Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Trumpeters or Trumpet players?

Currently we use both descriptions in category names; we ought only to use one for consistency. I've suggested on the WP:MUSCAT talk page here that we stick to "trumpeters" - further input welcome. Bencherlite 09:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Text for Belshazzar's Feast by William Walton: "The trumpeters and pipers were silent" supports the suggestion of "trumpeters" although this feels a little outdated to me. My sense is that "trumpet players" is a more modern usage, but I may be wrong as I have no evidence for this. --Steve James 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Opinion... Trumpeter: one who trumpets. Trumpet player: one who plays a trumpet. What would you rather be known for - trumpeting or playing a trumpet? -Freekee 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is now at WP:CFD here. Bencherlite Talk 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox solo

Template:Infobox solo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --PEJL 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of "leaked dates"

I was wondering about the actual relevance of leaked dates, that is the information about an album (or any other media) being leaked onto the internet. I have removed information like this because I personally don't think it has anything useful in it, other than informating people that they can download the copy illegaly instead of buying it. But, it has happened that people keep adding the information back in (both IP's and by regular users), so what is right and what is wrong? Need an answer I can refer to in future edits. As an example, please see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Apostasy&oldid=144506363 (Third piece: "The entire album was leaked on May 31, 2007.") Grinder0-0 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree (in most cases), but I think this should be moved to WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 00:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Grinder0-0 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ernies -- notable or not ?

I'm not entirely certain that The Ernies meets WP:MUSIC. I want to work on and expand the article, but I want to make sure it's worth cleaning up and expanding before I put any more work into it.

They have a former member that was also in Jimmie's Chicken Shack at one point, but until I can verify it by a reliable third party source (I only know it to be true because I met him and witnessed him playing with the band for a while), I can't use that for WP:MUSIC#C2. I assumed WP:MUSIC#C1 would apply, but when I made a good-faith effort over the course of a week to get some good sources, I couldn't find any that could be considered non-trivial & reliable. Since they only had a single album release on a major record label, and their previous indie lable isn't notable enough, they fail WP:MUSIC#C5.

This leaves us with WP:MUSIC#C10, which seems to be a bit of a grey area, because they haven't been a major TV theme or anything -- although their music has been in lots of television commercials, a movie, and a video game. This may have potential for WP:IGNORE, but I worry that I only feel that way because I'm a fan -- and thus if I try to invoke WP:IGNORE on my own, I'd be violating WP:NPOV in making that decision.

These leaves us only with WP:MUSIC#C7, which again I know to be true, but the only sources I could cite that would show this never come outright and say "this is one of the most notable bands in this area". The only possible source I could think of to use to show meeting this criteria is Punchline, a local weekly "scenester" paper that is now-defunct, and has no archives online. Actually, come to think of it, I'm almost positive there's been an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, but as it doesn't seem to have older articles archived online either, the only way I could get any of that info would be to drive to Richmond and hope to find archives in the local library.

Summary

In short, it appears that The Ernies clearly fail all notability guidelines currently, unless one of the following occurs:

  1. Some unknown person who may or may not exist happens to dig up some old copies of Punchline and/or RTD and cites info to meet WP:MUSIC#C7 (not particularly likely, but possible given WP:There is no deadline)
  2. Derrick Dorsey (formerly of Jimmie's Chicken Shack gives an interview somewhere that mentions he used to be in The Ernies
  3. Group concensus decides that the BASEketball Soundtrack (Mojo Records, contains a track by The Ernies & Meson Ray (Mojo Records, full album) count for WP:MUSIC#C5
  4. Group consensus decides that the tv commercials, being played in the background during a scene in BASEketball, and having a video on Tony Hawk's Pro Skater is good enough for WP:MUSIC#C10

All thoughts welcome, and I'm not going to fight for one position or another, but I would like to see enough comments so that something resembling a consensus could be assumed -- at which point I would act on it.

Thanks in advance!!! --Spazure 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first, please please please replace the obsolete and deprecated {{Infobox Band}} with {{Infobox musical artist}}. Second, this is really a question for WT:MUSIC more than for this project. And third, to (finally) address your question, I think there's a decent case for C10. If they'd only appeared in one media item, then it might be better to merge with that item, but they've appeared in multiple, so I think a separate article may be justified. Note that I have no way of knowing if this argument would prevail at AfD, but I think it's got a decent chance. It is a bit of a borderline case, but articles with as many references as this one has are rarely deleted. You might want to use their AMG entry to fill in a couple of the requested cites. Xtifr tälk 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I was actually planning on basically taking the existing sources, along with a list of sources I've put together, and re-doing pretty much the entire article, including the infobox. I just didn't want to put too much time into it if the community decides that it'd be better off deleted. I may also take it over to WP:MUSIC, I just came here at the suggestion of a helper on my talk page.Spazure 05:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of blues musicians by genre

I am requesting input from other Wikipedians on the proposed deletion of the lists below. I believe I am the target of someone. That is all I can come up with in this regard. These lists seem so straightforward that I can't imagine who would think that deleting them would be a good idea. Also, there is a dangerous discussion being had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians#List of Folk-blues musicians on this topic, and if allowed to pass this could become par for the course for deletionist types. (Mind meal 04:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

It's not the most useful list I've seen, and I'm not surprised that someone tried to delete it, but Speedy? WTF? If you don't get a response from the guy in a day or two, someone should remove the tags. -Freekee 04:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now added reference information to each list, to alleviate arguments on original research. (Mind meal 04:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

Bleeding Through article

Hi there!

I've been trying to make this a Good Article but it already failed twice, now the main problems are the lead section and the reviewer also thinks that the article is biased in favor of the band's actions. I don't know what else to do, how to fix these problems, so I ask for somebody's help, please. It is really not that far from GA now. Thanks in advance. Gocsa 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspected series of hoax articles

May be related to, and/or created by the editors behind Aero (band) [1]. I can't find any online (allmusic.com and google) info (that's not from Wikipedia&mirrors) on Four Sick Cats, Shovel (band), Edward Royster, Nate Sidek, Etan (band), A Step from Nowhere, Blowfex, or anything else that I've checked from this user's contribs. Hardly seems consistent with all the claims of the related music being on Billboard charts. Unless someone from this project with off-line references can validate any of it, or other refs can be provided, I think the whole series should be deleted by whatever means necessary. Also a close look at the contribs of the main editors of Template:Aero (User:VinTheMetalhed(seems OK), User:RLZURWRLD14, and User:Stu McCourt(seems OK)) seems warranted--misleading edit summaries generally are not a good sign. Probably also a good idea to carefully review all these articles edit histories to see if other 'pranksters' are involved. Seattlenow 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the 25 related articles, which I've stuck {unreferenced} tags on:

Danny Chauldwell, Backwoods Warriors, Lost Relics of the Golden Age, Michael Foley (musician), Happy Place, Death Culture, Rob DeGrasse, Terrestrials (album), Mad World Lives, Backwoods Warriors (album), Outlaw Anthems and Black Market Mantras, Sam Grendel, Blowfex, Paul Hedgersman, Davis Connelley, Broken Times, Etan (album), Etan (band), Frayed State of Mind, Nate Sidek, The World Coming Down: Definitive Four Sick Cats, What We Are, Edward Royster, Four Sick Cats, Shovel (band).

That's a lot of unreferenced, and, as many as I've checked, unverifiable, content going back to at least last November.[2] Seattlenow 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I spot-checked a handful, and came up with nothing. Note that anyone who has appeared on Billboard charts in the last several decades should be searchable on http://www.billboard.com and will definitely be listed on All music guide. I'd say you have a strong case. I wouldn't hesitate to go to WP:AFD if I were you, though I'd probably break things up into sets (i.e. Four Sick Cats with its members and albums all in one nomination). That should maximize the survival chances of any that happen to not be hoaxes, assuming there are any. Xtifr tälk 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Some Guidance

Hello, I notice that my article on Stephen Cohn has received the suport of the Wiki Project Musicians and has also recevied a rating of Start Class. Does this mean that the tag on the article can now be removed? If so, I would appreciate knowing how to facilitate this.

I have responded to many suggestions that have been made by adding both external and internal links and answering questions that have arisen. I believe that the aritcle is factual, verifyable, quite complete and is not libelous. If something more needs to be added, can someone please make a suggestion? Thank you.Stephen 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject or taskforce?

User:No-Bullet and I want to create some sort of group to focus more attention on articles relating to AC/DC. We done some research on Wikiprojects in general, and we're starting to feel like maybe a taskforce might be a better option. I had noticed, however, that bands tend to have Wikiprojects built around them, as is the case with Aerosmith and The Beatles, etc. So which do you guys think would be a better option? ĤĶ51→Łalk 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From the description you linked to a task force indeed sounds like a better option, in that it would allow you to focus more on the articles. --PEJL 09:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

American Idol contestant Sanjaya Malakar

I'm interested in some input for the Wiki entry on this 2007 American Idol contestant, whose entry is apparently supported by WikiProject Musicians. Much of the article seems to have been written by one user, who has included some of the most God-awful rubbish about this singer's advance through the contest.

I've gone through the article, trimmed out the most egregious examples of gush and nonsense, only to have my edits reverted wholesale and tagged "vandalism". I responded by adding a tag labelling the article as fancruft but later decided to revert, fully explaining my edits. Unfortunately an editwar seems to have ensued. Attempts to reason with this editor have finally brought a two-line response, saying my perceptions are flawed.

The discussion on the article, (rather one-sided, since this individual chooses not to discuss) is on the talk page.

The article has been rated B-class; I'm rather hoping that someone in the Project might show an interest and contribute to improving it. Grimhim 10:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Guitarist}} up for deletion

As of now, the last transclusion of this depreciated template has been eliminated and replaced with the universal template {{Infobox musical artist}} so I nominated it for deletion. Please provide your comments on:

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 19#Template:Infobox Guitarist.

Thank you. --Kudret abi 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR

AC/DC has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Review of Charles Ives

Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Mrprada911 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Connie Francis

Although I'm not huge fan of citing every little fact, the article on Connie Francis is missing a good number of necessary citations for claims that are made. There are a few statements that could be WP:BLP violations if left in. However I'm not very familiar with the subject, so if someone else with better knowledge (and sources) can jump in, that would be great. 23skidoo 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox band}} up for deletion

At long last, all mainspace transclusions of the deprecated template {{Infobox band}} have been converted to the Wikiproject's {{Infobox musical artist}}. The former template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment in the discussion at:

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 27#Template:Infobox Band

Thank you. -- Xtifr tälk 09:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

2 info boxes in one article

For small articles on a musician would one include an additional album info box for an album described as is currently at Bob French? My inclination would be to make a separate article for the album. Thought I'd bring it here before I did that. - Steve3849 talk 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have any strict rules about it, but personally, I'd be inclined to make the album article separate if it's notable enough (which it looks like it is in this case). Musician articles should all have {{Infobox musical artist}} for sure. I don't think there's anything wrong with having two infoboxes on a single article, but I think it's something that should only happen under really unusual circumstances. It's definitely something I would try to avoid in general. You might also check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, since their infobox is also involved here. Xtifr tälk 09:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:ALBUM#Article body says: "Articles on albums should normally be about only one album". The discussion that led to that wording is here. --PEJL 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

At the Throne of Judgment

Would anyone know what to do with At the Throne of Judgment. They seem notable however the article needs cleanup and sources. I was about to afd this for a second time but decided to take it to a wikiproject first. -WarthogDemon 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're thinking of keeping based on the single album they've released, that's insufficient to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music), which asks for at least two albums on a major or "one of the more important indie labels". On the other hand, if you can find sufficient independent, reliable sources, that trumps all other criteria. Xtifr tälk 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just unsure. I really don't mind either way; I was just unsure as what to do with it. Nevertheless, I will take this to AfD. From what you tell me, probably not a keeper but who knows? I know some bands on here that barely (just hanging-on-a-freaking-thread barely) meet the guidelines. Thanks for the input. -Warthog Demon 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR of Dmitri Shostakovich

Dmitri Shostakovich has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Eusebeus 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for checking The Four Horsemen

I've added The Four Horsemen (band) to the musicians project. They were a very small band with only a tiny impact on the music scene in general, but are fondly remembered by the few fans they had, especially as they were cut short due to a lot of bad luck and deaths. As such I wanted to clean up thier page as a tribute of sorts. To cut to the chase, I'm pretty new to editing wikipedia and this is my first time adding this much info to a page and in particular adding project links or uploading images. I'd appreciate if someone could give the page a once over to ensure I've left things in a decent state. The band is of very low importance and citations are pretty much impossible to come by, so it is never going to be a high quality wiki article. But I'd like to make sure the structure is sound so that what is there will stand up. Thanks. --ThePaintedOne 10:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Backlog

There's quite a long backlog currently at the Good Article nomination page, and I thought some of you might be able to help out. There's a pretty long list of musician and band-related articles seeking GA review, so if someone that's familiar with the area could help out and review an article or two, that would be appreciated!

Also, if you're not as familiar with the GA process, it might help to review the Good Article criteria. If you're not too sure if the article meets all the criteria, but probably meets some of them, you can do a partial review, and then request a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer as well.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assistance - Edit War on Kathleen Battle Entry

Is there someone involved in this portion of the Bio Project, preferably and Admin, who could assist in a disagreement that has been brewing over some time with respect to the entry on opera singer Kathleen Battle and her highly publicized firing from the Metropolitan Opera? The background on this dispute is covered on the discussion page [3] and has been going on for a year. In short, certain editors believe that it is sufficient to reflect NPOV to provide -- with citation -- the statement by the Metropolitan Opera made at the time of her firing and, on the other hand, the statement issued by Ms. Battle in response to the firing. Other editors have maintained that this is not sufficiently NPOV, and have added statements -- some of which lack supporting citations -- regarding what others (such as the Met's current management, some 14 years later, say they "would have done" if they had been in charge in 1994). I for one think that such edits are actually inconsistent with NPOV and are an attempt to skew the discussion of the firing and characterize it as unwarranted. Since the edits have gone back and forth 3 times now it is I guess becoming an "edit war" of sorts and the assistance of a neutral party within the Bio Project would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. NickInBigD (Hey!) 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The current nproject navbox at Template:Navbox musical artist is a bit buggy with the width changes when clicking on the Show/Hide in the title and there isn't an options for any subheadings, having to manually include style tags when creating them, e.g. 

<div style="background:lightgray">'''Discography'''</div>

So I went and created a new navbox called Template:Navbox music which can handle subheadings. (See the examples on the template page for details.) However, it has been mentioned by PEJL that I should discuss it here and possibly even change the original template instead. WOSlinker 13:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, specifically because we recommend using Template:Navbox musical artist at WP:MUSICIAN#Navboxes. --PEJL 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The current current recommended one doesn't seem to be getting used for many new templates. See some of the following which were created recently: Template:Alison Moyet, Template:Tim Buckley, Template:Mastodon, Template:4Him, Template:Siouxsie. -- WOSlinker 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you went and created a new template instead of proposing modifications to the existing template. I also don't understand why you started changing all the templates en masse without any sort of discussion or consensus. I also don't see how the templates mentioned above are relevant to this discussion. If they're already not using Template:Navbox musical artist, what would have made them any more likely to have used Template:Navbox music? --  Tabanger  20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I created Template:Navbox musical artist a while ago and I know how buggy it is, I just can't edit it since it got fully protected and I'm not an admin. The new Template:Navbox music is a much better version, using Template:Navbox as a core so there would be groups. I think that we need to make Template:Navbox music the new template for music navboxes and then redir Template:Navbox musical artist to it or just delete it after all the templates have been converted. —TigerK 69 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If no one disagrees that the new navbox is better than the old navbox, we shouId use the new navbox. But if the template is intended to be used solely for musical artists, Template:Navbox musical artist seems like a better name for the template, and is also consistent with Template:Infobox musical artist. Could WOSlinker focus his navbox conversion efforts on converting Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox music, so that we can then rename Template:Infobox music to Template:Infobox musical artist after all templates have been converted. We should also update WP:MUSICIAN#Navboxes. --PEJL 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If these changes are agreed to be good, then they should be incorporated into the existing template, rather than creating a new template. The "new" name is too broad, with "music" incorporating much more than just musical artists/groups, which is what the template is intended for. Regarding the changes though, does anyone like the Navbox core? To me, it looks ugly, with so much wasted whitespace along the left side for the different categories (or groups, I guess they're called?). --  Tabanger  22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I chose the name Template:Navbox musical artist to make it consistent with Template:Infobox musical artist. But now I think we should just move Template:Navbox music and Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Navbox musician and Template:Infobox musician since they're both used for artists AND bands and to make it consistent with the name of the project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. —TigerK 69 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is a band not a musical artist? If not, then I agree about moving the navbox and infobox. --PEJL 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to have the navbox template name consistent with the infobox template name, i.e. use "musical artist" in both cases. I think that's a better idea (and less confusing to users) than compatibility with the project name, since most users of the template(s) are probably only vaguely aware of the project. But that's just a gut-feeling, not a firm conviction. I will say that the last navbox template was accepted mostly because it was the best anyone had to offer at the time. Improved versions are definitely welcome. But if the new one could be backwards compatible, so we wouldn't have to do a mass-replacement like we recently did with infobox band, that would be nice. Xtifr tälk 05:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So it seems like everyone agrees on Template:Navbox musical artist and Template:Infobox musical artist. Now we need to convert the remaining templates to Template:Navbox music format and we need an admin to merge Template:Navbox music into Template:Navbox musical artist. —TigerK 69 08:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the naming, but as mentioned above and below, I have issues with the design.  Tabanger  21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If we agree on using "... musical artist" for the navbox and infobox, how about renaming the project to match these? And while we're at it, we may want to capitalize the "m", for consistency with the project and other music infoboxes (such as Infobox Album). How about:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical artists
  • Template:Infobox Musical artist
  • Template:Navbox Musical artist
Alternatively:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians (current name)
  • Template:Infobox Musician
  • Template:Navbox Musician
--PEJL 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From above: "Regarding the changes though, does anyone like the Navbox core? To me, it looks ugly, with so much wasted whitespace along the left side for the different categories (or groups, I guess they're called?)."

I'm not concerned with all of the issues here but would like to lobby for at least the option of listing the categories/groups along the top instead of down the left. It's not just a matter of ugly but unneccesarily enlarges already large templates. I'm referring specifically to Template:Jimmy Buffett which I would like to look a bit more like it did before conversion. I could revert it but like some of the other aspects of using the navboxes. — AjaxSmack 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Look at all that wasteful whitespace for "Discography"  Tabanger  21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Jimmy Buffett wasn't completely converted to the latest format. Now I've updated it. It's much cleaner without the subgroups. "Discography" should be under "Related articles" like in the examples. —TigerK 69 23:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "cleaner" but it's still inferior to what it originally looked like. The listings tend to blur together and the various types of albums are undifferentiated from non-audio sections. Cf. Template:Smashing Pumpkins, a nice looking infobox that would be impossible with the current Template:Navbox musical artist. — AjaxSmack 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but that's one massive navbox. —TigerK 69 00:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't think it was possible, but it looks even worse now. Look at all the tremendous amount of wasted space around "Studio albums" --  Tabanger  07:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I got a little creative and fixed it a bit but the music navboxes are still rather inflexible and cannot generate some of the templates that look quite good, like Template:Smashing Pumpkins. — AjaxSmack 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversion

OK, there are obviously some disagreements on naming and formatting. Can we please STOP converting everything until we come to some kind of consensus on these issues?! We need to come to some agreement on these issues, test them, and roll out the changes in a controlled and orderly fashion, including updating the documentation. Right now we've got people changing everything, people complaining and changing it back, 3 different naming conventions being floated around, all while the Project docs still recommend the original template. --  Tabanger  07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I agree, before making any more changes we should come to an agreement on the naming and the formatting. The most favorable choice for the naming seems to be "Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians (current name), Template:Infobox Musician, Template:Navbox Musician." I agree with this choice because it's simpler and it's consistent with the current project name and Category:Musicians. As for the formatting, I think that the current format of Template:Navbox music is the best choice since it uses the Wikipedia standard Template:Navbox as the core. Does anybody disagree with this choice? —TigerK 69 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No vote per WP:VOTE, but I'll say that so far the arguments in favor of the second option seem stronger. In fact, are there any arguments in favor of the first option? --PEJL 05:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Edited my previous comment per WP:VOTE. —TigerK 69 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a good example of why WP:TALK#Own comments says not to edit your comments after someone has responded to them. The context for my response above no longer exists, so I'll note here that I was commenting on the proposal to use either of the following sets of names:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical artists, Template:Infobox Musical artist, Template:Navbox Musical artist
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians (current name), Template:Infobox Musician, Template:Navbox Musician
which is what my "first option" and "second option" above refer to. I did not comment on the formatting. --PEJL 10:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I didn't realize that when I edited it. I just wanted to change it after founding out that voting is discouraged on Wikipedia. —TigerK 69 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be an opposition on the naming change, I moved Template:Navbox musical artist Template:Navbox music to Template:Navbox Musician and labeled Template:Navbox musical artist as depreciated. Now we need an admin to move Template:Infobox musical artist to Template:Infobox Musician. —TigerK 69 05:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No you did not, you moved Template:Navbox music to Template:Navbox Musician. --PEJL 07:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I properly edited my last comment. —TigerK 69 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on the formatting of the navbox, but I just noticed a couple of navboxes like Template:Hayley Westenra Footer when I was updating pages as a result of the recent move. Those navboxes uses the same color as the infobox, by (now) transcluding {{Infobox Musician/color}}. Perhaps that is something to consider using on a larger scale. --PEJL 15:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to color code the navboxes same as the infoboxes. —TigerK 69 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I just implemented the same color option to Template:Navbox Musician as in Template:Infobox Musician. Any thoughts? Should the groups be the same color as the title or should that be changed? —TigerK 69 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand a typical artist template will be applied on more album/single pages (normally more than one) than on artist pages (normally only one), so the color consistency with the artist page won't be very obvious in general. This is further confused by the fact that the studio album color is similar to the band color, and the single color is similar to the solo artist color, which means the colors will be inconsistent and possibly confusing on articles for studio albums by solo artists (blue and yellow) and on articles on singles by bands (yellow and blue). In general, I think these types of changes need to be considered more extensively and discussed more broadly before being implemented in templates that affect a large number of articles. --PEJL 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Wait, why was Template:Infobox musical artist listed under the Uncontroversial proposals section and moved to Template:Infobox musician? From what I can see, there were people who commented above supporting use of the term Musical artist over Musician. I agree, since musician refers to an individual, and musical artist refers to any act, group or individual, making music. 17Drew 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Good question. I'm starting to wish I hadn't updated all those references to the template... If we decide to move this back, can we move it to Template:Infobox Musical artist (capital "M") for consistency with the other infoboxes? See the proposal above to have consistent naming for the WikiProject, infobox and navbox. --PEJL 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The "wikiproject" is misnamed. First of all, it's really a workgroup of the biography wikiproject, and second of all, it covers musical groups as well as musicians. So no part of its name is correct. But it's also a well-established, well-known name, and changing it at this point would probably be more trouble than its worth. That said, I strongly oppose the notion of changing the template names to match the incorrect name of the workgroup. Consistency is generally a good thing in a reference work (which is still what Wikipedia is supposed to be), but "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" as Emerson or Thoreau once said. I think this latest change may have been taking things to the hobgoblin level. :) Xtifr tälk 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, the latest renaming was inappropriate because the name is inappropriate. But would you oppose renaming the project, the infobox and the navbox to "... Musical artist(s)"? I still think such a consistent naming system would be helpful. --PEJL 08:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes (mildly), no not at all, and probably not, to answer your questions in order. I think there is far too much concern here about the names of things that aren't even visible to the average reader. I think that changing the infobox name back would be good because a lot of editors are used to the old name and it's a better name. I can see an argument for consistency with templates, so I'm fine with making the brand-new navbox match the infobox. But changing the project workgroup name will cause more problems than it will solve, IMO. It would, I feel, be a hobgoblin change. I'd rather see people put their energy into improving articles than running around trying to clean up after a behind-the-scenes workgroup rename. But I'm not sure my opinion counts while I'm on semi-Wikibreak, so I suppose you can ignore me if you want. :) Xtifr tälk 10:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll move the templates to "...Musical artist" (note capital "M") in a few days. --PEJL 10:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I executed the move of the template based on PEJL's editprotected. Please check for any inconsistencies or problems - I'm reasonably sure I made all the necessary fixes of redirects et cetera, but some oversight is appreciable. Thanks, Nihiltres(t.l) 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The following should also be moved:
--PEJL 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done - Let me know if there's anything else. :) Nihiltres(t.l) 21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a request here: Template talk:Navbox musical artist#Redirect. That template should be redirected so we would have one less template to keep track of. —TigerK 69 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mariah Carey FAR

Mariah Carey has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. Gimmetrow 05:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive or Notable?

I notice this line in the project banner: "WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia"

All Music Guide is comprehensive because a band or an album only has to exist to get a mention there, whereas here we have pesky admins deleting anything slightly obscure.

So I suggest: "WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a detailed biographical guide to notable musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia" would be more honest. Dyaimz 00:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Make-Up is up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review

Considering that this article is about a group of musicians, I would very much welcome any comments on whether any of you think that this article meets the A-Class criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/The Make-Up. Thank you. John Carter 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about what makes a band wiki worthy

Im just wondering if we have a checklist or standard guidelines of what makes a band Wikipedia worthy, if they have to have a CD or EP released or something along those guidelines. thanks a bunch 

tands 15:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability (music). BNutzer (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected hoax article: The Parochial Pianists

I've been trying to figure this one out. The more I look and edit, the more sure I am that this band never existed, and that the article was created as a hoax. I could use some more eyeballs on it though. Please comment at Talk:The Parochial Pianists#Hoax: Imaginary Band or Talk:Day-View (an article for an album by the band) - Foetusized 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nightwish FAR

Nightwish has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. BuddingJournalist 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Archive_3&oldid=1144740192"