Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Genre as a life of its own

A problem I've had as reader of music genre articles is that often articles apply the term to specific bands retroactively (which may, or may not reflect a current cultural trend) neglecting to mention that the particular band was not originally categorized as such. Often, there is not a historical use of the term in the article. Ultimately wikipedia is sourced and therefore if this were to be an issue with any given article it could be fleshed out with references. An example of such a problem is Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR) being referred to as Swamp Rock. With respect to swamp bands (which were from the swamps -- in the South) at the time (1970s) Creedence were not categorized as such. The earliest mention of CCR as "Swamp" that I could find at one time was sourced from an Australian music critic -- not exactly an expert on "swamp" I imagine. I'm not asking for improvement in the CCR article. I'm mostly interested in hearing opinions on the relevence of "historical the use of a term" being encouraged as a project goal. Otherwise, the topic of genre tends to drift with the current music critic trend and suffers from memory loss. Older articles (from a subject matter's time period) are more difficult to find, newer internet articles are to me a source problem for historical integrity. More so than academic history, the history of pop music tends to be constantly rewritten by the latest critics where genre categorization is concerned. - Steve3849 talk 10:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with a lot of this. You can have use a term for a genre that was not used at the time, but it is dangerous. Many genres that were clear at in the past are now hard to substantiate, since the internet was not around. My rule of thumb is that, even if they did not have the name, acts in a genre need to be aware that they are working in the same area, grouping together similar sounding or looking acts, does not make them part of a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre colours

I would like to revive the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours page. Perhaps checking to see what colours are being used, trying to standardise genre colours and sorting out any clashes. Anyone interested in helping?--SabreBD (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to keep this to popular music? There are many types of classical music but the CM-related projects don't use colour coding anyway. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was confined to popular music. I am not sure genre is a useful (or much used) in classical music, so I have no problem with that.--SabreBD (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "[[WP
Incubation|incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Colour in Infobox venue

In {{Infobox venue}} there is no parameter colour. Add it, please. --Andrey! 10:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This project has nothing to do with that template so I'm not sure why you mention it here. Ridernyc (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

a Pop-music question in need of input

there's a discussion going on at the Pop music talk page about whether or not there's consensus to start naming particular artists in the article. more input would be very helpful – thanks! Sssoul (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Scene (2010s subculture)

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (2010s subculture), as the article in question is related to music genres. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Started a bunch of AFD's

Discovered the category for music genre stubs and have started picking through it. I have nominated a bunch of articles. They all pretty much fall into The category of neologisms, stuff that so new there are no real sources. Stuff that's an OR blend of other stuff. Stuff that might almost kind of be a real genre but the differences is so small that it really should be part of a parent article.

You will notice most of them are dance music. I assure everyone this not because of any prejudice, it is simply because there is a huge number of poorly defined sub genres of dance music. Hopefully we can get this cleaned up, things deleted, things merrged things expanded and sourced if they can be. Ridernyc (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Metal

I invite everyone here to come and comment on whether or not a list of Christian metal radio shows should be a part of the article. [[1]]. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD Round 2

All comments welcome. Ridernyc (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neo Soul

Someone want to take a look at this? it's long on claims, short on sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well a quick search shows it is a well established term. I would start by adding [citation needed] tags and removing anything that seems really questionable or against policy. Ridernyc (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That's nice - I was sorta of hoping to get assistance from people who knew about the area? Isn't that what these special interest groups are suppose to do? (well that and develop walled gardens). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there only about 3-4 of us that are actually active. There are at least 4-5 other major articles that are being worked on right now. Usually if you add CN tags to the article it will attract the attention of some knowledgeable to come fix the article, it also makes clean up easier when someone has the time to get to it since we can then show citations were asked for and never provided. It's not like we have the time to just jump on every article and clean them and source them instantly, as I said a quick search shows it is a widely used therefore AFD is out of the question, if you have concerns help by removing anything that's seems to be against policy and asked for citations where you feel they are needed. Ridernyc (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class music genre articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing warring on an article: your input would be appreciated

There is a discussion taking place about the Dancehall article. Different editors have different ideas about what should be put in the article.

If anyone could pop over and read what is being said (and the different versions of the article in the history), then it would be most useful! The discussion is here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for additional input re: nu metal

There is a discussion going on about the Nu metal page, and whether certain sources are reliable. I think additional editors commenting on it would be helpful. Go here to join the conversation. Thanks. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern Creative

I am considering nominating the Modern Creative article for deletion. As a musical genre (at least, according to Allmusic) it falls within the scope of this project. I have posted more details about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz; I suggest we maintain any discussion at that location. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion; see AfD discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Baby

There is a discussion about the song "Baby" by Justin Bieber about it's genre currently going on. This is an article that is nominated for GA so any added opinions to this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New Task force proposal

Hello. I would like to inform you that I'll be setting up a a music genre task force dedicated to Latin American music. Just thought I'd the share the news and if anyone is interested. Magiciandude (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional pop music" is hosed

If one were to ask me, I'd have to say that this project's #1 priority should be rewriting Traditional pop music and any other major-genre article that read like someone's personal essay for a high school English class. See Talk:Traditional pop music, and {{Multiple issues}} at top of the article, for details. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Music genre articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Music genre articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about article/list format

Hi. My question relates to the proper format of a music genre article, specifically Oi!. I'm posting here (and at the punk music project discussion page) because it doesn't look like anyone has been to the Oi! talk page in a year.

The article currently includes a laundry list of about 30 "Notable Oi! bands"--just names, no other info in that list. My sense is that this does not belong in the article on Oi!, but perhaps as its own list-entry. Is that correct, or is this an acceptable format for a genre article? Thank you. Know Your Product (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the list of Oi! bands would be acceptable. There isn't anything wrong with such lists a lot of the time, and I don't think this would be an excpetion. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Post-hardcore" is getting way too much emphasis on Wikipedia.

We need to make a "Hardcore" article. "Hardcore" should not re-direct to "Hardcore Punk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omair00 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Hardcore" doesn't direct to "Hardcore punk"; it directs to a disambiguation page about the word "hardcore". Also, do you want to explain your stances as to why post-hardcore has too much emphasis and why a separate article for "hardcore music" or whatever would be appropriate from "hardcore punk". Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blues#Name discussion (2)

A discussion is taking place on the most appropriate and helpful name for the article on the musical form the blues. It is currently named Blues. It was moved to The blues, then moved back to blues. A current suggestion is blues music. Wider consensus is welcomed. SilkTork *YES! 12:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Screw Music sub-genre CHOPNOTSLOP or CHOPPED NOT SLOPPED

As most of us know the Houston born genre of Chopped and Screwed music is a main focal point in hip hop/ rap today. DJ Screw the creator passed away in 2001 and since then OG RON C co founder of Swishahouse created a sub-genre to help keep the genre that DJ Screw created alive. Chopnotslop is basically the same thing as chopping and screwing with more emphases on style, technique, and other genre's beside hip hop and r&b.. Since 2001 OG RON C has Chopped Up Not Slopped Up thousands of mixtapes and some albums including Chamillionaire's The Sound Of Revenge, Pretty Ricky 2009 album just to name a few project.. The MAIN difference between Chopped and Screwed and CHOPNOTSLOP is blending and mixing. RIP DJ SCREW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmac504 (talk • contribs) 20 March 2011

Time to make this into a Music Project task force?

This project has never been very active. Is it time to make it into a Music Project task force? --Kleinzach 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right it is not very active, but, forgive my ignorance, what exacatly would that involve?--SabreBD (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Page by page moves. For example the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres would become Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. (This would give it a measure of protection from being deleted.) --Kleinzach 07:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I'll go ahead and implement this. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that making it a task force is an acceptable move. I will not object to it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done Please let me know if there are any stray links left. --Kleinzach 07:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Does {{WikiProject Music genres}} need to be re-worded, re-named etc.? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing this. Please tell me if it is incomplete. (The Music project doesn't use a banner, so the normal redirect from the Music genres project banner to the Music project one is not possible in this case.) --Kleinzach 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks all good to me - - no need to fix anything else - redirects in-place and template has been reworded to reflect its a task force - good job.Moxy (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Intelligent drum and bass

The article Intelligent drum and bass has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable genre, lacks reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Retroactive neologisms

I've seen this issue addressed in the archive and I'm reviving it because I'd like a consensus from you guys on a general issue before I create a separate genre article.

What is Wikipedia's sense of the general weight we give a genre label that has entered common parlance but was never used to describe the music it's now describing at the time that music arose, vs. other objective issues like linguistic incoherence? If we can clearly source a more precise label historically, is it appropriate to create an article for the music the more precise term referred to and link it to the main article with the more ambiguous label?

I'd like to create an article for "jazz-rock fusion" which talks specifically about the jazz musicians, most of them alumnae of Miles Davis, who played music on electric instruments in the early 70s, and link that to the "jazz fusion" page. While the term is current among sources today, "jazz fusion" is ambiguous to the point of incoherence, refers to an extreme diversity of music and most significantly, wasn't used by any sources to describe "jazz-rock fusion" during its heyday. What's the relative weight of historical accuracy vs common parlance?

Thanks for your feedback. I'm going to check with the Jazz Project now.

Snardbafulator (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the concept of a "jazz-rock fusion" page. It seems notable enough, with Miles Davis as a forerunner of the movement, for instance. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh he's not merely the forerunner, Miles is the universally recognized founder of jazz-rock fusion. Weather Report's first album, for instance, is considered by AllMusic to be a direct continuation of In A Silent Way. I'm going to wait until I hear back from some of "jazz fusion" page contributors, since I would be lifting a lot of their info and sources.

Snardbafulator (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

With genre definitions being variable and in the eye-of-the beholder, and then classification of music and performers within them often being the same (plus any one often gets put under multiple genres) the challenge of doing so often seems like herding cats. So I think that the common-sense thinking and questioning (factoring in prevalence and acceptance) such as you are doing has to come into play. My 2 cents is that I concur with the thoughts of both of you. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. Establishing unambiguous music genres is kind of impossible by definition. Even Wikipedia's meta-categorizations can lack cogency, e.g., putting the entire category of "jazz" under "art music" as opposed to "popular music" — which wouldn't make any sense at all to, say, Louis Armstrong. This is the core ambiguity I'm trying to address.

But attempting to clean up genres as best as can be done (the reason for this task force's existence) is nonetheless a worthy enterprise. I fully recognize that the central goals aren't linguistic cogency or even historical accuracy per se, but rather to make it easier on the music fan by giving them a rule of thumb when they're searching out a particular kind of music. Heavy metal fans, e.g., needn't waste time looking in New Age used CD bins. That's a useful distinction.

"Jazz fusion" is a particularly bad category not primarily because the name most likely came from rock critics, or that it arose some 20 years after the emergence of "jazz-rock fusion" which the term currently includes, or even that it chauvanistically slights the signficant fusions of jazz with classical, Indian, world and other musics in favor of merely implying jazz fused with rock. It's an egregious category because it's broad enough to include both music that verges on avant-garde and music that verges on easy listening. Consequently, it's not a very good guide for the consumer.

Notice we don't have this problem so much with rock, because there's the broad category (crawling with subgenres, of course) of progressive rock. What's needed is a "progressive fusion" category, but we'd have to make it up by fiat, which of course we don't do here. The next best thing to do is to disambiguate "jazz-rock fusion" because that can clearly be sourced. The "jazz fusion" article writers somehow missed that one of their chief sources, Julie (wife of Larry) Coryell, calls her book "Jazz Rock Fusion." A new article on that specific era focusing on the jazz musicians who played rock instruments (as apart from "jazz rock" which is a whole 'nother animal) would naturally disambiguate some of the more adventurous and noncommercial strains of this music. There appears to be a consensus on the jazz fusion Talk page among two of the principal authors that "the music changed" in the 80s and that most of the earlier practitioners "don't play fusion anymore." Sadly enough, they do; it's kind of impossible to disambiguate "jazz fusion" from "smooth jazz" considering that the players themselves often coexist in both these worlds and share a strong background in jazz. This has left some of the most currently lauded exemplars of the more adventurous strains of "jazz fusion" (cf. Allan Holdsworth) orphaned; it's a term they've grown to loathe, as the newer connotations of "jazz fusion" suggest something closer to "smooth jazz." This isn't a problem Wikipedia can solve — but we can do right by history. Thanks both for your comments and support.

Snardbafulator (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion for Death Cab for Cutie

I was hoping to elicit some outside opinions regarding an issue at Death Cab for Cutie. Some editors have had some genre edit warring regarding the genre of the band in the lead sentence of the article. If anyone wants to add their two cents, head on over to Talk:Death Cab for Cutie#RfC: What genre should the band be called in the lead of the article?. Angryapathy (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force/Archive_4&oldid=1259766866"