meet current GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, interested WikiProjects are being contacted as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:The Killers/GA1 for more details. If no progress is made, and nobody expresses an interest in working on the article, it is likely to be delisted after seven days have passed. SilkTork (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Musicians since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Bell X1 (band) nominated for delisting as a GA

Bell X1 (band), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MER-C 04:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

There is a discussion at Talk:Alex Chilton#Article issues that might be of interest to members of this project. Otr500 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

Please voice your opinions at Talk:AC/DC#Seeking page protection consensus. Regarding indef semi for Bon Scott, Angus Young, Malcolm Young pages. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

2020s

In articles like List of highest-certified music artists in the United States, an artist's active years are given by decade, e.g. "1990s–2010s". What criteria should be used to update the 2010s to 2020s? First performance, first release, or ...? If this has been discussed somewhere else, please advise. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Update: I've gone through and either updated the acts that are active so far this year (and cited them), or added a comment in the source with their next scheduled performance (that I could find), and am periodically checking for news reports confirming them as they occur. Some are tough, like Chicago, who is actively touring, but nobody seems to write about their shows in the past tense so we know that they actually performed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: seems a bit of a redundant column to me, to be honest... we can be fairly confident that artists like Metallica and Barbra Streisand will continue to be active this decade, even if they haven't been in the first three months of the 2020s, and the years the artists were active is pretty irrelevant to their certified sales... I would bet that the majority of the Beatles' certified sales have come well after they broke up in 1970. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Perhaps, but I didn't add the columns to begin with – I've just been updating/maintaining the article for a while. It seems like useful information to me, and only needs updating once a decade, unlike the "years active" in the individual act articles. Just trying to uphold WP:V as well as I can. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Yeah, I understand... it wasn't meant to be a criticism of your work, just an observation as to whether these dates were important or not... in answer to your original question, no, I don't think there is any specific criteria used to judge the dates used. Richard3120 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates on group articles

I already asked this on WP:BLP, but I felt this question was also appropriate here as it fell under the scope.

I've been noticing there's some inconsistencies when it comes to articles for bands or music groups. There are some that will list the birthdates for members such as Angerme, Iris (Japanese band), Juice=Juice, Camellia Factory (and the editors are very adamant about keeping this format despite some information being trivia, such as member colors, which I had discussed with someone at Talk:Buono!). But I noticed for other articles, particularly for Korean idols like Iz One, and other rock bands like Negoto, Luna Sea, Babymetal, the editors kept the birthdates off the page as the article should focus on group activities only.

So my questions are:

1. Do we keep birthdates on group articles, especially if some members aren't notable enough to have their own article, or remove them as the article needs to focus on the group?
2. Are member colors considered BLP trivia?

Thanks. lullabying (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If this goes through, I'd also recommend keeping birth dates on articles in situations where it's included as part of a paragraph regarding that band member's early life, as is the case with Infected Mushroom. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't gotten much of an answer here, unfortunately. If there is anyone who would like to comment on this, feel free to ping me so I can see people's input. To me, this has been a large source of inconsistency especially since J-pop related articles have been largely maintained by fans and think this sort of info is important, while others do not. Any help would be appreciated. lullabying (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: I found a related discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 3#Members sections. Seems like there's consensus to remove individual birthdates from group articles. lullabying (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Surely the birthdates should be kept.
As for K-pop... An editor from the K-pop project decided to remove the birth dates and acted despite objections. Anyway, there's no wider consensus. See "The Lennon Sisters", "The Four Seasons" and tons of other articles about bands of the past century. If you want to remove the birth dates, you would need a start a new, wider discussion. And don't forget to ask the opinion of those who work on the articles like "Little Mix" etc.. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the colors, fruits etc... It's just that I'm extremely tired of arguing with you about that... So let's just agree that that's an editorial decision. Sometimes it's important (as with Juice=Juice cause the fruits are behind the idea of the band and its name), sometimes it isn't.
As I can remember, there was already a situation when you asked for a third opinion, someone came and didn't support you and you still removed the colors. I don't think you acted well at all, but I was just tired of all that. (Yes, I saw the removal and didn't revert you. But it was simply because I had other things to do. Not because I agreed. I think I even deleted some articles from my watchlist because of you.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I removed the colors on Buono! because Drmies brought it up and suggested I do so. Much of the reasoning behind the concepts is for marketing purposes and not integral to the group's activity, and even then the concept can be listed briefly instead of giving it WP:UNDUE attention. If you think this needs to be a wider discussion, feel free to start up a discussion at WP:VPR. In the meantime, I'm really tired of you repeatedly taking pot shots at me and blaming me for something I did take the time discussing with other editors. lullabying (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Colors? Member colors? Are we still doing that? Drmies (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians: an "unsuitable reference"?

Seeking commentary or action on this edit by a user claiming that The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is an "unsuitable reference." Thanks. Doremo (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Idiotic, I've reverted. "Italy" as a geographic & ethnic concept is well over 2,000 years old, but this nonsense sometimes pops up - far more often than with Germans. That seemed to be his problem, rather than Grove. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; the user seems to be on a campaign, as also here. Doremo (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The quality of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians is not homogeneous. It depends much on the author of the article. E.g., their article about Bach was co-authored by a few top Bach scholars (very much OK), while their article about autographs is an absolute disaster, and should, in fact, better not be used as a source in Wikipedia (although I did – de facto trashing it with a truckload of more reliable sources).
• On the ground of the matter: whether Tartini was rather Italian or rather Venetian: both are true, and that can be referenced to about any source about the composer. He spoke Italian, he lived in a state lying in a region geographically known as Italy, which it was way before a modern Italian state was formed after the Second World War. The same way as most popes are regarded Italian, although they have a different nationality (they live in Rome, and Rome lies in Italy, no? State-wise they are however head of state of a different country). But he's certainly Venetian too. Compare Bach: German composer, but the infobox in the composer's article does not contain "Germany" (there was a long discussion about that!). So, which qualification is used in the lead sentence, and whether such qualification needs a reference in the lead section, is a matter of consensus. But whether or not Grove's mentions Italy, or Venice, or both is hardly a one-stop-shop to determine the issue.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at that user's talk page (began editing in August 2019). They have been repeatedly guilty of disruptive editing. It's probably only a short while before they get deservedly banned. - kosboot (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Any advice for a new project member?

@TheEpistle: has joined the community and indicated I focus on Upcoming Notable Artists. When I go to the editor's talk page, there are multiple speedy notices and others related to creation of problematic articles. I'd like to offer some advice:

1. If an artist hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (that's lifted straight from WP:GNG) you're going to find it hard to support any of the elements in WP:MUSICBIO, which defines what "notable" means to the community on Wikipedia. Find before you start, rather than after.
2. You might find it easier to start an article in draft space as content there doesn't usually receive the scrutiny that you'll get in mainspace. You can create drafts in your own user space or in draft space. The latter is subject to deletion after a period of inactivity though.
3. Be sure to openly discuss any associations you have with the band. WP:COI discussion that.

Does anyone else have advice for the newest member to our project? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Walter Görlitz, many thanks. I want to ask a few questions:

1. How may Reliable Sources independent of the subject do I need before creating a page. I got about 3 from Times of India, which was added to the list of independent sources, yet the page was flagged.
2. Can I get a project on this WikiProject that needs work, like referencing, expansion, merging or separation; maybe that might help.
3. Instead of posting articles directly into the main space? Can I use AfC instead, but how long does that take?

TheEpistle (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi and welcome TheEpistle. I would suggest taking a week to do nothing but observe how editors work on articles. Or find a couple of highly-edited articles of recently-famous musicians (perhaps some who have died recently - often the subject of a lot of editing) and carefully look at their history and talk pages to see how editors have dealt with various issues. Many new editors like to create new articles. (I think nearly all editors do not like the AfC process.) You actually learn more by helping to improve existing articles that have minimal content. You can find them by looking for the article assessment section under the "To Do" tab (it's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/To_Do#Assessment) and look for the articles rated Stub or Start. There are over 40,000 articles in each of those two categories. Then make emendations and see how others correct you. Some editors can be nasty, so don't hesitate to apologize, to use the "thank" button and to say you're a new editor who's still learning. That may get them to help you. Good luck! - kosboot (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@TheEpistle: Let me answer your questions.

1. There's no minimum number of sources that you should try to find. GNG suggests multiple, but in some discussions, some sources seem to carry more weight than others. An encyclopedia of music seems to carry more weight than a newspaper review. Sources the project relies on are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, but there are others. I'm not familiar with Times of India, but I checked the WP:RSN archives and found a discussion from a few weeks ago that found it was either unclear or additional considerations apply, or even generally unreliable for factual reporting. That's why it wasn't useful. The quality of the source must be taken into account.
2. I'll echo kosboot's suggestion of places to find articles that need work.
3. Depending on how well the article is written, an AfC can take a few hours from the time you've submitted it to go to main space, although I've seen many be rejected or require additional work before going to main space. You can also create pages in your user space. I'll use one of the entries that went to speedy as an example: User:TheEpistle/Drafts/Chidi Okoroafor. You should feel free to edit in that space without fear of being deleted. Be careful not to link to mainspace by putting a colon behind the link or category (for instance: [[:singer]]) or from mainspace to it. Once you think it's ready to move to mainspace, you can either go the AfC route or just do a straight move. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WOW! kosboot Thank you so much for your suggestions, I am well relieved,I guess all I needed was guidance, I will do well to stick to edit as you advised for at least this week. Thank you so much! @Walter Görlitz I must really commend you. I think i'd check out the to do list and keep up with that first. Thank you so much! TheEpistle (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually if you do want to start a biographical article I strongly suggest you start with the PrepBio template. You still have to write a biography but it provides the templates for the infobox and the categories. You put them in hit enter, and it gives you the markup for the article: https://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/prepbio.php. -- kosboot (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And of course, thanks for your willingness to identify yourself as willing to help. You took the most important first step. while all I did was recognize you were having problems and tried to get some members to help. I'm sure that more advice will be added here over the coming days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the quality of the sources is as important, if not more important, than the number of sources. Two or three in-depth sources are better than ten sources which only mention the subject in a single line in each one. I'm currently looking at an article which has no fewer than 242(!) sources, and I'm still not convinced it's notable, because they are all very poor sources. The problem with a lot of online sources, even reputable ones like established daily newspapers, is that these days a lot of the time it's simply "check out the artist's latest video below", which tells you nothing about the artist and is simply a publicity link. Richard3120 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the tools kosboot. Thanks for the advice too @Walter Görlitz and @Richard3120.

Two further question please: Copyrights. 1. I started with some to-do articles, when improving one of them, the artist didn't have a picture on WikiCommons, how would do i put a picture on the page without infringement of copyright. i read something about a request letter on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, can anyone shed more light on this? 2. When writing a draft/AfC or mainspace, and there's is a need to upload a picture to the article, what are the best possible options? Well, here is "what i thought": Can i write a mail to the copyright owners seeking for permission to use their image, whilst explaining the reason and terms? If they grant permission, how do I the upload it? Or what exactly is the right channel to usage of pictures with permission? I read two articles via WikiCommons o copyvio but i didn't seem to understand the procedure, any help house? TheEpistle (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Particularly after hearing of bad experiences (more than one photographer has placed their work on Commons and then have sued people who tried to use it) my opinion is this: You should only use images which are freely available to everyone - that's what Wikipedia is about. So if you don't have an image (and don't have an opportunity to create one yourself), don't worry about it and don't use one. - kosboot (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

interesting edit series

The all-female band BarlowGirl is on my watchlist and I saw an anon remove what looked to be an off-topic sentence and one of the page maintainers (who I assume added it) restored the content. I have had unpleasant interactions with the editor but would like an extra set of eyes on the edit to see if my intuition is correct or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Collaborations"

I need some of you (Binksternet? to look at these contributions: they are unverified, they're not good article writing, and they are just absolutely vague--what does "collaboration" even mean? I reverted a bunch of them and left a note, but I have a feeling that some of you may recognize these edits: they are pretty typical of longterm disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• GorgeCustersSabre, you've seen their work. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • From looking at a few of them, they are all true, but "collaboration" in these cases simply means "has played on this record", usually as a guest or as a session musician. Should we be trying to document every record that a musician has played on? Seems WP:NOTDIR to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • These lists should be referenced, and they should be be titled "Credits" or something less than collaborations. In general, these lists have been corresponding to AllMusic credits, but not exactly, for instance AllMusic credits for drummer Gary Mallaber versus Italian IP added credits. Since 2017, the person has been using a range of IPs to add stuff to music article personnel information: Special:Contributions/213.213.29.0/21. I reported him twice at ANI, once in February 2019 and again in April 2019. This person is mostly adding good stuff, but they don't cite any references. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Holy shit--it seems as if they are ferrying content non-stop then--they edit more than Koavf. And that sort of ferrying falls foul of a whole bunch of things, including WP:WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MIRROR OF EVERY SINGLE DATABASE. OK, I find this is severely disruptive, and I think I have at least a bit of consensus to place a range block here. For the record, I invited them to come here and explain, but they haven't. I'll give them a little bit, and if they either continue those edits or continue their lack of explanation, I will place a lengthy range block. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Dear Drmies, you’re absolutely right. These edits are outrageous. Thanks for your great work. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• OK--Binksternet, thanks for the notes. The IP went right back at it again, and I saw (don't know how I missed it) that EdJohnston had blocked the range before, twice. They are now blocked for a year. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • To repair the damamge, we should be looking at whether the North Italian IP duplicated a discography section as they did at Carol Kaye. Two sections listing musical works that the musician took part in, one titled "Discography" and the other "Collaborations". Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Jesse Campbell (singer)

Came across the article Jesse Campbell (singer), and it is nothing more than a promotional puff piece that I'm going to go out on a limb and say was written by either Campbell himself or his PR rep. A few examples of the content:

• "There are only a few artists that have a signature sound that you can immediately identify. Jesse Campbell is one of those singers..."
• "His fans are loyal, his dedication to his art is unprecedented, his passion for the music he brings forth has a spirit-filled intensity that permeates directly into the hearts of his audiences."
• "Originality is his greatest attribute and his charismatic personality coupled with his courageous energy is a winning formula in today's musical landscape."

Now those are just from the first paragraph of the Bio section. Further on it discusses how the "stars aligned" with Campbell becoming a contestant on The Voice, where he entertained the masses with his "electrifyingly euphoric vocal abilities."

His biggest claim to fame seems to be that he was a contestant on The Voice. The infobox and article state he was at one point signed with Capitol Records, and did release an album with two charting singles through them, but a previous version of the article claims he was dropped from the label shortly after its release. There are no references, and the only external link is for Jesse Campbell.com. Should the article be edited to remove the fluff (which is the bulk of the article), or should it be deleted? 104.184.182.119 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• "His biggest claim to fame seems to be that he was a contestant on The Voice."
  — AFAICS, his biggest claim to Wikipedia notability is that he had a couple of songs on a national chart. See WP:MUSICBIO #2, he is notable. As for the "non-neutral" or promotional content, you can prune it. (If necessary, you can prune the article back to a stub. See this old version by Werldwayd, for example.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• There's even a better version the article can be reverted to. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • As is clear above, I stick to the clear basics and notable successes. Then fans come and add pompous promotional stuff hurting their case more than anything else, I thank Moscow Connection for clearly demonstrating my case. Jesse Campbell is notable for his charting hits in Billboard and for being a contestant on The Voice although he was eliminated, quite sadly after a handful initial rounds. That's about it. We can add his releases in the Discography, but no need for the useless fluff that the page has turned to. P.S. I am writing these few words while listening to some of his performances which is fitting. werldwayd (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Werldwayd:
      Then fans come and add pompous promotional stuff.
      — It was Jaijai Jackson who messed the article up. You can just revert this edit → [1]. It looks like a copy-paste from somewhere. (Actually, I've already tried to revert it. It can't be reverted by one click "due to conflicting intermediate edits". So you will have to revert it manually.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The first paragraph of the biography section (in Jaijai Jackson's version) is found on Jesse Campbell's official website jessecampbell.com and also on a website called notjustjazznetwork.com created by Jaijai Jackson (look at the banner of her Twitter page). --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I have restored basically the original article with some added remarks. The edits of Jaijai Jackson must be automatically disqualified not only for blatant exaggerations, but more importantly because of the copyright issue as well. werldwayd (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC relating to MusicBrainz at WP:VPT

Now launched at WP:VPT#RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber

-- CptViraj () 08:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Mass addition of category needs WP:V check

Hello music lovers, it has come to my attention that Spacejam2 (talk · contribs) has created Category:MTV EMA winners for the MTV Europe Music Awards. Unfortunately, s/he has not been careful to check that the award is documented in the article and backed up by a reliable secondary source. These criteria are, of course, required for verifiability and WP:CATV states this. I needed to remove a couple already, but there are hundreds of edits to check, and I can't do it manually. If anyone would like to help, that would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I tagged a couple with {{Uncited category|MTV EMA winners|date=May 2020}}, but I wonder if it's best to find an actual list of winners and work back from that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

Nomination of Portal:Santana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Santana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Hunters & Collectors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Hunters & Collectors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hunters & Collectors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Amy Winehouse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Amy Winehouse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amy Winehouse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Serious review and possibly rewrite needed

I stumbled across My Ruin just now. The formatting is awful. There is a lot of fan cruft and other problems. I don't have the energy to div into it right now. Would anyone like a challenge? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Metal, goth and darkwave biographies tend to be among the worst-sourced and most fanboi-written music biography articles on Wikipedia. I'm not sure there's much that can be done for now except for pruning the worst excesses of unsourced material, and some of the more blatantly untrue facts, such as their records charting high on the UK (they've never broken the top 75, either for singles or for albums). Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Halsey

I have a little doubt, her real surname is Frangipane and this is an italian surname while her father is irish.. 2.226.12.134 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

He's not Irish, he's African American with some Irish ancestry. But as the family is from New Jersey, it seems perfectly plausible that both Irish and Italian ancestry has got mixed in there somewhere along the way. Put it this way, do you have any concrete evidence to believe that Frangipane is not her surname, and any evidence to suggest any alternative? My surname is Spanish/Portuguese, but my father was 100% English, and so were my paternal grandparents, great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents... it can happen, you know. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't evidences, but Frangipane (in english you can translate the surname as "Bread breaker") is so italian you can't imagine :), imho it's possible it's her mother name or probably 100 or more years ago her father's anchestor came in Ireland from Italy, I say it just tu suggest control if there are news about parents, maybe there is a an explanation.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It would make no sense for it to be her mother's name – her mother has no Italian ancestry, and why would she take her mother's surname if her parents are still together and Halsey doesn't use her surname professionally? I think it is more likely that her grandfather or great-grandfather was an Irish immigrant, who married a black woman – there is no need for an Italian to go to Ireland first for that surname. But either way, there are no more details about her parents or ancestors anywhere, so we have to accept that this is her real surname. Richard3120 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of band names

I have run into an issue while trying to carry out what I thought was a simple renaming of a category, for the band Five Go Down to the Sea? An editor objected on the grounds that according to WP:BANDNAME, "Capitalization of band names should be consistent with the guidelines for trademarks". And MOS:TM states that "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources". Apart from trademarks seeming to me to be an odd MOS to use for naming articles of bands, the issue here is that many modern sources for the above band capitalize both the preposition and the article, resulting in Five Go Down To The Sea?, and this is what the editor was objecting to.

I can see a valid point in discussing on a case by case basis band names that effectively consist of proper nouns – for example, A-ha is almost always written in reliable sources in lower case as "a-ha", TOPS (band) is almost always in capital letters, and Keiino as "KEiiNO" in reliable sources, although MOS:TM does state that stylizations like this should be ignored... does this also apply to band names written in all lower case or all upper case? But I think that extending this to prepositions (of, in, to, for, etc.) and articles (the, a, an) is going to cause a lot of problems... it may well require the renaming of many articles, such as A Flock of Seagulls, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Bring Me the Horizon, and all bands name "xxxx and the xxxx". The last case seems to contravene MOS:THEMUSIC anyway, and as many of these bands are from the pre-internet era, I don't know how we are supposed to make an accurate judgement of what the majority of reliable sources say, if we don't have access to print sources from the time. We would have to examine sources for every one of these cases one by one, to assess how the majority of them write the band name, and I'm not sure if anyone has the time or willingness to do this. Pinging @TSventon: so he may add his thoughts, and correct me if I've got anything wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Richard3120:, I admit to being unfamiliar with this bit of Wikipedia, so I have been asking questions about the policy on capitalising band names (as applied to Five Go Down to the Sea?) rather than raising an objection to it. (I opposed speedy renaming of the category based on its size at the time.) I think MOS:TM is ambiguous as it states

• "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources" and
• "Capitalize trademarks, being proper names. For details, follow the same style as for titles of published works (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles)."

I am not questioning the policy on established articles and think that recent reliable sources are probably more relevant than older sources to what name we use now. TSventon (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Jamie Oldaker

Was wondering if some members of this WikiProject would mind taking a look at this? Oldaker is most likely notable (assuming everything in the article is true), but there's quite a bit of unsourced content that might need to be trimmed. Oldaker's wife (at least someone claiming to be his wife) has been editing the article a few times since 2016 which might need a bit of assessing. Not sure as to how much or how strong of sourcing "Discography" sections typically requirement, but Oldaker seems to have been involved in some pretty major albums and it's not clear to what extent. Do session players/touring band members typically get the list all the articles they've worked on as part of their "Discography"? Perhaps someone can help try and find some better sources since stuff like this might not really be considered a little WP:UGC, relying more on press releases and primary sources, to be OK per WP:BLPSPS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Hey everyone, would someone review Humood AlKhudher's article? The sequence of events is as follows:

1. At 14:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC), I added info to the article.
2. At 14:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC), GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs) reverted my edit with no explanation.
3. At 17:24, 18 May 2020‎ (UTC), I added more pieces of info to the article about music videos, personal website, and associated acts.
4. At 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC), GorgeCustersSabre reverted my edits with no explanation whatsoever.
5. At 17:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC), I left a message on the user's talk page.
6. At 17:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC), GorgeCustersSabre deleted half the content of the artist's article.
7. At 17:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC), GorgeCustersSabre left a generic copy-paste reply.

By their second reply, GorgeCustersSabre stopped responding and removed the conversation from their talk page. I have no conflict of interest with the subject and believe my edits are legitimate and add to the article (at least a good portion of it). The editor has the article on their watch list and has a history of reverting at least one previous constructive edit. But my opinion is considered insufficient.

I do not want to engage in an edit war. Would an editor review the draft? Thanks. 78.154.218.198 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see my edit summaries. I don’t want to edit war either, and if I believe my edit summaries are clear I don’t always need to reply on my own talk page (which I clean up regularly). I edited the page in good faith. The page contained puffery, a lot of unreferenced information and material linked to the artist’s label. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs), Sorry I didn't get a chance to check this earlier. Talk page discussion was about your revert of my edits. They had no edit summaries as far as I can tell. You removed referenced information. Some were mine and some were added by others. Please check my other comment. Thank you. 78.154.218.198 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The reply isn't "generic", 78.154.218.198... the point is that you have to add reliable sources for all stated facts in the article, and these must come from reliable independent sources such as newspaper articles, and not from blog posts, or sources related to the artist, such as his social media or information provided by the record company. There is no independent proof of the artist's early life and studies, for example, or that he sang for his uncle or recorded the Zain Telecom jingle. iTunes is not a valid chart for use on Wikipedia as it fails WP:SINGLEVENDOR, but I can see that Aseer Ahsan did make the Billboard World Albums Chart, so I will add that information. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard3120 (talk · contribs), I'm really sorry, I didn't get a chance to check this earlier. There is independent proof to almost everything GorgeCustersSabre removed. They are in Arabic though (the ones I have checked).

'the artist's early life and studies'

https://www.dostor.org/744812

https://akhbarak.net/news/2015/01/02/5614763/articles/17328805/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%B6%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%AC

https://elcinema.com/person/2025580/

'that he sang for his uncle'

https://www.albawabhnews.com/2411310

https://www.albayan.ae/five-senses/mirrors/2012-03-28-1.1619695

'recorded the Zain Telecom jingle'

https://www.albayan.ae/five-senses/mirrors/2012-03-28-1.1619695

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q9j-GHpAR4 78.154.218.198 (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discographies for prolific studio musicians

I have a passing interest in Larry Carlton. I have had the article on my watchlist for a few years. I understand that Carlton has been prolific in the studio and has contributed to many works. Recently, an editor expanded the approximately 100-entry list that had two minor sources to one that's over 200 entries and removed the sources. I templated the section with a {{blp sources}} and formatted it in multiple columns to save space on larger monitors. The editor reverted both additions. I restored and went to the article's talk page to explain. The editor came to my talk page to claim to have done extensive research on the subject along with someone named Eddie and so questions the need for the template. Would like a second (or third, or more) set of eyes on this to determine if I'm overreacting again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

And because of the heading here and the comment left on my talk page, what sort of sourcing is needed for artists like this? I know that Howard Benson has a long table, as do others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability - help requested

Hi folks, wondered if somebody would be able to help identify the most notable (across all genres) musicians to include on this article about Jeff Tamarkin. I don't think there's encyclopedic value in the long list that is currently there, and we'd be better served by slimming the list down to the most notable entries who we can then possibly talk in detail about. Thoughts? Best, Darren-M talk 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I probably would delete the entire list, unless there are any entries where there are sources detailing a particular interview as important... it's going to be impossible to state which musicians and interviews are the "most notable", that's subjective. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Yeah, I've now done this after a separate conversation on IRC. I've removed the list and moved it to talk for reference - all of the entries I sampled didn't seem to have a RS to back them up. Best, Darren-M talk 18:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Artists without articles

Hi all, I have been working on a project to track all the artists who have had a top 40 single in the UK that have not got articles. This list is as accurate as I could make it and I would be grateful if editors could work on creating articles for all those that are missing, currently complete as far as possible for the 2000s, 2010s and 2020s so far. Some on the list could be aliases for artists which do already have articles, where this is the case a redirect would suffice.

Please strikethrough (rather than remove) any that you do create: User:03md/UK_top_40_artist_articles_to_be_created 03md 01:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@03md: Good luck, but a lot of these are going to be hellishly difficult to create articles for, because they are one-off dance acts who nobody knew who they were at the time, even less so now. You will also need to check that some of them aren't just aliases for DJs/producers who have charted under other names – for example, Basstoy's "Runnin" (a cracking house track) is effectively the work of Mark Picchiotti, so you can probably include Basstoy under his article rather than create a new one. Also, did you really mean JJ76, or is that just an error and you meant to write JJ72? Richard3120 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thankyou, I do realise its a difficult project, thats what I needed to check for some of them if they are aliases. Yes I did mean JJ72, my mistake! 03md 00:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN

Hello, there are about 11000 articles on music in CAT:NN, some of which have been waiting for almost 12 years. We'd be really grateful if any of you could help, here is the direct link to the music backlog: [2]. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Jarre GAR

I am doing a GAR on article about of the greatest and most essential electronic musicians of all-time: Jean-Michel Jarre. Participate in this link here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jean-Michel Jarre/1. ias:postb□x 13:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Jackson impersonator for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Jackson impersonator is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson impersonator (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)