Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tina Turner/1

Tina Turner, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

GA reviewers needed

The Good Article project has a bit of a backlog in popular music; out of the five oldest nominations on the project right now, for example, all five are popular music-related. Unfortunately, this is an area where WP:GAN always gets more editors interested in nominating than in reviewing. Would anyone be willing to review an article or two to help reduce the wait? It doesn't take long, helps out other editors, and is a fun way to learn about some off-beat material. Cheers and thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Portal:U2 for peer review

Miss Bono and myself have requested a portal peer review for Portal:U2.
We would appreciate any helpful advice at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2/archive1.
Thanks in advance and happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessing an article

Hi WP:Rock music user(s), I've made a lot of edits on the Graffiti on the Train article and it doesn't have a quality or importance rating yet. I was wondering, who is allowed to assess it and rock related articles? Ultra Violet Light 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can assess articles, as long as they're familiar with judging what meets what level of quality. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, sweet! I'll get familiar with the rating system and assess Stereophonics articles that are needing it and thanks for getting back :) Ultra Violet Light 21:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bram Tchaikovsky Article Biography Warning Banner removal

Are there now enough references cited for the Bram Tchaikovsky article to have that banner removed ? Also, is citing the official store on facebook a legitimate reference or does it contravene some form of rule regarding advertising and or subverting the Wikipedia anti-commercialism policy ? In defence of this in case it is not regarded as a valid citation, what better way to prove a recording by an artist exists than to point to the official store or website. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag is for no sources. It now has more than none, so the tag is obsolete. I have removed the tag. If somebody complains and re-adds the tag (or a similar one), we can revisit things then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Standardized Timeline Colors

I've been editing articles with member timelines so they all have the same colors for the various instruments/vocals. Now, someone else may come along and make a new article with different colors, or change an existing article so I am suggesting a standardization of colors as follows (what I have found on other articles and have been editing other articles to).

Red = Lead vocals Green = Guitars Blue = Bass Purple = Keyboards Orange = Drums

Other close colors, for example, light green, can be used for similar instruments, like rhythm guitar.

KyoufuNoDaiou (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, folks. KyoufuNoDaiou is talking about the membership timelines that some of the band articles have. His concept is for us to agree on a standard set of colors for the different instruments, and then use those colors in all the band article timelines. Presumably this would be a guideline, subject to customization or modification for particular articles if the editors agree on that talk page. Here's an example using his proposed colors:
My two cents: This sounds reasonable to me, and the color scheme seems pretty good too. But how about black instead of red for vocalists? That's a little less hard on the eyes. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please consult WP:ACCESSIBILITY, specifically WP:COLOUR. These pure colour choices are not ideal, as it will affect people with various kinds of colour-blindness.[1][2] I'd suggest finding pastels, or using textures rather than just colour. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yikes! That looks complicated. Short of finding a colour-blind person (and I don't know any off the top of my head) and hallway usability testing stuff, I'm not sure what to suggest. If you're colour impaired, Floydian, can you knock up something more suitable for us? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The title "The Machine (band)" is ambiguous

There is another progressive, acid/psychedelic rock band formed in 2007 also called "The Machine": [3]. You can also just youtube "The Machine: Moons of Neptune" to see which band I mean or any of their related tunes. Should we have a separate page?

If this is the wrong place or has been mentioned before, then apologies. Talk:The Machine (band) links to this wikiproject, and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd but that project seems inactive. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Before we get to that stage, I think we need a little more evidence than the band's own website and a youtube video to determine whether they should have an article. I would use the Article Wizard to put a new submission in Articles for creation if you are not sure a band article should exist. Somebody else will review it and if it's acceptable, we can sort out the article titles at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying. The Wikipedia:Article wizard/Musical notability suggests the band are not very notable for WP. It's easy to find them on loads of sites (and they seem quite popular), but none of them are really reliable sources, just external links. Following your advice I'll submit a quick draft anyway here Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Machine (Dutch band) and see what others think. If not accepted, I understand. Thanks again, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Migrating cite AV media notes (aka cite album notes) to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox

Please comment regarding the migration of {{cite AV media notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. This is a discussion about the deprecation of certain parameters and how such deprecation will effect this project's articles. The discussion is not intended to address technical aspects of the conversion, though if you have questions or concerns about that, you are welcome to raise them. The discussion is here: Migrating cite AV media notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because there are similarities, your thoughts regarding the migration of {{cite DVD-notes}} from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox are also solicited. The discussion is here: Migrating cite DVD-notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
And now considering {{cite music release notes}}. The discussion is here: Migrating cite music release notes to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Music of the trailer Get mean

Dear WikiProject Rock music! In the trailer of spaghetti western Get mean hear this rock music, but the title and singer is unknown. This is not the music of the film. What is a song? Doncsecztalk 20:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A class reviews

I've been helping out at the featured article review for Megadeth with Вик Ретлхед, and we both think there needs to be some sort of A-class review system that bridges the gap between good article and featured article status. Two GAs I helped promote, The Who and Van der Graaf Generator, would be ideal A class candidates, as would Megadeth if it doesn't get through FAC, and possibly Thirty Seconds to Mars too. I don't know anything about how to set up A reviews on a project, so either somebody can point me in the right direction, or I can blunder in naively and give it a go. What do people think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I've been frustrated when I copyedited music articles, but I think A-class processes are important, and I'll do my bit if you guys get it going. There are currently roughly 4 active A-class venues; feel free to ask over at the MilHist coordinators' page if you want technical assistance with this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It would be wonderful to have more Projects with A-Class reviews. Setting it up is a mere technical issue; what makes such a review process successful is having a sufficient number of motivated editors in the Project who are well-versed in the MoS. Having them show up regularly, and over the coming years, is the challenge. WP:MILHIST has such a group, which is why it works so well there. In contrast, WP Comics has plenty of active members, but few willing to do this kind of work—half of my own FAs have been comics articles (and several others comics-related), but few of them have drawn so much as a comment from a WP:CMC member. There's no way an A-Class review there would be anything more than a dumping ground for articles to languish in. Rather than asking people if they were interested (far too many would say "yeah!" and never return), I'd take a head count of RP:Rock editors who regularly contribute to FAC and GAN reviews—that'd give you a better idea of an A-Class review's chances of survival here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I think therein lines the crucial issue - do we have enough people willing to do this? The problem if not enough people get involved is at best stuff gets ignored, and at worst ends up with a clique reviewing each others stuff through their own bias without regard to the wider world. From reading the Military History guide to A-class reviews, it seems that being well-versed in MOS is not the important factor, but being well-versed in the subject material is. The idea would be that a successful A-class pass should be able to go to FAC and comments should only be minor MOS based issues - its content, scope and sources should be thorough and complete. That's exactly what I want to aim towards - it explains why A-class reviews are project based, geared towards people who understand the topic in hand.
I've pinged a few people, but I'll have a look through the recent GA / FA list to see if there's anyone else. However, seeing how long music GAs can sit on the queue, I'm not exactly expecting a rush. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
As someone who can't get too enthusiastic about the idea of FAC (issues of patience, available time, why anything needs to be "featured"), I think this is a great idea. One of the benefits I see is that editors of music articles, whether they've actually taking part in the process themselves or not, have a specific page they can watch – the project's A-class noms list, I'm assuming. And because everything there will be music-related, it's bound to lead to improved GAN submissions and music articles generally. It's that bit more localised, being project-based, is what I mean.
To some degree, I probably belong in Curly Turkey's "yeah!" category if I'm really honest about it(!) – and they offer some good advice above about the possible realities. I'd be slightly concerned about how established reviewers are going to find the time, in that, presumably, it'll slow down progress through the list of GANs even more. (Or would it be possible for editors to submit for A class, bypassing GA completely?) I'd certainly be up for submitting articles for A class, regularly, so I'd do my best to review once in a while also. JG66 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This WikiProject is requested to take notice.

A discussion is underway that would benefit from the thoughtful consideration of the widest possible cross-section of Wikipedia's editing community. Aspects of the discussion are reasonably anticipated to be of interest to the editors known to monitor this page and all are openly invited to consider participation.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look at this, and it seems to relate to classical music. Another editor has critcised the "spamming" of this post to a wide range of WikiProjects. Recommended for those who are really interested in the American Classical Music Hall of Fame inductees; as for me, I'm trying to finish this post before I fall asl..... CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds magazine archive

Is there a way to access archived articles from Sounds magazine, from the late 70's? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew this as well, and New Musical Express and Melody Maker. If you have a pass for the British Library, they will have back issues, though the problem there is that you have to have a good idea of exactly what you're looking for to start with. Google Books search can help to some extent with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
CaesarsPalaceDude: if it's articles – reviews, interviews, features – you're after, rather than the actual issues, Rock's Backpages has plenty. (For a price …) Here's a list of what they hold from Sounds. Can't say I've ever regretted forking out the annual subscription, but it depends on how committed you are of course. If there's anything on that list that particularly interests you – say, one of the album reviews – I could access it for you, then add something to the relevant Wikipedia article? JG66 (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion and very useful source, they also seem to have quite a considerable number of free articles. Karst 08:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, the freebies. I noticed a couple of pieces from Sounds down the bottom of this list, CPD. JG66 (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Some people around here! .... they're intelligent, helpful, got really good sources in their back pocket, .... and they know where the freebies are! I am positively green with envy! Thanks, JG66, it's been a "blast".CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Ha, you're way too kind, Caesar! I might just have to paste those words of yours onto my user or talk page – somewhere suitably prominent (being the shy & retiring type, of course). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hell, yeah! Go For It!CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

List of deaths in rock and roll

I'd appreciate a few more pairs of eyes looking at List of deaths in rock and roll. I think we'd all agree that there's a lot of scope for improving that article - but we now have an editor who is insisting on removing (and edit warring over) names from the article (two at present, but more to come) on the basis of his belief that they are not R&R enough to be included. That's a very dubious and silly premise, based on one person's interpretation of what should and should not count as "rock" or "rock and roll". Views welcomed over there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would question the usefulness of that list. However, on face value and considering the WP:LEAD refers to what probably is deemed to be 'classic' rock and roll music, it probably should stick to a narrow definition. There will be all sorts of artists that might cross over into it, but with those you probably need to consider what their predominant style of music was (pop/country/hard rock). IMHO lists like these are always bound to cause serious friction, which is one of the reasons why I tend to stay away of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karst (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 June 2014‎
I've now started a new thread on that article's talk page, to try and establish criteria. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Arena rock - Genre or not?

See discussion here. Johnny338 (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Influenced by an album

Just seeking some advice. What is the generally accepted criteria for adding content to an album article dealing with an artist who was influenced by said album? At what point do we say that the artist being influenced is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article? Caper454 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

...Like Clockwork genre dispute

This article seems to have a history of edit wars over the genre(s) to be shown in the infobox, and it settled down to alternative rock as the only genre. Recently, I noticed the activity, and became involved. A long ip changes the genre to rock, which a bot fixes to rock music, or someone adds genres. If I understand properly, a user registered thinking an edit to add a genre would stick longer. When that didn't work, they followed the directions in the comment next to the genre, and posted on the talk page. I replied, directing them here. Then, a long ip changed the genre back to rock, which RussBot again corrected to Rock music. I've already reverted exactly this current state once, and I'm not sure of all the particulars, so maybe I should leave it for you guys to sort out, but please let me know if I can help. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 03:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you did all the right things. If something like that happens again, wait for the three revert rule to kick in and one of the administrators will possibly lock it, if this has been an issue before. Karst 11:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Rock Music At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Australian rock" article in bad need of help!!!

The "Australian rock" article needs a lot of help. It covers a lot of breadth, but suffers form a severe lack of sourcing and sloppy writing. There does not appear to be any higher-level oversight on what aims to be a feature article. Due to the wide time period covered, it is going to be a big piece of work and will need a number of new contributors. The site needs the presence of seasoned and knowledgeable editors. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Rick Lawndale Band

To - update info on The Rick Lawndale Band 2011 Rick Lawndale issued a country flavored Cd on Sunspot called "Ponderosa Parkway" featuring guests Oscar Rospide, Paul Feldman and Bill McClellan. Rick is currently working on the Rick Lawndale Unplugged Volume 1 cs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.237.68 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. Go to Lawndale (band) and edit the article there, though the band's notability looks tenuous at present and it at risk of being nominated for deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Music articles structure

Hello, I am concerned. I tend that most or many of the images on rock bands are insterted on the left sight of the sections they represent as era. Isn't it more proper, more readable and clean to put it on the right? From a point of view of the reader the text should follow and then it will stop on the images on the right that interupt and complete the view of the articles? Don't you see it as a better opton? Let the images interact in full articles and sections, not in blustered 10 line-texts. I ask as a concerned editor, working on musical articles for 13 full years. Thanks beforehand!

Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk)
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says that images should be deferred to right alignment, unless sandwiching is a concern. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fenix TX

The Fenix TX article does not say who played bass between 2007 and 2013. They did tour then. Does anyone know if it was Adam Lewis or someone else? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Ayers Rock (band)

Members who are interested in Ayers Rock (band), are invited to contribute to an RfC regarding the lead paragraph of that article. More details can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ayers_Rock_(band)#RfC. Ayers Rock were an Australian prog rock band from the '70's. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Who - the amazing journey to FAC

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Retrohead:, @Curly Turkey:, @Dan56:, @SNUGGUMS: and anyone else I can think of .... it's time I gave The Who the big push to get it up to FA standard before they (allegedly) stop touring for good, and 2014 is the 50th anniversary of the classic line-up coming together. Peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Who/archive2 - dive in and pull the article to pieces. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated John Mayer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Article rescue?

I have an article that is in some desperate need for TLC and rescue, Wilderness Road (band). I'm finding where the band has been repeatedly mentioned in Billboard (ex, [4]) and where they've performed with notable bands ([5]) but so far it's slow going. It's up for PROD and it's run the full 7 days, so there's a good chance that this may be deleted but I'm willing to userfy this if anyone wants it. I just can't help but get the impression that there's more coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I've userfied it myself, so you can find it at User:Tokyogirl79/Wilderness Road (band). I really need some help from people that are familiar with how to look for sourcing that might not be available on the Internet. I'm really not good at doing that for music related things, so I could use all the help I can get with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Your local library would have some material, it will have so-called finding aids that can help you. It seems the band played mostly around the Chicago area? If so, that city would probably be the first port of call. I can understand the PROD notice and it might be an idea to incorporate the band-page into a page for Warren Leming, who seems notable (I noticed one recent interview with him here)?Karst 16:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't live in or near Chicago or in the state of Illinois, unfortunately, so I doubt that my local library will have anything to offer other than what I've found on the Internet. I've reached out to the fansite linked in the article, so hopefully they'll have something. I was thinking about a merge, as Leming does seem to be notable. I was just hoping that someone here would have better avenues for searching since I'm not a frequent editor of music related articles and I'm only familiar with the most mainstream of sourcing for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC of general interest to this group.

See Talk:Eagles (band). Thank you in advance for your participation. --Jayron32 23:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisit merge for Wednesday (band)

Please see Talk:Wednesday_13#Why_only_one_article.3F. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical pedant!

We appear to have an IP editor who is a grammatical pedant. In this case, he/she has made an edit of the type: "'Band X' are an English rock band" to "'Band X' is an English rock band". Is there a standard WP policy on this? Is there a difference between British English, and American English regarding common usage? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't face wading through WP:MOS right now, but my understanding is that British English uses "are", while US English uses "is". WP:LAME#Wording gives quite a good explanation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR rules all here. Without going through the minutiae of the issue here, The Most Important Rule is "where there are competing and equally valid styles, don't arbitrarily switch between the two styles." The Second Most Important Rule is "just because it's a rule in you're particular dialect, don't assume it's a rule in all dialects". In other words, "different from me" is not the same as "wrong", and we shouldn't be changing between styles arbitrarily because of our own preferences and/or ignorances. --Jayron32 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, people. I think that gives me everything I need on that one. I assume that for an English band you would normally use the British version. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
IPs occasionally pop along to The Beatles, The Who or U2 and swap "are" for "is", but it doesn't last long. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

R U Professional peer review

I've started a peer review for the WP:GA quality article, R U Professional.

Comments to help further improve quality would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/R U Professional/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work on the page, very informative. Not sure if there is anything else that can be added to the page, except for an audio sample maybe. A parody song rarely achieves GA status though and with no physical release I'd say the page is very good as it is. The page for the band needs a good bit of work. Karst (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Joe Walsh

Hi, could anyone please help me make the article Joe Walsh, a good one, it has been a good article nominee many times but failed every time. Is there anybody out there willing to help? - I'm willing to give out barnstars for helpful edits. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic?

Is Sputnikmusic considered a Reliable Source? Would a user review like this be an acceptable to cite? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As ever, my stock response to "Is 'x' considered a Reliable Source" is (and should always be) "depends on what fact is being cited". The site does news aggregation which does pass our definition of "reliable" as it only prints certain news items that it considers will have a wide audience, but there's nothing you can't get elsewhere. For reviews, probably not. If the review is used to cite facts, there is pretty much almost always a more authoritative source closer to the band to confirm it. I think I left in this one for Made in Japan on the grounds that the reviewer used a real name and it was only being used as a review, nothing else, but to be honest said review does have the whiff of WP:FANPOV around it. A reliable review will use a real name of somebody who's ideally had experience in the field (such as a journalist or author), and will mention good and bad things. In the case of Love it to Death, would you consider the view of somebody saying "Music is shite, let's go shag some ho's" to be reliable? I wouldn't! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I should probably have answered myself: "If you have to ask, the answer's probably 'no'." I was a bit thrown by the article on sputnikmusic that sez: "the site has come to be established as a credible source, earning mentions in mainstream print,[1] becoming a featured reviewer on Metacritic,[2] and being used as a news source by other websites." I guess I was stretching a bit out of frustration, because I felt like I was making a lot of progress with Love It to Death and then just kinda hit a wall on RSes for certain aspects. Whatever, I'll go edit something else. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes you get something like Piero Scaruffi which polarizes opinion on whether his reviews can be considered "reliable" or not. Oh, and the "earning mentions in mainstream print" citing to this Guardian article which mentions Sputnik music as a stereotypical trivial passing mention is stretching things a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Jesus Christ! I've obliterated that horseshit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Details on equipment used on Master of Puppets?

Does anyone have access to, say, old guitar magazines that might give of details on the equipment used on Metallica's Master of Puppets? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bolded Former Members

I have noticed that within the past year, some users have vandalized popular '80s band templates by bolding a selection of former members of the band. Some examples of this are the Journey template, the Foreigner template, and the Boston template (which may warrant an exception IMO). But I'm kind of baffled as to why no one has taken care of this yet... I mean, if we're going to bold former members who have long been associated with the band, why not bold Dennis DeYoung on the Styx template, Steve Gaines and Ronnie Van Zant on the Lynyrd Skynyrd template, or Bon Scott, Malcolm Young and even Simon Wright on the AC/DC template? This practice of bolding former members based on their level of involvement seems highly subjective to me. Molandfreak (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not say that is vandalising, but maybe a point of discussion? If you disagree maybe start a discussion on the talk page? It would help if the actual templates were linked in your post. Karst (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it because they were founding members? Because I think that would be a fair assessment. DLManiac (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Punk Rock

Does anybody here maybe have a copy of the above title, edited by Brian Cogan? I'm adding some references to the Broken Bones (band) and I think the entry for them in the book would be quite useful. Thanks. Karst (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Style for non-star reviewer ratings in album's ratings box

There's a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#New ratings stylisation for PopMatters, NOW, Fact, Kerrang, etc. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Band member timeline standards.

I was wondering if there has been an established standard for colors and order of band member timelines. If not, then I think it would be beneficial to do so. I have seen several that use the following:
Lead Vocals : Red
Lead Guitar: Green
Rhythm Guitar: BrightGreen
Bass: Blue
Drums: Orange
Keyboards: Purple.
And they are usually in order top to bottom like that^ then secondarily ordered by when the member joined the band.

There is some discussion on the Aerosmith Talk page right now about this, and I am not sure that the other editor is making a decent argument about the point, but I could be wrong.

Any help or point to where I may find an "official" standard would be greatly appreciated! DLManiac (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you link through to the section on the Aerosmith discussion please? Karst (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't think about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aerosmith#Members_Timeline_Visuals DLManiac (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Make it a WP:PROPOSAL Karst (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Do I do that here Karst? I'm a little new to the democracy side of wikipedia. Thanks for the help!DLManiac (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If consensus is found here, then, yes, that would help. You would have to go through the entire process outlined at WP:PROPOSAL. As this is a style-related issue it will have to be added to WP:Manual of Style at some point. Someone who has experience with all that might be able to help you further. This page is only for discussing issues around Rock Music, it does not implement policy. Karst (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I also support the implementation of the timeline standard suggested by DLManiac. It is widely used by most bands on Wikipedia. The timeline recolouring issue is a problem on other articles as well, I've already had to make several reverts on the Pythia (band) article which then subsequently end up getting the reverted back by the person who's been doing the recolouring of the timeline. I eventually stopped reverting his changes in order to prevent an edit-war. I've looked through the talk page on the Aerosmith article and I think it's the same person who's "re-standardising" everything there as it is on the Pythia page. I eventually brought it up on the user's talk page and he seems more than adamant over using his own design. The standard suggested is what everyone is used to, all someone needs to do is look and that would enable them to think "her bar is red so she must be singing vocals" for example. It would make things much easier and more convenient for anyone reading the article. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way on the matter. I'll also leave the original Pythia timeline that I implemented for comparison here along with the recoloured timeline here. --TheUndyingAnchor (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that there. It's a little ridiculous that he wants stuff to be uniform, yet he goes out of his way to make things exactly the opposite. What will end up is all of his favorite bands having timelines that don't match the rest of the site. DLManiac (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. My discussion with him ended with him asking me to stop reverting it and like I said, I did in order to not start an edit-war. However I'm genuinely thinking about reverting it after seeing that other people are getting annoyed by this situation. I'm seeing some stuff about an official WP proposal to implement this timeline standard. Is this proposal underway yet? --TheUndyingAnchor (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Another thing I've noticed is that when this guy reverts any changes to his timeline standard, he reverts them on the grounds of being "nonconstructive" even if a valid edit summary is given which is just downright ludicrous. I've seen this happen on both the Aerosmith and Pythia articles. I've also noticed that the Green Day article is also having this issue with the recoloured timelines from the same user. --TheUndyingAnchor (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As DLManiac asked, where would be the best place to discuss a proposed standard for time line colors (and possibly other formatting)? Here in this talk page section? And if a consensus was reached, where would the standard be documented? And as far as this already-often-used set of colors, can someone provide a link to an example? Thanks. "P.S." In case this helps at all, here's a previous discussion about this that did not end up with any consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive 5#Standardized Timeline Colors — Mudwater (Talk) 03:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Def Leppard, Van Halen, Foreigner (band), Bon Jovi, Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones, Journey (band), REO Speedwagon, Scorpions (band), nearly every rock band you can think of other than the ones that have been recently added by the other user. DLManiac (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
After going through and reading that previous thread, I see there was no real conclusion. However, I didn't see too much opposition. And, as far as I can tell, the standard he set is VERY prevalent across the whole site at this point in time. Which leads me to believe that we should keep following that, instead of going for something new. DLManiac (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like red would be used for any vocalist (i.e. background singers as well as lead singers). What color should be used for horn players (saxophone, etc.)? And what color should be used for multi-instrumentalists who switch off a lot (not just occasionally) between two or more instruments? Also, if we're going to agree on a standard, I think we should not use multi-color lines to indicate which musicians sing. Let's use single colors for the instruments, whether they sing or not, and another color such as red for people on sing without playing an instrument. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to say, I would strongly advocate for lead guitar and rhythm guitar being combined into only one color for guitar (which under the current proposal would be green). It's the same instrument, just played in a different style, and quite a lot of guitarists play both lead and rhythm, or even a style that combines both. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree on the point about multi-coloured lines as I feel it is important to show if a musician in the band plays multiple roles. For example, a bassist who sings backup vocals should have a thick blue line to indicate he's a bassist along with a thinner red line inside the blue one to indicate he also sings backup vocals. This would show that the musician has multiple roles in the band which I feel is an important piece of information that should certainly be mentioned in the article. It's mentioned in the band memberlist yes, but it should stay in the timeline also since most people are more likely to look at a timeline due to its graphical nature. As for the multi-instrumentalist colour, I remember seeing the multi-instrumentalist with a grey bar on one timeline. I currently have mixed feelings about merging the two guitar bars into one so I'm neutral there for now, I'll probably post some feedback regarding that later on down the line. --TheUndyingAnchor (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Unusual file deletion discussion

A unique image file deletion discussion is currently being conducted at this page, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion underway at Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song)

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) where we are deciding where to move/keep the article on the Beatles song "Yesterday." As a synopsis: In 2012 the article was moved from "Yesterday (song)" to simply "Yesterday". In June 2014 it was moved from "Yesterday" to "Yesterday (Beatles song)". A new move request has been made to move it back to "Yesterday". Good arguments on both sides of the aisle with compromise plans also suggested. Please join in no matter your opinion so we can better see where consensus stands. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Waterboys' Paul Brown

Hello! I see you may have an interest for The Waterboys' Paul Brown article. The artist requested help on the IRC channel recently to develop this article, and made a copy and paste copyvio draft on the talk page (which has already been taken care of and deleted). As a result of this, I talk to them a bit and got them to post a list of possible sources on the talk page instead. I've copied the WikiProject banners from the band's talk page, and this page will need to have each WikiProject assess their own importance and ratings on the topic. Thank you for your assistance. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Indie Hits: 1980–1989: The Complete U.K. Independent Charts (Singles & Albums)

Does anyone have access to this book? —

Lazell, Barry (1997). Indie Hits: 1980–1989: The Complete U.K. Independent Charts (Singles & Albums). Cherry Red Books. ISBN 978-0-9517206-9-1.

I'd like to get the page number on which it says Black Flag's My War peaked at No. 5 on the UK Indie Chart in 1984. Thanks to anyone who can help! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox band member lists

A mechanism is sorely needed within band infoboxes for distinguishing notable members and lineups from some guy who played triangle on an album in 1987. Also, in cases where bands have limped on long beyond their natural expiry date, almost all the "current members" can be of hardly any interest or importance, and the notable members are buried somewhere in a long list of "former members". Previously it has been suggested -- maybe here, maybe somewhere else -- that the selection of notable members or "classic" or lineups would be subject to differences of opinion. However, even an imperfect or somewhat subjective selection technique would be better than the present system, which is totally unsatisfactory. 86.152.160.16 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tricky topic. The current members HAVE to be there. Session players shouldn't be. Touring members shouldn't be. Two bands that come to mind are Guns N' Roses and Foreigner (band). For GNR, Ole Beich, Tracii Guns and Rob Gardner are so unimportant and were never part of the band we know as Guns N Roses. So I don't think they should be listed. And Foreigner totally forgoes the past member section because it would be ridiculous to list. But it seems wrong not to have Lou Gramm listed there. And Rick Willis, and Dennis Elliott, people that played on all of those big albums. However, where do you stop. There IS already some guidelines set in place: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#current_members — DLManiac (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lastrit.es

Please weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lastrit.es. Cheers --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Alice Cooper's Love It to Death—Featured Article candidate

I've nominated the Love It to Death article as a Featured Article Candidate. Please participate in the article's review here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Rockabilly Fashion

Does fashion enter into rockabilly music? I recently read where rockabilly music, "Rockabilly artists are known for their greaser fashion style and vocal twangs." See [[6]]--Lbhiggin (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Without having any interest in rockabilly, or any specialist knowledge, I would say the answer is "yes": it has been that way for about 60 years. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracklisting question: Album VS CD

I've seen very inconsistent track listings with respect to whether they are listed with Side A / Side B and have two listings 1-5 or listed as the CD track listing with 1-10 for example. Obviously, anything without a vinyl release won't be listed that way. And any Vinyl only listings will be listed A/B, But what to do with the majority of albums released post 1985 that were both, (and anything before that that has been re-released on CD). How do we decide which to use? and is there some sort of guideline. Thanks - DLManiac (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

FARs

I have nominated Rush (band) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jay Chou has also been nominated for Wikipedia:Featured article review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jay Chou/archive1. Please comment on the article or assist in bringing it back to featured article status. DrKiernan 08:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Video vixen

The usage of "Video vixen" is up for discussion, see talk:hip hop model and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 16 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Amber (performer) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Amber (performer) to be moved to Amber (singer). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Amber (singer) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Amber (singer) to be moved to Amber (singer). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Brett Anderson (The Donnas)

There is a request on the Village Pump for somebody to restore the article for Brett Anderson (The Donnas), the lead singer of The Donnas, and perhaps put some more work into it. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Breaking Benjamin

There is an ongoing discussion on infobox genres. Please feel free to join. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Facelift"

The usage and primary topic of facelift is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

System of a Down genre

Discussion is required to meet citations on System of a Down are strong enough to have the group be considered part of the prog rock genre. Discussion is here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Motörhead

I have had to send Motörhead for a featured article review as I don't believe it meets the FA standards anymore and nobody seems to be caretaking it. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Motörhead/archive1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

R U Professional - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the song "R U Professional" for Featured Article consideration.

It's a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerns regarding FA quality

I've just tidied up The Long and Winding Road a little, and removed some unsourced trivia. The article doesn't appear to me as either FA or GA quality in terms of coverage, prose, and MoS requirements - it was promoted in 2006, and reviewed again in 2008, and hasn't been well maintained. I will not have the time to tidy up the article or take my concerns further, however it seems appropriate to raise those concerns rather than merely pass on by, so, per the stage one process at Wikipedia:Featured article review I have left a note on the article talkpage, and am notifying relevant Projects. It is unlikely I will be getting involved further. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Bon Jovi question

Can anyone assist with adding the material that an editor put in in this edit, as I don't see a reason to not put it in, but in the present bio template, it just breaks everything. So, is there a reason to add in the artist template, or should we go with the person one? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User changing "are" to "is" and "were" to "was" in lots of band articles.

User Bryce Carmony seems hell bent on changing "are" to "is" and "were" to "was" in band articles, despite the band names in question being collective nouns and dispite protests from other Wikipedians. There's an ongoing discussion about this that I would urge users to chime in on, here -- User_talk:Bryce_Carmony#Disruptive_editing_over_.22are.22_and_.22is.22. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

David Bowie - The Next Day genres

There's an ongoing a discussion on the genres of The Next Day article on Talk:The Next Day. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Album template?

Hello.

I came across {{Rumours}} by chance, which seems to be a navbox for songs, participating musicians, etc, for Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album.

I checked its categories and couldn't find any similar template.

It seems a little over the top to have a template like this.

What say the project?

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a re-creation of a previous template; found this discussion from 5 Feb 2012.
HandsomeFella (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Anyone interested in working on It's Not Dead Festival? It was a very recently held festival and looks notable. I've saved it from speedy deletion and I believe any other form of deletion, but it needs a lot of work from people familiar with writing articles about festivals. I admit that I don't really have the time to help flesh it out further due to school, so it needs someone who can follow up with it more regularly right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's safe from AfD, but a festival that first occurred last month is probably not going to have much more on it. It looks in a similar state to Brentwood Festival, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

National albums/music charts

Proposal to rename, where appropriate, national music charts articles to territory and format rather than official name, so Swedish music charts rather than Sverigetopplistan, etc. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts#National Albums/Music Charts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rock_music/Archive_5&oldid=1190144425"