Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Adding a new page on WikiProject Music

Hello, can anybody help me add https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Jolyon_Petch to this group?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainamera22 (talk • contribs) 01:26, July 17, 2021 (UTC)

Proposing a non-English language Taskforce

I think it would be beneficial as most articles created are songs in English, I myself have recently been creating some non-English song pages such as Ritmu and Krive karte. The closest WikiProject would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Regional and national music taskforce but that is more for music genres as opposed to songs or Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin music but they are quite strict on what is considered e.g. a song described as reggaeton can only be listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin music/Reggaeton if it is is in Spanish or Portuguese. It might be better to also exclude Latin music from the project to avoid duplication. There would be also have to be a guideline on what songs are listed in this taskforce as many songs are in English and another language. (I initially proposed this on the talk page of WikiProject Songs but decided to move it here.) Sahaib (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably described the purpose of the proposed taskforce, i.e. what would the tasks be and why is no one else doing them? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Gandt: It would probably be about creating more articles and improving existing ones. This can be done by looking at music charts in different countries or song articles on wikipedias in different languages. For example over a billion people speak Chinese, yet there is very few articles in Category:Songs in Chinese. There are people creating these kinds of pages usually because of Eurovision or K-pop, but I suppose the reason why they are not created as often is because it takes longer to translate sources and less people are interested in creating songs that they may have never heard of before. Sahaib (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be frank because I have to be right now; there will always be more coverage of subjects easily accessible to an English-speaking audience on English Wikipedia, for two main reasons: 1) because the volunteers are working in English, sure, but also the uncomfortable truth, 2) because people are not as open minded and adventurous as those who are might like them to be. There's wonderful music being created and released all over the world right now, in practically every living language, and probably a few dead ones, and yet turn on the English TV or radio and what will you hear? Exactly. Point #2 is really the problem, but it's kinda depressing so let's think more about point #1; creating, expanding or even just maintaining articles about subjects that have the majority of their interest outside an English-speaking audience is significantly more work (I know from experience working on Gacharic Spin (Japanese rock band) and "The Partisan" (involved some French, German and Russian research and sources)). I think you'll find volunteers do these things because they are in some way personally interested, and a taskforce isn't going to encourage them at all. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the biggest hurdle is, as you indicate you understand, working in multiple languages; that's not a music article problem; that's a Wikipedia problem, probably best solved by first getting the subject covered in its native language by native speakers (and don't discount the importance of cultural understanding) where possible, then working to import it as a translation (see WikiProject Intertranswiki), but might I suggest, rather than proposing anything like a taskforce, first clearly defining the problem somewhere, then ask around for interested users to share their thoughts with an aim to maybe get some momentum going in the rough direction of a possible concerted effort? Even if a small working group and some decent essays were all that came of it, that might prove substantially more productive than a dead taskforce. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I technically have no objection, but I'd wait and see if you get much interest before sinking too much work into setting it up. It can be difficult to find editors to maintain task forces. Task forces themselves don't necessarily create interest in a topic, they just create an environment where people can collaborate on it together. Many don't really go anywhere because there's no one interested, willing, and able to do the work. Honestly, it can be difficult to even have well-functioning WP:Wikiprojects, which have much broader appeal. WP:ALBUMS and WP:VG are generally pretty active, but most others are relatively quiet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User changing release dates en masse using OR justification

Heads up: User:Ray1983a (contribs) is applying the WP:OR that release dates must be a Monday (e.g. these edits with summaries: After the War (Gary Moore album) "release date must be on Monday" and Red (King Crimson album) "...6 Oct 74 was a Sunday, which makes it an impossible release date"; both reverted), and changing release dates in many articles even when good cited sources in use disagree. I attempted a nice talk about it yesterday, but was ignored, so have warned today. More eyes on if you have some time please (I am not well). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Tuesday the time records released in the physical era anyhow? Mach61 01:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not in Britain. The default release date changed during the 1980s from Fridays to Mondays in the UK. This was a gradual proces, as not all recordlabels made the change at the same time. (further examples and explanation on my Talk page). It was only in recent years that the change went back to Fridays as Global release day was introduced.

Tuesday became the standardized release date in the US, from 1989 onwards. Before that, albums in the US could be released on any given weekday, but not in the weekend. That didn't happen.

Therefor, if a online magazine reports an album was released on a Saturday or a Sunday, in the case of King Crimson, it is necessarily an error on their part. Ray1983a (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ray1983a but you can't just say it's "necessarily" wrong without having reliable sources that back up that information. As you've been told, your edit is based on original research, and that means that the edit is wrong regardless of what personal knowledge you have that you claim supports it. This is just how Wikipedia works, and the rules won't be bent for you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it's slightly Original research, but it's no wild guess. Ofcourse I use sources when available, no question. But we also have a policy of 'Context Matters', and be critical of sources. citogenesis can be a cause for wrong release dates. If an album is claimed to have been released on a Sunday, Christmas- or New years' Day, we can easily discard that, because we know from a ton of evidence that that is not how the Record industry works Ray1983a (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ray1983a Crazier things happen than off-scheduled releases (The Black Album, for example, released on Friday when Tuesday was standard). A source's date isn't necessarily wrong. Mach61 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--unless a reliable source lists an exact release date, treat this as the trivia that it is and just use the year. Enough of this "albums were released on Monday and the Records Wow! print schedule was a week ahead, aside from the double issues in the summers of 1982 and 1983, and don't forget the publishers' strike in 1979 and..." Caro7200 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ray1983a: your "slightly Original research" comment is an indication of the problem; this isn't a discussion; there is a Wikipedia policy you may or may not have read that outlines exactly what is regarded as original research and that it is not acceptable. All statements must be verifiable and accompanied by the reliable sources from which the summary of that information is derived. There is no "slightly [, but...]"; policies allow slight leeway for simple maths and other trivial reasoning where the results are not synthesis or in direct disagreement with reliable sources without expanded explanation and further sources, but stating that the release date of a record is different than the date stated by reliable sources, because you say so, is absolutely not acceptable. All this is clearly outlined in the policies and guidelines and should not need to be constantly repeated; either abide by the established policies or you will be blocked from editing. If you want to change the policies, you could try presenting your case at the village pump.

P.S. thank you to our fellow editors for their input <3 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but typically these erroneuos dates are given without any source to begin with. Somebody just put it there, and nobody questioned it. I guarentee you that this '6 Oct 74' date for King Crimson is a wiki-original. It came out of nowhere, but then was picked up by others online from wikipedia Ray1983a (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a date is unsourced then you can tag it with {{cn}} or look for a source yourself, and if you can't find it yourself then remove it. If someone else added it based on their own OR then they were also breaking the rules, but that doesn't justify you doing the same. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, clear Ray1983a (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ray1983a: I'm pleased you appear to see the way forward. Will you be putting right all the original research you've already published? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ray1983a please answer my question. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been scanning through my contributions list, but almost everything is sourced. I hardly used any original research to begin with Ray1983a (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Oricon charts

Hello everyone,

I just want to ask if someone of you have access to the Oricon chart rankings to have a view on the Single Charts as Oricon only displays the first 50 positions for free. I want to know if Elfensjón has charted with their single "Umbra" (they are not in the top 50. Can someone with access help me out? Thank you. --Goroth (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of totals in Template:Infobox awards list

Hello! We would appreciate your input at this discussion concerning whether totals (|wins=, |nominations=, and |honours=) should be removed from {{infobox awards list}}. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Luxury

I don't know what's going on with Dubious Luxury. It's been unsourced and hasn't even had a tracklist since 2011. I only get 130 hits for it and the Amazon page for it gives me a 404 (I've never seen Amazon give me a 404 before). Anyone better versed in this genre of music able to shed some light on this one? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly exists, and is by a notable artist (he's the frontman of Soul Coughing), but I see no reason why this should be regarded as remotely notable. I will redirect it to the artist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the reliability of numetalagenda.com and Holiday Kirk

There is a discussion about the reliability of numetalagenda.com on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, feedback from anyone with subject area knowledge would be appreciated. See WP:RSN#numetalagenda.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Feli Ferraro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feli Ferraro 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/Feli Ferraro (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 until the discussion has finished.

Previous AfD ended in soft deletion so the article is ineligible for another, and I know nobody likes a no consensus close. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at One Direction

There is currently an RfC at Talk:One_Direction#RfC:_Band_status_and_members_in_the_infobox, about whether the band should be described in the past tense. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for guidance on creating an article

I’m a professional bluegrass musician with a body of work that includes a forthcoming album release (featuring several notable musicians who have extant articles), other collaborations with established artists, and media coverage in various outlets. I believe I meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and would like to request the creation of a Wikipedia page to document my career thus far. I know everyone has a hundred things on their to-do lists, but any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated (do I just keep on truckin' until I establish more and more notability?). Here are some reliable sources that cover my work:

https://bluegrasstoday.com/rudy-lyle-the-unsung-hero-of-the-five-string-banjo-interview-with-the-author/

https://americana-uk.com/book-review-max-wareham-rudy-lyle-the-unsung-hero-of-the-five-string-banjo

https://bluegrasstoday.com/peter-rowan-talks-calling-you-from-my-mountain-his-new-bluegrass-record/

https://www.discogs.com/artist/10129009-Max-Wareham

Thank you for any help!

Sincerely, Max Wareham Maxwareham (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of Heaven notability

I am not sure about the quality of the cited sources other than that MetalOnSlaught seems to be closer to a blog. IndieVisionMusic or whatever it is, I'm not sure. Could you people comment ont he sources used in that article and if this band that started in 2017 could be notable before I send it to AfD? Graywalls (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film Music Reporter

I have started a discussion about the reliability of this website, which is widely used in articles that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter. All thoughts are welcome. My hope is to come to a definitive consensus on the matter which can be recorded at WP:RS/PS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of New York Music Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New York Music Awards 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/New York Music Awards 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mach61 04:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of "Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs/Albums of All Time" Categories

I have proposed the creation of two categories, one for Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and one for Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. I was told that, given the scope of this endeavor (given that there are 600+ articles that would fall into each category), I should post here to discuss it further. (I'll also link to the Articles for Creation/Categories page here so you can see the discussion there as well – specifically linking my requests here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories#Category request: Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time inclusions)

One of the editors on the AfC page pointed out that it was surprising that there was not already a category for RS's 500 Albums/Songs. I agreed with them, but it also made me wonder if there is a specific reason why there are no equivalent categories for these albums and songs already; has this been an idea that was rejected in the past? If not, and if there is no pushback against the creation of these categories, I would love to see it happen and get some help with page categorization! :)

BTW, if anyone does have any issue with this, I am also open to hearing reasons why this may not be an appropriate category to pursue creating. Afddiary (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-project-member comment) As a person who commented on the AfC/C page, I do endorse the idea of this category if there is no opposition. I am also ready in assisting of adding the categories using AWB if the idea is accepted. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel strongly either way, but it feels like there could be a valid argument that making a websites top list isn't really a WP:DEFINING characteristic... Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't have a particularly strong opinion, and was leaning towards accepting the request originally. However, I can't find other examples of similar categories, which makes me question whether it is WP:DEFINING enough. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is a defining characteristic, whether we should make categories for other (popular) best of all time lists. And if we shouldn't, why should it only be Rolling Stone? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with other "best of all time lists" having categories. In fact, if categories are created for Rolling Stone's lists, I'd argue it would be appropriate to create categories for the others as well. I understand there are a few similar lists of "greatest" songs and albums, including (but definitely not limited to):

NME's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die
1,000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die
The Pitchfork 500
(VH1 has a list of 100 greatest hard rock songs of all time (mentioned on the pages of each song, including its #1 entry "Welcome to the Jungle", but their list does not have a Wikipedia page.)

The reason I was surprised about the lack of categorization for the RS lists is because of how much attention RS's lists receive in the media (well, at least western media, from my perspective). However, despite the fact that I have long been aware of several other lists, the comparative amount of press and attention I see RS's lists receiving definitely eclipses what I see the other lists receiving. I don't really see the other lists as part of a cultural conversation around musical reception in the same way, although to be fair, that could be because RS repeatedly updates their lists, automatically forcing them to remain a part of musical conversations as each update gets released every few years. (I know the 1001 Albums list technically receives occasional updates as well, but I don't see its updates getting the same amount of press.)

I can also understand the argument that inclusion on the list isn't really a defining characteristic of each song (per Wikipedia:Defining). I don't know if RS's lists' level of notoriety works in favor of creating categories for them, but I did figure I'd mention it; however, looking over WP:DEFINING again, I'm wondering if it might be more appropriate to create an article containing a full list of each edition, instead of categories. As it stands, neither RS 500GOAT article contains a full list; the "Songs" article contains the top 10, and the "Albums" article contains no lists at all, although it contains statistics.

For whatever it is worth, the only place on Wikipedia where I've found a list has been the WikiProject dedicated to ensuring each of RS's 500 greatest songs has GA/FA status (as well as an equivalent WikiProject list for the 500 greatest albums – and I feel it is worth mentioning that each list only contains the most recently updated edition of each list, rather than the lists' original 2003/2004/2010/2012 iterations). Afddiary (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to make sure creating an article with the full list is not a copyright violation. I vaguely remember that it may be, but I could be wrong. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm frequently reminding people of this. We should not be replicating other websites lists verbatim like that. If people want to read a Rolling Stone list, they should be going to their website, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Sam Sailor has created the categories Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and Category:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. I was hoping to come to a consensus here first, but I suppose the next step would be to categorize all relevant pages unless there are any objections. We'll need to compile a list, check to ensure each page is the correct topic, and likely do an AWB/JWB run. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a risky move. Hopefully it doesn't get deleted after dumping a ton of work into it. I've seen it happen countless times with the video game content area... Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been having a difficult time deciding how I feel about this. On one hand, probably no publication's lists should be considered defining, and we don't really need to collect that information because it can already be found published by that publication. But on the other hand, this list could be the exception. It is Rolling Stone after all, probably the biggest music publication in the world, and I guarantee there's plenty enough coverage of these lists out there to speak to its value above any other. For safety, I would probably lean toward non-defining anyway, but it feels like it's right on the edge.

However, it's also worth discussing the value of the category in terms of the information this list can provide. I'm not sure it's worth it just to load a category with >500 items (because different albums have been added to/removed from later lists so the grand total is over 500) without any further explanation. Were they on the first list, but later removed? How highly did they rank? A category can't tell us any of that info, but I'm sure the prose in these albums'/songs' articles already do, and I think that info is far more important than just blankly saying this thing appeared on this list at some point in history without any further context. What all is to be learned from that? Ends up just a collection of names for collection's sake methinks. For that reason, I wouldn't make the categories. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject for History of Music?

I searched the directories for wikiprojects: music and found nothing related to history of music. I also searched in the directories for History. If such a project does not exist, should we not create one? Sneakers McSnuggles (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having WikiProjects focused on different parts of music history (e.g., ones for opera, American music, drum corps, etc.) is a better way to do it than something broad like all of music history. Unfortunately, outside of maybe four large ones, most music WikiProjects are underutilized as it is, so creating an entirely new one to divvy attention may not be the greatest strategy. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sneakers McSnuggles I did some research, and it appears that "History of <topic>" WikiProjects have a poor track record of success. WP:WikiProject History of science is still active, but other such projects are usually merged into the "parent topic" (e.g. History of Greece) or become inactive with time (e.g. History of Biology, History of Canada). Mach61 13:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As featured artist vs. Guest appearances

In an artist's discography, what is the difference between the "as featured artist" section and the "guest appearances" section? (example) Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The former are cases where the artist is credited as "featured"; the latter are cases where they appear and are credited but aren't "featured". It's generally as simple as whether that word appears. Some of the entries in Tyler's guest appearances section may have been misplaced (or their respective articles have mislabeled him as a featured artist) and could use a check. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: Two things:

1. What are we basing that off of? Genius? Youtube? Spotify? Apple Music? Because some websites say "featured" and others don't.

2. What about an artist appearing for one song on an album that's not theirs, but the song is completely made by them. For example: Waiting in Vain - Daniel Caesar was made for the Bob Marley: One Love movie soundtrack but the song is his.

Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ideally, it should be based off the official track listing for the album, whether that is printed on a CD liner or record sleeve or found on a streamer like Spotify. Regardless, the source for this information will always be the liner notes, as stated at TRACKLIST and PERSONNEL.

2. In the case of various artist compilation albums such as Bob Marley: One Love (Music Inspired by the Film), we use a column for recording artists in the track list. If it was released as a single then it will be listed as such on an artist's discography page (e.g. "I Don't Wanna Live Forever" appears in Zayn Malik discography#Singles); if not, guest appearances would be the right spot (e.g. multiple soundtrack cuts appear in Kacey Musgraves discography#Other appearances). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it thanks a lot Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: I believe the reason why the Tyler page is mixed up because the "as featured artist" says "singles" and "guest appearances" says "non-singles". Should we remove those two terms and just keep it as featured and guest because it doen't make much sense otherwise. Mwiqdoh (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, that's exactly how it should be. My mistake. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Blackhawk (band)

In Blackhawk (band), Randy Threet was formerly a "real" member but is now credited solely as a member of the backing band. Since he's not a former member in the sense that he still performs with them, should he be listed as a current member in the infobox but with a footnote, as is the case now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Indie Vision Music unreliable?

Per Graywalls (talk · contribs) suggestion at the discussion, I'm soliciting input from this WikiProject. Is Indie Vision Music an unreliable source? Discussion is here at RS/N.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty standard mid-level independent review site for a long time, though it never got formally evaluated at RSALBUMS. I've added it to pages in the past and am unaware of any good reasons not to treat it as generally reliable. Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greywalls argument is that it is akin to the HuffPo or Forbes contributors where there isn't editorial oversight in a meaningful way.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of centralizing the discussion, could you comment at the RS/N discussion rather than here, Chubbles?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't exactly say for certain, but what would help is if you could explain their editorial policy with citations directly supporting it. Graywalls (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I will note that this isn't really possible with a lot of even reputable music sources. I should search and see if they've ever issued corrections, that's a good way to tell if a source is reliable. I did email IVM and I'm waiting to hear back. Whether they will respond, I don't know. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: [1], [2], [3], [4].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability and it's more like bands and blogs cheering and praising each other. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this question up years ago (I believe regarding Doug Van Pelt of HM), the founder/publisher of a source can also be an author for it. I'll see if I can find that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the discussion. I searched for "Doug Van Pelt" and "John DiBiase" (of Jesus Freak Hideout, which I also searched for) in several different talk pages and noticeboards. If I didn't name drop them, which seems to be the case, then I don't think I'll ever find the discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"like bands and blogs cheering and praising each other." - that's not truly accurate, as the site does hand out negative reviews. It's not a simply promotional site.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update to WP:BAND to not override WP:GNG

Per this discussion, I am formally proposing an update to WP:BAND, which can be viewed here. The proposal can be voted on here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught

I've started a discussion at WP:RS/N regarding these sources and if they are reliable. Input at that discussion would be appreciated, please.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timbuk 3

Timbuk 3 needs a major revamp and cleanup.

The band is defunct, so per fair use we could probably put an image in.
I think all the band members except Pat MacDonald should be merged/redirected, as none seem to be independently notable and one has had a two sentence stub since 2006.
No info on what the band members are up to now?

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page edit assist

Hey! Created a page on Imagine Dragons song Take Me To The Beach. It’s my first page, and I would love for it to be approved. If someone could please help edit it to make it better/more likely to be approved, that would be much appreciated…

Draft:Take Me To The Beach (Imagine Dragons song)ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy review of a draft?

Hey! Would someone mind checking out this draft?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Taylon_Hope (attached link as well)

Thank you! Palmetto252 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]