Talk:Timeline of musical events

Scope of the lists

What is the geographical and linguistic scope of the lists, particularly the generically titled year in music lists? Currently, the titles imply universality but the subject is mostly the year in US music. Should non-English language and non-US events be spun off into different articles (like the years in British music series) or added to the generic articles? This may be a hypothetical now but I'm interested in the opinion of other contributors. —  AjaxSmack  03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The scope is global. The aim is to include information on significant music events all round the world. This is being achieved, and is gradually being improved all the time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be more

At present this page is just a list of deaths. That isn't much for a "Timeline of Musical Events" I have in the past added important albums to this timeline only to have them deleted. If this is a page of musical events then it should include major albums that have transformed the present culture or are key masterworks of whatever genera. It appreciate the wide range of musical classifications and it should be informed by major musical achievements across the world. I plan to start adding key works to the list and pray they wont be wiped off again. Otherwise change the name from timeline of musical events to timeline of dead musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davros6999 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of musical events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426020825/http://hwww.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/music/music-news/2007/10/26/taking-it-back-86908-20012113/ to http://hwww.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/music/music-news/2007/10/26/taking-it-back-86908-20012113/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Order reversion

Modernist, what is wrong with you?? There's nothing "absurd" about putting the list in proper chronological order. That's how lists are on WP (except for some in alphabetical order). It's absurd not to. What's really absurd is to revert all my hard work for no good reason (WP:ROWN, WP:REVEXP). Besides that, you reverted the much needed custom table of contents. Without that, the reader has to scroll way down to find what they're looking for. I also made other style improvements. But, you think you can revert it all because you think it should be the way you like it?? --Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding!!!!!!! Every other similar article is set up this way. Hello???? An article like this one is always being added to - you know - like every year it needs renewal, look at all the other major articles Literature, Poetry and Art in the template at the bottom of this article. I've been editing here for years - leave it alone...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've made 446 edits to this article - I've worked a whole lot harder here than you can ever imagine. How many edits have you contributed here?...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's just it. You've "been editing here for years", so you can't compare your count with mine. I guess you don't realize how much work it took to clean up that mess. It doesn't matter how many edits you've made. You don't own any article, so you can't tell another editor to "leave it alone". (I normally would talk to an editor like that on their talk page, instead of the article talk page, but you said to take it to the article talk page.) The bottom line is: this is a Timeline. Whoever heard of a timeline going backwards in time?? That makes no sense! When I said, "That's how lists are on WP", I had not seen those "Lists of years" articles. But, let's take a look at them. I looked at 16 articles; 7 of them are listed backwards (certainly not "every"), while 9 are in chronological order (Btw, all 4 of the science lists are in chrono order, and people of science are generally considered very intelligent). Also, 6 of them have the regular table of contents template, while 9 have the horizontal way (which would be better for this one), and this is the only one with none! --Musdan77 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Before making any changes get consensus. Common sense says to leave this alone. Every year changes are added here, that way editors do not need to scroll down thousands of years...Modernist (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The lists that are in constant change are in this order because editors need quick access; most of the other ones are nearly empty or are just blocks of years, or don't go back thousands of years - read this WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW this article was created this way in 2003, it is simply the most intelligent way; so that additions can be made easily. These articles: List of years in literature (2003), Timeline of art (2003), Timeline of architecture (2004), List of years in poetry (2005) all work exceeding well. The other articles in the template are empty for the most part, with the exception being List of years in television which only dates from the 1930s to the present...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you understand? There would be no need to scroll at all if there's a TOC! There's no excuse not to have one. And common sense says that a timeline be in chronological order (notice the word "logic" in the word). There should have been no (or little) dispute with my changes. I can understand some minor changes, but not to revert it all back. And you are the only one who's had any problem with it. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we totally disagree! To make a major change requires consensus. FWIW I re-added the TOC...Modernist (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of musical events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080822095924/http://www.affaritaliani.it/entertainment/micheal-jackson110708.html to http://www.affaritaliani.it/entertainment/micheal-jackson110708.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of musical events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306081521/http://liveearth.org/sv/press/pressrelease/linkin-park-headlines-live-earth-tokyo to http://liveearth.org/sv/press/pressrelease/linkin-park-headlines-live-earth-tokyo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022081505/http://voices.yahoo.com/eminem-fast-rising-rapper-8607941.html?cat=9 to http://voices.yahoo.com/eminem-fast-rising-rapper-8607941.html?cat=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for notable events

I think it would help to have some criteria, even a rough, informal one, for choosing albums. Right now, an editor can easily add his or her favourite obscure indie band album to the list. Granted, if the album had an article, it is WP: notability -notable. But if it had poor sales an little critical attention, it's arguably getting WP:Undue weight to be listed as one of say, 15 albums for a year. I am not saying that sales is the only indicator. Indeed, a record could have no sales, but if a consensus of top critics hail it as a masterwork, then let's add it. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Birth dates if musicians not relevant, it's when they become influential

Going through the timeline, we read that Musician X was born in 1910. My concern with this is that she might not become influential in music history until 1940, when her album hits number one and she becomes the most important bandleader and composer. Wouldn't it make more sense for Musician X to appear in the 1940s section, with a comment such as "Musician X's album XYZ and 123 were the top-selling records of the 1940s"?OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is this page such a mess?

Compared to similar lists like List of years in film and List of years in literature, this feels lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.121.21 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)