Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music/Archive 6

We're slowing down on Featured Articles

Soon the amount of Featured Lists will outstrip the amount of Featured Articles under the project scope (they're about tied right now). While that says a lot about the effort going into writing great lists, it also contrasts with the fact that our average number of FA promotions has dropped in the past few months. If anyone wants to push an article to FA status but needs help, please feel free to leave a message here and I'm sure a few of us can lend a hand gather sources, copyediting, uploading media, etc. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Gorillaz "band members"

Anybody else think the fictional band members of Gorillaz (2D, Murdoc Niccals, Noodle, Russel Hobbs) don't deserve their own articles? In fact, I think we should be severely cutting down mention of them throughout Wikipedia and paying more attention to Albarn & co. For eg: why are they in the members tab of the Gorillaz infobox? Probably the only time this Project will ever have WP:FICTION-based issues! indopug (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's occasionally worked on articles that deal with fiction, I have to say a lot of that article needs to be summarized or scrapped. We want to give readers hard facts, not the details of the ficitonal storyline. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

New audio sample boxes

Apparently the current audio sample boxes are being replaced with {{Listen}}. Also, a lot of the current boxes are severely messing up the formatting of the articles they're used in; note the difference between the revision of Nevermind with the old boxes and the current revision. Make sure any articles that have the old sample box get the new one. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. NSR77 ^T 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead style and influences

The section "Style and influences" on the Radiohead article got split off into its own article, Radiohead style and influences. A consensus on whether or not it should be kept this way needs to be formed, so opinions are wanted here. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Coco Hayley Gordon Moore

Is she really notable enough to warrant her own page ? Strikes me as odd. Arleach (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I'm going to start an AfD. NSR77 ^T 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Article is nommed here. NSR77 ^T 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Cure discography

I've recently expanded the above article and have submitted it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Cure discography/archive1 with a view to taking it to WP:FLC. Any constructive criticism gratefully received. --JD554 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're not gonna get much out of a peer review of a discography. Just go straight to FLC instead. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Taken it to FLC. If anyone wants to comment, they can do here. --JD554 (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Blender references for songs

Just in case you don't know, Blender has a regular feature called "Greatest Songs Ever", which goes into detail about the creation of classic songs. Here's links to the articles for alt-rock songs that aren't GA or FA level yet, so if you want to improve them:

• Radiohead - "Fake Plastic Trees" [1]
• Beck - "Loser" [2]
• Pearl Jam - "Jeremy" [3]
• Stone Temple Pilots - "Interstate Love Song" [4]
• Weezer - "Buddy Holly [5]
• R.E.M. - "So. Central Rain (I'm Sorry)" [6]

Newsletter

Anyone else not get the newsletter from last month? Teemu08 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. NSR77 ^T 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I finished it on Wednesday, but the guy who sends it out hasn't gotten to it yet. If you want to take a peak at it right now it's over here. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana infobox

There's a discussion over how to list the band members in the Nirvana infobox here if you wish to add your two cents. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanna help improve some Modern Rock chart-toppers?

Here's another clever(((citation needed)) idea I've come up with for finding articles to improve. We're pretty good by and large targeting and improving both seminal songs and commericial hits of the genre. Another aspect we might want to look at is to browse the lists of artists who've topped the American Hot Modern Rock Tracks charts, which started in 1988. These hits are based solely on radio play on the modern rock radio format, the de facto home of alternative rock on American commercial radio. Given that in the chart's 20 year history, we have one FA ("Smells Like Teen Spirit") and two GAs ("Losing My Religion" and "Dani California") that have reached number one, we might want to tackle some of the other chart toppers, since it's likely they'll be some of the most visited alt-rock song articles on Wikipedia. I suggest to anyone who's interested to pick an alternative rock song that hit number one (fair warning: plenty of non-alt-rock songs got to number one over the years, and in particular you might just want to gloss over the charts during the nu metal years in the early 2000s) and do some sort of improvement; you don't have to go for FAC, just fix it up a bit. For some examples, here's the list of modern rock radio number ones from 1989 (when there were less than a dozen modern rock radio stations in the US) and 1994 (when there were hundreds). I myself might take a stab at "Wonderwall" or another R.E.M. song.

(Aside: I also like looking at the modern rock chart-toppers lists for fun just to see what crap people would listen to from time to time. Seriously, Bush spent more weeks at number one than Nirvana and The Smashing Pumpkins combined????) WesleyDodds (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Twenty bucks to anyone who can bring "Every Beat of the Heart" by The Railway Children to FA. Possibly the most obscure #1 on an American chart ever. Teemu08 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I seriously think it has to be "I'll Be Your Chauffeur" by David J from Bauhaus and Love & Rockets. I guess it does make a bit of sense since modern rock in the late eighties focused heavily on post-punk and goth, but man, is that an obscure cut. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been meaning to take a stab at "Give It Away" anyway. NSR77 ^T 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I've personally wondered why you've never tackled "Scar Tissue" yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe I will. Their post-One Hot Minute albums see an enormous decline in "drama", though, which ultimately makes it less interesting to write about. NSR77 ^T 00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• I can work on "Loser". My friend is briefly loaning me the Beck biography Beautiful Monstrosity, so I'm just putting as much info as I can from the book down onto a sandbox. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to try and fix up "1979". WesleyDodds (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

I've been asking several editors for help, and I thought I'd come here because I think it might fall under the scope of this project: does anyone want to help me get Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) to FA for its 25th anniversary in June? Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we can work at the same place: I'm working on it here. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley's cover comes under our scope, although that might warrant its own article, due to it high notability. Nonetheless, I'll try to find sources for you. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if covers get seperate articles; even the most prolific covers (e.g. Live and Let Die) are in the parent article. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually every single gets its own article, even if its a cover. indopug (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be prudent to point out that Live and Let Die was released as a single, whereas Buckley's cover of "Hallelujah" wasn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails stuff

Some NIN items I noticed and wanted to bring up, but the NIN WikiProject is inactive, so here we go:

• People like to include the Halo numbers (Trent Reznor's own catalogue system) in the lead sections of articles and singles. The main problem is that they are often formatted as if they were alternate titles, which they are not.
• Going through the album articles, there seems to be a lot of people who want to classify Broken as an album, even though it's an EP. It's even listed in the album field in the band template.

Any thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth dropping Drewcifer a line. He seemed to be the main instigator of the NIN WikiProject and is still very active with the Discography WikiProject. --JD554 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Classic albums from the 1980s

Hey, I just noticed that our level of quality alt-rock album articles from the 1980s is shockingly low. The number of FAs isn't all that surprising given general notability and the interests of the project's most active participants (two Pixies albums and a Cure record), but there's a complete lack of 80s album GAs to balance that out. Additionally, it can be hard to bring albums like this up to code, since many albums were ignored by the mainstream music press, and some of the sources that do exist are hard to find (definitely having that problem with Nothing's Shocking right now).

Still, there's quite a few that should be easy to work on, given the resources that I know are available. These include all the eighties R.E.M. albums (I did some work on Murmur, but one of the books I need is out of print), The Smiths, Daydream Nation, and Pretty Hate Machine. If more than one person is interested in working on any of these pages, we could definitely whip these into shape. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Banshees albums also need work. I think Faith would be fun to work on. I'd love to help out with Nothing's Shocking but sadly I'm not very familiar with the band's history, just their music. NSR77 ^T 04:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, an 80s album Mother's Milk is near completion if anyone would be kind enough to read through it. NSR77 ^T 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pornography would be fun to work on (we're talking about a period that can be summed up in the phrase "How Robert Smith totally lost his shit"), but since we have one Cure album FA right now, we should probably tackle something by another band first. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the 1,200 pounds they spent on coke alone. NSR77 ^T 16:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, almost forgot: The Stone Roses. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

list of alternative rock artists

should we even bother with this ? I removed a bunch of entries that were basically non-notable but JD554 came in and reverted everything. I reverted that back but I don't really feel like getting in an editing war over whether or not 13 Engines or The Calling are notable enough to be included in the list

Arleach (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that list was pretty trivial and basically useless. It would never be deleted if it were nominated at AfD, but nonetheless I don't think anyone actually looks at it very often. There needs to be some sort of standard because its just impractical to list every alternative rock band that ever released a record. Arleach brings up a valid point; only notable bands should be listed as to maintain some sort of consistency. NSR77 ^T 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that only notable bands should be listed. But how do we define a notable band? WP:BAND is the only non-POV way of doing it. I'm not sure Arleach checked every single article to decided whether the band met the criteria at WP:BAND, but deleting Do Make Say Think would indicate not. --JD554 (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

-shrug- It was one of the first things I started editing when I joined Wikipedia (according to my edit stats, it's neck and neck for the top spot on my edit count list with The Smashing Pumpkins), so I kind of have a nostalgic fondness for it. But really, the only advantages it has over categories is that you can add red links and it's easier to keep track of than the various categories. I do believe there has been a push to go with categories over lists for articles similar to this. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I did look at all the articles before I removed them from the list. If there were a few that slipped by, sorry. I also tried not to remove bands from places that I wasn't familiar with, like all the Filipino acts (tho I think I whacked some), Swedish/Scandinavian Metal and to some extent, the UK, Canada & Australia. The vast majority of them just seemed waaaaay to obscure, however. Some of the WP:Band criteria seem overly broad as well, I mean, "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" means that tens of thousands of bands that have their shows previewed in a daily newspaper are "notable". I interpret the list as something someone who knows nothing about Alt Rock can look at and say "these are the significant bands of the genre" and could get a good overview of the history/breadth of the category by reading some of the articles. Personally, I don't think Brodie Foster Hubbard or Jimmie's Chicken Shack qualify, no matter what their article editors might think. Arleach (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia community by accepting the notability guidelines at WP:BAND disagrees with you. You shouldn't change an article because you disagree with the criteria, that's akin to WP:POINT. If you want the notability criteria tightening you should open a discusion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). --JD554 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The best solution is probably just to split it off into a group of articles like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Just make sure that every entry has a citation backing up its description as "alternative rock" by a major source. Teemu08 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, sources are something this list lacks completely. NSR77 ^T 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree w/ the WP:Band criteria for merely having a page on Wikipedia. What I disagree with is that the WP:Band criteria are sufficient to be included in the 'list'. The list should be for bands that have had an impact on the genre itself. Just because some zine or newspaper brands them as 'alternative rock' and can be cited, doesn't mean that they are automatically notable enough to be included in the list. If people disagree, then change the lede to simply 'This is a list of Alternative Rock artists' and leave it at that. To say that many of those bands have 'been very important to the genre or have had a considerable amount of exposure' is disingenuous. Arleach (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I had, you reverted that too :-) --JD554 (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

3oh!3 ? Q.E.D. This list is completely useless. Arleach (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Turning inactive WikiProjects into taskforces

There's quite a few alt-rock band WikiProjects around, but lot of them have fizzled out and are now tagged as inactive, mainly because they were started without garnering enough able bodies interested in participating, or people simply stopped editing. I'm wondering: is there a way to convert the more worthy inactive WikiProjects in taskforces for this project? It would very help for keeping track of the progess of particular types of articles. For example, I find the Nirvana taskforce page we have and its accompanying template field very helpful in my editing, and it doesn't require all the intensive maintenance a full WikiProject requires (also, because it's a field in our template, there's less WikiPorject banner clutter on the talk pages). I'm particularly interested into transforming the inactive Smashing Pumpkins project into a taskforce for this one. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins seems like a good one. So does the Flaming Lips WP. Perhaps even the Green Day WP? NIN, too, if Drewcifer continues to be inactive. I think he's back, though I may be wrong. NSR77 ^T 03:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer's back, but he seems to be focusing on a lot of things in addition to his current NIN project (With Teeth). I'm not sure how active all those other NIN participants are. The Green Day one could probably go to the newly-reactivated Punk WikiProject, although the Green day project might become active again once they finally put out a new record. Also, there was talk a while back of creating a Radiohead task force. Anyone still up for that? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There seemed to be a lot of sub-Wikiprojects that popped up in '07 and have basically died out by now. Even RHCP Wikiproject lost a lot of its steam, especially after the only other user besides myself that truly cared about it, Grim-Gym, became inactive. NSR77 ^T 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's even part-way active should stay on its own right now, I feel. So we can leave the Chili Peppers WP be for the moment (Mother's Milk on the road to FAC, people!). The question I'm trying to find an answer for right now is: is there a procedure to transform inactive WikiProjects into taskforces of active projects? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For starters, you should tag the inactive ones with the {{inactive}} tag. I don't know what the next step is after that, though. Teemu08 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While we may not know how to convert, I think a Cure task force should be created. There's two Cure FAs and the main article is a GA. NSR77 ^T 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We can go ahead and annex the Smashing Pumpkins since it has a {{historical}} tag at the top. It looks like you can swap an inactive tag with a historical tag if a month or two has passed. Afterwards, the project is considered more-or-less dead. Teemu08 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten some feedback on what to do here. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the suggestions I received on the talk page I linked to, I think we can follow the example of WikiProject Video games here and leave a modified version of their notification on the inactive project talk pages for a month. If no one objects, then we can turn them into taskforces if they're worth keeping around in some form. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Deftones and Flaming Lips Wikiproject (hope none are offended) aren't that necessary to be kept as Task Forces and we can probably just retain the project page for "historical purposes". NSR77 ^T 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a courtesy notice on the Pumpkins WikiProject talk page. If no one responds in a month, we'll turn it into a task force. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been close to a month, and there's been no response, so that means we can turn the SP WikiProject into an SP taskforce under our project. Now to figure out how to merge everything . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The templates and categories still need sorting out, but now you can sign up to the newly active Smashing Pumpkins task force. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead at featured article review

User:70.21.58.96 has nominated Radiohead for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

In Utero at FAC

There's finally another Nirvana article up for consideration as a Featured Article. You can leave comments at the nomination page here. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Goals for 2009?

Does anyone have any suggestions for long-term project goals for the year? I definitely think getting OK Computer to Featured Article status in the next coming months should be one of our top priorities. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking through the high importance articles for something not Radiohead/R.E.M./RHCP/Nirvana related and spotted James (band) which is in quite a pitiful state. --JD554 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That inspired me to watch the video for "Laid" on YouTube right now. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wesley and I were toying around with the idea of a Sonic Youth collaboration, perhaps Daydream Nation. Ideas? NSR77 ^T 22:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate, I'd be willing to work on some Sonic Youth articles if other people are as well, because I don't care enough about the band to read through four books without some incentive to. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that seemed to be our main issue with any Sonic Youth projects. Pornography is a possibility. I would have no problems working on that. A community Bauhaus-collab would be interesting but I know nothing about them. I'm sure JD probably does, though. NSR77 ^T 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I own a Bauhaus biography and had intended to get the album to GA status, but it's on the back-burner for me at the moment. Nonetheless, I've got it to about 80% percent done already. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Bauhaus' music, but I haven't really delved into their history. Although if memory serves I think they're covered reasonably well in the Goth issue of NME originals. --JD554 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny how livid the music press was about Bauhaus, particularly their accusations of ripping off David Bowie. The review for "The Passion of Lovers" is harsh yet hilarious, not the least because it's only four words long. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere quite recently (might have been David Buckley's Strange Fascination) that Bowie said Bauhaus' version of "Ziggy Stardust" would be how he wanted to have done it. I must see if I can find that again. I always thought it was good but a very pedantic cover. --JD554 (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered what needs a good cleanup: Green Day. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

*cough*Alternative rock*cough* Teemu08 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a list of "important" albums/songs to work on, this is a handy guide. indopug (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate the Rolling Stone 500, personally. It's so ridiculously biased. NSR77 ^T 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate Rolling Stone too, but I've been using the list as a guide for selecting COTWs. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we've completely forgotten about The Replacements. NSR77 ^T 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CloundNine was supposed to be working on it, but he's basically disappeared. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to wording of notability criteria

A discussion of a proposed wording change to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - Criteria 6 is underway on the Notability (music) talk page. Your feedback would be appreciated. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Year Zero on the main page

It'll be up on February 2. Keep a lookout. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

I've put Evergreen (album) up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Evergreen (album)/archive1 prior to taking it to WP:GAN. Any constructive criticism would be gratefully received. --JD554 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Years of Refusal

There is a discussion on the talk page which is having difficulty in creating a consensus on whether or not to include a particular review in the infobox. If there are any interested editors who wish to make their thoughts known (on either side of the argument) please do so. --JD554 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bauhaus discography at FLC

Any constructive criticism can be directed to the discussion page. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That was quick. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional input useful

• Gothic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two editors, one registered and one IP, have engaged in a long-term edit war at Gothic music, which one wants as a redirect and the other wants as a disambig. One has just been blocked. The other is likely soon to follow. Both have resisted suggestions of dispute resolution, so I have no reason to hope that they're going to peaceably settle the matter between themselves or, as they ought to do, reach out for third (fourth, fifth, whatever) opinion. This is a long-running dispute that in the past has involved many editors. At one point, it was a full article, and consensus at AfD was to redirect, but this was in February 2006, and this does not bar proper consensus to develop a disambig page under the same title. The last (solitary) contributor who tried to intervene (see [7] and [8]) was run over by both of them; neither of them has shown interest in anybody else's ideas on the matter. As blocking admin, I can't have an opinion in this matter. As a person with a pretty superficial familiarity with goth music, I don't have one. I'm very much hoping that a handful of contributors here can go and nail consensus on the matter, at which point it will no longer be a back and forth between these two, but (if reversion persists) clear disruptive editing on the part of whichever one of them refuses to yield to consensus. It's a lot to hope, I know, but it would be very helpful nevertheless. :) (Less helpful: if a handful of contributors here go and disagree vehemently, resulting in a tug of war that ultimately destroys the wikiverse as we know it. But, oh, well. It's a dangerous business....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall voting to turn it into a redirect. There's no such thing as an overarching "gothic music" genre; there's a few genres that have the word "gothic" in the name, and you shouldn't base an article solely on that. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigur Rós discography at FLC

The discussion is here --JD554 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Song reviews

NME.com has a few of their song reviews on the site, so you should poke around and see if there's anything you need. While there are some older album reviews, I don't think I've seen any song reviews on the site that predate 2000, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:20, 28 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 04:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworking the Featured content box

Anyone good at working with page script? I have some ideas for how to rework the featured content subpage that's on the project main page in order the convey information easier to make it easier to update. However, I have no idea how to create and arrange page layouts. I did manage to figure out the collapsable text boxes . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I id some work on it to make it more manageable and more pleasing to the eyes. Any opinions? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The shorter lists should be easier to maintain too. --JD554 (talk) 09:04, 11 March 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:46, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party/archive1

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The new criteria passed, so this article is toast. Teemu08 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Does this mean every other awards article is all but gone now?  GARDEN  15:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, award article from acts at have received a bunch of awards (U2, White Stripes, Coldplay etc.) are fine. It's just ones like these where they only have a few entries. Teemu08 (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Since "alternative music" redirects to "alternative rock"

Shouldn't the name of this Wikiproject be Wikiproject Alternative rock? (to be consistent with the article name) indopug (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When I initially proposed the project, I settled on this name for consistency with the other music WikiProjects. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision to Featured List criteria which may affect many of this project's FLs

Hello, there is currently a proposal for a revised Featured List criteria which would see the addition of a stand-alone list/content forking/notability criterion. If it passes, many of this project's FLs will be affected by it and could be delisted. As such, any input from any project members would be very welcome. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot rewritten

I've rewritten the delivery bot, to make it completely automated (meaning I don't have to update User:X!/WPAM). I've made the exclusion list use invisicomments, to make it machine readable. If you notice any bugs, please feel free to contact me. Xclamation point 05:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

British Phonographic Industry site revamp

I don't think any of the references for British Platinum/Gold certifications will be working and will need to be changed. Just a heads up.  GARDEN  14:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's here: "Please note: the searchable database is temporarily inaccessible but will be reinstated soon - please bear with us".  GARDEN  14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review request

I've put Homogenic up for good article review at here Anyone willing to take a crack it would be much appreciated! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been taken care of, so nevermind! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Songs That Saved Your Life

My library just got in the Smiths book Songs That Saved Your Life, so if anyone wants to work on some Smiths song articles, give me a shout. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Psychogeographical Commission

This is an alternative band, so I added your project tag when I prodded the article, but the tag was just removed "until notability is established". Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Music award list FLRCs

Hello. By now, I'm sure many of you are aware of this, but the Featured list criteria changed a couple months ago to prevent lists that were considered content forks and recreations of other lists from passing. This has resulted in many band and musicians awards lists' being sent to FLRC. Seven of these FLs are currently at FLRC; please see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates to comment on these removal candidates. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of official MySpace links

I don't know exactly where to put this, but Special:Contributions/Piano non troppo shows a widespread removal of these. Is this condoned? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that official MySpace pages can be included in an External links section because they typically provide some copyrighted works (songs, videos), or more extensive detail, that would not be appropriate for the article here. Many articles on bands and musicians have reached FA level without the official MySpace links being removed, which would be another indication that they are fine. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Rage Against the Machine

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Rage Against the Machine for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher

Atlantik used to watch over this page, but he retired about a year ago. Since then the quality of the article has gone donwhill. Help with a massive cleanup is needed if this article is going to retain Good Article status. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Album review citations

The guidelines for professional reviews in album articles has now change, see Wikipedia:ALBUMS#Professional_reviews. Basically we now need to give proper citations instead of a "Link". --JD554 (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. indopug (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Loose Fur

I have done a GA Reassessment of Loose Fur as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet current WP:GA Criteria and as such I have put it on hold for a week pending work. My assessment is here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this. If there are any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the article talk page, the problems have been solved and the article will remain a Good Article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FLRCs

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Soundgarden for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Barenaked Ladies

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Barenaked Ladies for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wizard rock task force proposal

The idea of a Wizard rock WikiProject was proposed almost two years ago. Now that there are two more bands and a few more Harry and the Potters releases with articles, I feel it would benefit to have a wizard rock task force. There just thirteen articles related to wizard rock, however the task force will not only be a place that improves these articles, but will also be a place to gather sources, build new articles in collaborative sandboxes and discuss uploading the mass of photographs related to wizard rock to WikiCommons (from Flickr). The task force would be a child of two projects WikiProject Harry Potter and WikiProject Alternative music, with the task force arbitrarily placed under latter of the projects.

To support, oppose or discuss the task force proposal, see here. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Discography FLCs

These FLCs aren't under the scope of this project, but if any of you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dream Theater discography/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive2, it would be great. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple/archive1

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Former featured lists and our FA wall

What with the Great Purge of Featured Lists Awards Articles, our FA wall needs to be updated. Removing all those articles from the Wall will be a daunting task, but hopefully somebody is be up to it... indopug (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to it . . . soonish. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone make me a list of all the demoted FLs here? It'll help out a bunch. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Check under Music, here. indopug (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Soundgarden at FAC

Who likes grunge? Even if you don't please leave feedback on the article here. Anything constructive you can provide will greatly help improve the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm at FAC

Didn't even cross my mind to post notification of this here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Silent Alarm/archive1. Thanks in advance for your constructive criticism. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Alternative rock

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Arctic Monkeys

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Arctic Monkeys/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has since kept its GA status.  GARDEN  says no to drama 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Black Lab

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Black Lab. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Billboard overhaul

Billboard just completely overhauled its website and renamed some of its charts (perhaps most notably in regards to this project, Modern Rock Tracks has been renamed "Alternative Songs"). Looks like they might've also axed Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Mainstream Rock Tracks. Also, a lot of the links to the website from here are now going to be broken. Teemu08 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Butthole Surfers

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Butthole Surfers/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Marigold (song) at AFD

I've nominated the Nirvana song article Marigold (song) for deletion. Anyone interested in commenting can voice their opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marigold (song). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Guitar (wikibook) - Alternative Guitar module

Hi to all. I was hoping that someone could complete the History section of the Rock/Alternative Guitar module in the Wikibook: Guitar. The section currently ends with references to the first Stooges album and its influence on the emerging guitarists of the punk rock scene (The Ramones - Sheena Is A Punk Rocker given as the prime example). The Wikibook: Guitar is essentially a primer and is "guitar" orientated and as such should relate to the guitars/guitarists role exclusively and should aim to be a source with which all guitarists can expand their knowledge.

Thanks --Sluffs (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are talking about, and direct us to any relevant links?. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a section that needs someone who can write about the guitar style of Nirvana, The Pixies, Green Day and Sonic Youth.

Here's the link: [9]

If anyone can help that will be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluffs (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Request

Hi, have just nominated The Kooks for a good article review at the nominations page and I've decided to put a request here as well because one, it falls under the project scope and two, on the off chance it might get reviewed faster. Any help would really be appreciated.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

White Lies FA?

I'm debating whether or not to nominate White Lies for Featured Article review. The article has been through a good article review, as well as two peer reviews (here and here), with the second not really specifying if it is ready or not. The band fall more under the alternative rock heading than any other, so i thought i would ask here. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 11:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content as I haven't taken an article to FAC myself yet. But the "Awards and nominations" section is unreferenced. Also, the reference #18 (the Virgin interview) is a dead link and there are a couple of references which are redirects, the Checklinks tool will help here[10]. I don't think the following are deal breakers at FAC but I'll mention then anyway: You don't need to say that the language of a reference is in English, only if it is another language, and it would be better to add the publisher of a reference if you can - eg, NME publisher is IPC Media, The Guardian is Guardian News & Media etc. Indopug or WesleyDodds are a couple of good copyeditors, but after two peer reviews, it's probably ready ... bite the bullet and go for it! --JD554 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Uverworld

Hi there, I'm not really sure whether the article mentioned above will be suitable here but I just want to know whether anybody could help me with the article by giving me any good suggestions or comments. Thanks, Amaya Sakura (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, can the links to the fansites be removed? Amaya Sakura (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Being There (album)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Being There (album)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been very little improvement to this article so far. The required changes are not major, but a couple are sufficient to bring it down from GA standards. There are a couple of days left in the hold period. If editors begin working toward resolving the concerns during this time, the hold can be extended. If nothing is done, however, it will be delisted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of The Cure

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:The Cure/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher's depature from Oasis

This event is throwing Noel Gallagher and Oasis (band) into chaos, with people jumping to conclusions and piling on the recentism. If you can, stop by every once in a while to make sure things don't get too out of hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I am putting a request here for the most viewed pages in this projects. It'll help us find out any priority pages that need fixing up. indopug (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. --JD554 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

???

Anyone gonna update the Collaboration of the Week soon or what? Yoohoo, Wes, wake up dude! I'm itching to collaborate. Rafablu88 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I usually do it, although if anyone else wants to handle it on a regular basis, that would help (I started handling it when Brandt Luke Zorn couldn't anymore). I still need to write the newsletter. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, guide me through what needs to be done and I'll see if I can squeeze it in. Rafablu88 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you signed up to join the project yet? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's always a catch, isn't there? Yeah, it's done. You can now enlighten me with the secrets, Dear Leader. Rafablu88 22:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it have to be done by just one user? Surely it should be a collaborative newsletter from some of the upper echelon members. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Used to be me and CloudNine working together, but he's pretty much disappeared. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the fact that more people are talking about it suggests that a few people could write it? What about JD? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 12:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but "upper echelon members"? Hmmm... Exactly the reason why I didn't like to join projects in the first place. RB88 (T) 14:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, you started this conversation. I think that probably wasn't the wording I was looking for. I meant some of the users who had received numerous newsletters in the past would be able to help, as they would have seen the format it had been written in, and be able to produce something similar. Its been delivered now, though. So that's a thought for future editions. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 12:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re application of guidance in proposed deletion of an indie band article for purported lack of notability

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at [11]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), and have never had contact with you before, you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion applying the guidance. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pulp (band)

I've been working on Pulp (band) for a while. I was wondering what the status of the article would be at this stage and any improvements that could be made? Thanks. Prylon (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help you out a bit. I have a couple good sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work on it so far! Seeing the interest, I'll nominate it for Collaboration of the Week. indopug (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I've (hopefully) set up MiszaBot to automatically archive the talk pages for sections with comments older than 30 days. Fingers crossed I've got the code right. I made a bit of a mess with the archives though by cutting and pasting them from their old name "Archive#" to their new name "Archive #" (note the space needed by MiszaBot as removing it in the code doesn't work). I did this to test, but obviously cut and paste moves are a "bad idea"^TM, so I've requested the new pages be speedily deleted and then the old archive pages can be moved to the new names. --JD554 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to work. But I think archiving after 30 days might be too much, I'll change it to 60 days and see how we go. --JD554 (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help maintaining Pearl Jam and Soundgarden articles

Profilic editor -5-, who single handedly works on and maintains basically every Pearl Jam and Soundgarden article, is taking a break from Wikipedia. That's a big job to fill. If you can help out the project by adding any of these articles to your watchlists, that would be a big help. Priority should be given to FA, FL, and GA articles like Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam discography, Soundgarden discography, and so on. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh fuck. indopug (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Subtly put ;) I've added the discogs to my watchlist, the Pearl Jam one will need a little work to bring it up to the current standards (column widths, overlinking, etc). I'll set to on that in the next couple of days. --JD554 (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll put all the GA album articles on my watchlist (I believe that includes Ten, Vs., Vitalogy, and Superunknown). Not sure what else I can commit to beyond that. Even though I helped write Pearl Jam, I'm not sure I can keep up with it, given the band is far more active than the other artist articles I help maintain, and it gets far more edits. If someone else can keep an eye on that one (espcially since it's one of our Top Importance articles) that would be excellent. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on several of these articles too. Sad to see -5- go. Lugnuts (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Jam's Backspacer - page move discussion

Fellow alt-music and Pearl Jam fans - I've started a discussion about the possibility of moving Backspacer (Pearl Jam album) to Backspacer. Please add thoughts for/against here. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assessment

Thanks I do not see a section to request assessment of an article, so I would like someone to please evaluate Magnapop and Magnapop discography. Thank you for your time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of indie band article for supposed lack of notability

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at [12]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for supposed lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion applying the guidance. (This is the second time the same nom has nominated the article for AfD -- his prior effort was rebuffed two weeks ago). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination of The Kooks

I noted that this band is part of the WikiProject Alternative music, so if someone can help making "improvements in order to satisfy the good article criteria," please take a look at Talk:The Kooks/GA1.--Cannibaloki 17:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Alternative music to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, Muse has the most popular page? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Having seen them pack a stadium in New Jersey while opening, I'm not surprised.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew Green Day and Red Hot Chili Peppers were highly trafficked pages, but I never would have guessed Muse. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No Age album Losing feeling issue

Losing feeling (note capitalization) needs to be moved to Losing Feeling, but that already exists as a redirect to No Age. Can an admin delete Losing Feeling and move Losing feeling there? I don't want to destroy the edit history by copy-pasting. Regards, Pdcook (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I redirected Losing Feeling to Losing feeling for now. This should get it done sooner: Wikipedia:Requested moves. Suede67 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just requested a speedy deletion under G6. Pdcook (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, that'd help too, then you'd be allowed to move the full article, with the history being taken care of automatically. Suede67 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing a press release

Hi, does anyone know how I go about citing a print copy of a record company press release? Cavie78 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Cite press release}} --JD554 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks! Cavie78 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If possible, stay away from citing press releases. They are primary sources that predominantly are focused on pushing POV (shilling an album, doing "damage control", etc.) Of course, if it's all you have to cite a fact, it's better than nothing. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Green Day

Green Day is a pretty old Good Article that needs to be cleaned up. Anyone willing to help me work on it over the next few weeks? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Article quality sweeps?

Some of the project's FA and GA articles are showing their age and/or neglect (people taking breaks/leaving Wikipedia and all). Quite a few of us keep certain pages watchlisting, and there are a few that don't receive much vandalism, but maybe we could work together to spruce up a few articles that don't need much improvement.

A few suggestions:

• Dookie
• Pixies
• Frank Black
• Nirvana (band)
• Kid A
• Audioslave
• Zaireeka
• The Killers
• Arctic Monkeys
• Elliott Smith

More intensive projects:

• Green Day
• Sonic Youth
• Oasis (band)
• Noel Gallagher
• Trent Reznor

Add anything else to the lists that you think need a brush-up, or cross off a page if you get around to bringing it up to current standards. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative music WikiProject articles at WP:FAC

Four alt-rock articles are at WP:FAC right now. All of them happen to be album articles, and all are mostly almost FA-worthy. If you could find time to review them, or copy-edit them, we could have a whole bunch of new FAs in January :) Here are the articles, oldest nominations at the bottom:

• Achtung Baby
• The Slip
• Is This It
• Spiritual Machines

—indopug (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So far Is This It is in the best shape. The Slip could use some reference checks and copyediting, while I feel Achtung Baby needs a lot more work done. I glanced at Spiritual Machines, and it could definitely use some more discerning feedback. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Green Day

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Grunge music taskforce

Description

I'd like to propose a grunge music taskforce. This taskforce would cover grunge articles, checking for quality, accuracy, and consistency. Its ideal members are knowledgeable about the history of grunge as well as the influence grunge has brought modern music. Hopefully, this will consolidate individual grunge artist workgroups into a single collaborative team.

Goals

• Work within the Alternative music WikiProject to increase its overall quality.
• Improve articles within the grunge category.
• Add content relevant to the grunge movement.
• Patrol frequently vandalized articles within the taskforce's scope.
• Ensure consistency and accuracy in articles with reference to grunge.

Support

Please specify whether or not you would join the taskforce.

1. Support. I'd love to take the helm on this. mheart (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I initially wanted to begin this group as a WikiProject, but after some insight from active members of the Alternative music WikiProject, I feel that it would be best as a taskforce. The Grunge music taskforce could be very successful with the backing of the Alternative music WikiProject community. Should this project take off, its taskforce page will be listed at WikiProject Alternative Music/Grunge. mheart (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing there's no support for grunge. You'll see me collaborating a lot in the Alternative music WikiProject then! mheart (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello anyone here??

Hi guys I see you guys still are active...Could someone update the news in the Portal dont want you guys to loss your FA level there!!!!....Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Basehead GAN

Basehead is a current GAN. Does anyone want to review it? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

FLRC for The Nation of Ulysses discography

I have nominated The Nation of Ulysses discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Mm40 (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

With the Lights Out

Ugh There were some huge problems and reverts and sock puppets and nonsense on that page, so I just reverted back to a version from several dozen edits ago to restore its infobox. Someone might want to take a look at it to ensure that nothing got lost in the shuffle. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 20 January 2010 (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) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

former members

Can someone clarify what makes someone a 'former member' as shown in an info box ?

I removed Donna Dresch, Don Fleming & Jay Spiegel from Dinosaur Jr. because I contend that playing bass on a few tour dates (Dresch) or doing some minimal studio work on 1 record/single (Fleming, Spiegel) does not make one a 'former member' of a band. Should Tiffany Anders, Kevin Shields & Belinda Butcher also be 'former members' ? I'd also actually argue against Berz as while he did play w/ the band as the tour drummer for a while, his recorded contributions are limited to playing tambourine on 1 record. Arleach (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The role of MUSTARD

WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Contributions are invited to a new discussion on this topic. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 in alternative music

2010 in alternative music seems needlessly specific (there are no other such pages, since Timeline of alternative rock covers that ground) and is full of details that are supposed to happen. It's also unclear if it's supposed to be a list or an article. I redirected it to Timeline of alternative rock, but my revision was undone by the article creator. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, though my hunch would be to redirect to 2010 in music instead.. 2010 is not paricularly notable to alternative music, nor is any particular year in itself that I can think of, hence the lack of "xxxx in alternative music" articles. It's a needless intersection of 2010 in music and Timeline of alternative rock. —Akrabbim^talk 13:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, Tigerghost may be partially right. The 2009 in music article, which tries to be comprehensive (at least for the US/UK) is tagged for being prohibitively long, suggesting that it be broken down into subpages and summarized. This may be what Tigerghost is trying for preemptively. That is why 2010 in music has pages broken down by nationality and genre (of which pages exist from other genres as well). So that leaves the questions, is it actually a good idea for 2009 and 2010 in music to be broken down, like the tag suggests? How do you leave the parent pages "summarized" without submitting to subjective measures of notability? Should this be discussed at WT:WPMU or Talk:2010 in music? —Akrabbim^talk 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I question the need to even have "year in music" pages. It's never clear if these are supposed to be articles or lists, and they generally consist of raw data without any context. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:56, 26 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 "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 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Witchwood

Hello all,

Just wondering if members of this project could do anything with The Witchwood? A cursory google search throws up alot of evidence this is an important venue, but as for making it notable and passable as an article here, I'm not so sure. Any assistance would be appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This Mortal Coil

Article has been mostly based on text cut-and-pasted from allmusic since November 2006. Any help in cleaning up the plagiarism would be appreciated -- Foetusized (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The plagiarism has been removed; what remains is now a stub. Please help expand the article if you can -- Foetusized (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps reassessment of Summerteeth

This article has just undergone a reassessment in accordance with the GA:SWEEPS task force. The review identified problems with referencing which preclude the article from meeting GA standards. However, most significantly, one section is completely lacking in sources and has been tagged since May 2009, with no signs of improvement evident. Such an issue would qualify for a "quick-fail" under GA standards. As an identified problem with the article has not been addressed over the course of the past 8 months, there is little indication that the issues identified in the reassessment would be rectified in a 7 day period, and therefore the article has been immediately delisted. However, as there has been some (minor) activity regarding this article, and given that it is listed under 2 wikiprojects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed within the next 7 days, I will undertake a GA review to immediately relist the article. The reassessment can be viewed here. If there are any questions or queries please feel free to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of a new article

Dave Smallen is a new article on a musician, formerly lead guitarist of Street to Nowhere. He seems to be of questionable notability, could someone who knows more about music articles than I please take a look and see if the article's subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (music)? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do a Google search and see if he shows up in any news reports. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - he is in a few news stories in the San Francisco area on Google News; all but one are just this concert will feature these artists, including Dave Smallen. Even the one that is more detailed is very brief and in an online newspaper here, not sure it is a WP:RS. I also looked at the first fifty regular Google hits for him and it is mostly his own stuff and a few blogs, plus one link to a Scottish university's student radio station's interview with him, reposted on a blog here. I am just not sure - looks non-notable to me (though his old band seems barely notable). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems non-notable to me too. --JD554 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

‎The Bobby McGee's

I don't know what "tweecore" is, but I wonder if ‎The Bobby McGee's might fit under the purview of this WikiProject? It's a recently re-created page; the old version was deleted 28 January 2010 per expired PROD. Cnilep (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-Britpop

Does anyone else feel that Post-Britpop is trying to make a descriptive term appear to be a genre? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:56, 22 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.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disco_house_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Space_Age_Bachelor_Pad
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ambient_trance
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hauntology_(musical_genre)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guitar_comedy
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Folktronica
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electro-grime
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drumfunk
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dream_house
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomcore_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathgrind
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark house
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic Death Mambo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chillwave
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambient trance
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acoustic music
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid breaks

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. I welcome all input. Ridernyc (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Spin and CMJ back issues at Google books

Google books are hosting back issues of Spin magazine (May 1985 – October 2009) and College Music Journal (till January–February 2008). Should be very useful as sources.—indopug (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a pretty thorough Suede article by Simon Reynolds from a 1993 issue of Spin I recommend you check out. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Atoms for Peace (band)

Is it just me, or is this a ripe candidate for merging into Thom Yorke? They seem to only be playing material from his solo album. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say the band is notable in its own right by having two or more members who are independently notable (WP:BAND#6). But at the moment the article doesn't say anything more than Thom Yorke#Atoms for Peace does. I'd be tempted to try a redirect, but not fight it if it was reverted as the band is likely to get more notable over time. --JD554 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

Can somebody take a look at Talk:Depeche Mode? There's a weird edit war going on there between three (possibly two?) editors and the changes I make are being lost in the edit war. --John (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though Depeche Mode seems to only be considered an alt-rock band by Americans who noted the same sort of people who listened to them in the States in the late 80s also dug the Cure and the Smiths (really, Depeche Mode have more in common with Duran Duran and Human League than they do with those groups both from a musical and background standpoint), I think this would be ripe for a Collaboration of the Week. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Project Good Article nominees in need of review

There's a massive backlog of potential Good Articles waiting to be reviewed at Wikipedia:GAN#MUS. Of the pages that fall under this project's scope I see Badmotorfinger, Down on the Upside, Post-Britpop, To My Surprise (album), You Know My Name, Foo Fighters, and KMFDM still waiting to be reviewed. So if you like reviewing articles, now's a good time to help out by jumping in and objectively measuring them against the GA criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:26, 18 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 Alternative music 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 01:37, 2 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)} 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Stone Roses - "One Love"

Hey,

I've changed a detail in the entry for the Sone Roses "One Love" Single. The B-side track on the 7" is not an edit, it has the same length as on the 12". It's wrong on this side too: http://stonerosesdiscog.com/onelove.html

I have it at home, so I'm sure about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.223.93.122 (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FLRC of Smoking Popes discography

I have nominated Smoking Popes discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GA article on the road to FA status

Please take a look User:Jujutacular and I have been working on Illinois (album) and he recently brought it to GA status. Since it falls under the heading of this WikiProject, I figured I would let all of you know that I have posted some comments there to outline what I think might best improve the article and I have notified Jujutacular as well. If this interests anyone out there, please join in. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Come as You Are (Nirvana song)

There's some disagreement over whether the fact "Come as You Are" is similar to The Damned's "Life Goes On" is important or not here. Please jump and let's see if we can build a consensus either way. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tips

Hello guys..Moxy here the guy that does the portals...We have made a Tip/guidelines section to help navigate Wikis vast rules!! Pls if y0u like add this to your project page if it apply to you guys here!!..Moxy (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

?	Use common sense. Ultimately, assume good faith on the part of others, be bold in editing because perfection is not required. See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information. Before starting a new article! - Notability is a concern that must be adhered to. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. Need help starting a new article? See Wikipedia:Article wizard it will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
I.	Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References for more information.
II.	Use proper spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. There is helpful guidelines in regards to styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) for more information.
III.	Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them.
IV.	Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs, which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subjects in question. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more information.
V.	Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this. See Wikipedia:The perfect article for more information.
VI.	Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary.
VII.	Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images

List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members created

I just created the List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members page, and I would like to let anyone willing to improve the article that they now can. I did post a basic outline of the member history, which can (and should be!) edited for a more comprehensive introduction to the article. I have not yet posted a timeline, or a member list, but any suggestions/edits are welcome! (Also, I apologize for not submitting this directly to The Smashing Pumpkins' taskforce page. I'm kind of new at editing, so I'm not sure how to exactly to that... WereWolf (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good start. I've removed the Members section from the main article entirely, and added the link to the See also section instead.—indopug (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, anyone mind maintaining The Smashing Pumpkins for a bit? I'm too busy to edit Wikipedia at the moment, and before I had to take a Wikibreak that was probably the most active page on my watchlist due to the whole back and forth about the members section. It's probably best to compare the version of the page right before the "members" section was added the first time around (sometime around March, if I recall) to the current version to see what edits in-between need to be tweaked. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

White Zombie early albums

The 1987/88 album Soul-Crusher by White Zombie is currently listed under WikiProject Metal but should really be under WikiProject Alternative music, considering it's noise rock and not metal.--Soul Crusher (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating Achtung Baby as Featured Article Candidate

I have just nominated Achtung Baby as a Featured Article candidate. You may contribute to the discussion by visiting the nomination page. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The nomination has been open for more than 2 weeks, but the article has not received an overall review by many users. If you have the time, please read the article and stop by the nomination page to share your thoughts. It would be a shame if the article is not promoted because the nomination did not receive enough attention. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Grunge, Britpop Taskforces?

Pretty new here, but I think making a Grunge taskforce would be a good idea. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Help!!!

If anyone could spare a bit of time to help me with "The Man Don't Give a Fuck" by Super Furry Animals that would be awesome! The song has been released twice, once as a non-album studio recording and once as a 23 minute live version to support the release of the band's greatest hits compilation Songbook: The Singles, Vol. 1 (the album actually contains the studio version with the DVD featuring a video of the live version) I'm really struggling to decide how to format the article so if anyone has any ideas (or can point me in the direction of similar articles that are GA or FA) please let me know! For the record I haven't worked on the lead so I know there are problems with it. Cavie78 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe (song). Not a GA/FA, though.—indopug (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cavie78 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I never quite figured out how to structure Radio Free Europe (song) in a wholly satisfactory manner (one of the biggest issues is how to approach the infobox/es). I hope you can point the way with that SFA page, Cavie. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RHCP cleanup

Hey everyone, I've been keeping an eye on several Red Hot Chili Peppers articles NSR77 brought to FA status ever since he left, but my absence in the last few months has meant many of those have quickly fallen into disrepair. These articles include most of the albums plus pages on John Frusciante and Flea (musician). If anyone wants to help spruce them up again, please lend a hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Plural v. singular form when referring to a musical group

(Since Brit Eng follows a different standard on this issue than other languages, for now all edits will be confined toNON-British musical groups.)

I will be systematically going through and editing every single article that uses the plural forms of passive verbs when referring to bands. (i.e. - "The Killers are an American rock band" "The Moldy Peaches were an indie group") I'm not sure why this glaring error is something that has been used only for musical groups, but it is most assuredly incorrect. A band is asingle unit - when talking about a band, in any tense, the singular form should always be used. Were we to be talking about themembers of the band collectivelly (i.e. - "Zooey Deschanel and M. Ward are the comprising members of the band She & Him") then it would be appropriate to use the plural forms of verbs, pronouns, etc... For further clarification, take the article on the United Nations. While the UN is made of of a large number of individual countries, the organization known as theUnited Nations is one single thing. So the article (correctly) states "The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN)is an international organization..."

(For a simpler way of looking at it, try replacing this band's name with the term "this band" - "The Killers are a band..." "This band are a band..." Obviously, the singular form should be used: "This Band is a band..." "The Killers is a band..."

I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it. Obviously, there are a lot of articles out there which need this kind of editing and it will take a long time for me to do so by myself. Feel free to pitch in and make alterations anytime you see this plural/singluar error. Send any questions, comments or objections to my talk page. (This entire text will be copied verbatim into the talk page of evey band article I correct.) ocrasaroon|^{blah blah blah} 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Before you change anything , please read American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. This explains why 'The Killers are...' is correct, even in American English.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We have had several edit wars in band articles over this, including some in which I have participated. The most annoying and stupid are the ones where they keep changing the verb in the first sentence back and forth whilst ignoring the rest of the article. There is no absolute answer to this; while there are differences in British English and American English usage, both allow for either plural or singular usage for group nouns, depending on the situation. Michig is correct, if the band name is plural (like your examples The Killers and The Moldy Peaches) then it should take a plural verb, in both American English and British English. Also, see Synesis and Collective_noun#Metonymic_merging_of_grammatical_number for more information about notional agreement. If you start systematically making these changes, particularly to just the first sentences of articles, you will probably find yourself in the middle of multiple edit wars -- Foetusized (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment request

Please see Magnapop I have requested assessment before, but then I didn't get it and just rated it myself (which I recognize is poor form.) I'd like to bring this up to GA status, so please leave comments either at the talk page or a comments subpage. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana FA review

I have nominated Nirvana (band) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative music 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 Alternative music 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 Monday, October 11th.

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 October, 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!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The lack of Bloc Party on that list makes Fox a dull boy. ):  f o x  18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pearl Jam - Once

Yo, i was looking up Alive, and i came across information about how it is part of a trilogy "mini-opara" named Mamason. It was awesome to read about how the the three songs go together. But when i moved on to "once", the second song of the triliogy, all it talked about was how it helped Eddie get into pearl jam, and NOTHING AT ALL about the meaning of the song. And then the alive wiki had infomation on Once that i was looking for, but no lyrical breakdown or any of that good stuff.

I understand this is a wiki, But if u want people to pay attention to your alternative music section, and if you want it to grow and change and breath like a real wiki would, then you have too put in break down for the meaning of the songs. If you get it wrong, then it doesn't matter, thats what the edit button is for; people will come in and fix the meanings for you or just add in their own input.

Ok thats my spill, i hoped it helped, catch me at <redacted>

if u spam i won't read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.30 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  f o x  23:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Radiohead's Pablo Honey

I have always read that Radiohead's debut album Pablo Honey, along with its lead single Creep, is post-grunge. It is obvious from its sound, and the band's admiration of Nirvana, that it is post-grunge. Despite credible sources listed by other users, some users continue to delete the post-grunge desciption. Can other people help us protect the song and album? Thanks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You did the right thing by asking for comments here, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make out. When you say reliable sources (plural), you mean this solitary review, right? You can't add things to Wikipedia because they are "obvious"... all information needs to be taken from reliable sources, rather than our own observations. This applies particularly strongly to infobox data, because the reader will often take it as being hard, universally-accepted fact.

As far as I'm concerned, there is not yet a consensus that "post-grunge" should go in the infobox. Personally, I would oppose it because I'm not sure that one passing remark in one review written 17 years after the release of the album is enough to back up the "post-grunge" label. Papa November (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can pigeonhole Radiohead into the post-grunge label. For the most part, post-grunge tends to be bland, watered down, corporate crap rock like Creed, Bush, Nickelback, Stone Temple Pilots, Matchbox 20 and the like. Radiohead have always been a bit too experimental to fit that, and aside from a handful of songs have never exactly been radio friendly. ParadoxBacklash (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Radiohed did not become very experimental until Ok Computer. Pablo Honey was influenced by the Pixies and Nirvana, and I'm not saying that Radiohead are a post-grunge band, just that their first album was. You can simply listen to it and tell that it is a post-grunge song. But, I do have sources. I don't usually like post-grunge either, ParadoxBacklash (and don't get me started on Nickleback . . .)

Sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Hail-Thief-Radiohead/dp/B000092ZYX/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1290029974&sr=1-1

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/12938-pablo-honey-collectors-edition-the-bends-collectors-edition-ok-computer-collectors-edition/

Those are the two I could find right now, but there are more.

Sbrianhicks (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazon isn't a reliable source, and that link only mentions "grunge" and not "post-grunge" too. I've reverted edits you've made using that as a reference for Radiohead's early work being post-grunge. I can't think of anything else to add to this discussion that hasn't already been mentioned by myself and others at Talk:Creep_(Radiohead_song)#Genre -- Foetusized (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So what are reliable sources to you people? It seems to me that anything that contradicts you're beliefs is unreliable. Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the guidelines for details about what constitutes a reliable source. User-contributed content on websites (blogs, wikis, forums, content aggregators etc) typically aren't considered reliable... anyone can write a review on Amazon and it'll appear online immediately without any need for approval by an editor/proofreader. Properly-edited, professionally-written books, newspaper articles and magazine articles are the best kind of sources for popular music topics. Papa November (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, then. There is a misunderstanding. I'm not citing a customer review, I am citing the Amazon review. They give their own review (like Allmusic or Rolling Stone). Just look, it's before the customer review. By the way, I found another source: http://www.blender.com/guide/67167/greatest-songs-ever-fake-plastic-trees.html

Even Amazon's "professional" reviews aren't considered reliable on Wikipedia. Amazon is an online retailer, not a music publication. The Blender article doesn't mention post-grunge anywhere.—indopug (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading it calling "Creep" "grunge." It may not be that reliable though; I just noticed that it says that Radiohead formed in 1989, so . . . Nevermind. Would a music retailer have reason to lie about a song's genre? Sbrianhicks (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Pablo Honey era, Radiohead were a fairly commercial major-label alternative rock band, and I don't think we need to use anything other than 'alternative rock' to describe their releases from this period.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Michig. Not to mention grunge/post-grunge wasn't the only type of alt-rock that sounded like "Creep". Without even getting into the fact that fellow alt-rock subgenre shoegaze was loud, used lots of distortion, and frequently played with dynamics (not to mention the no. 2 shoegazer band Ride came from the same city as Radiohead), the band has been quite vocal about its influence by the '80s alt-rockers Pixies and Dinosaur Jr, and the bio Exit Music makes it clear that they were the chief inspirations for Radiohead's sound at the time.

As for Amazon.com and genres, if you look hard enough through their categorization system you'll notice some very wonky genre groupings and filings. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Teargarden by Kaleidyscope

There has only been one single released from the new Smashing Pumpkins album, but in the singles box under the album info box it lists several. I have deleted them twice and someone keeps putting them back. What is going on? Sbrianhicks (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Those two were released on vinyl as limited editions on record store day.."—indopug (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference in the article about Record Store Day -- [13] -- says nothing about any single releases, just preorders for the first EP. Either a reference needs to be found (and I could find none) or the mention of the two singles needs to be removed from the body of the article and the infobox -- Foetusized (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pavement (band)/GA1

Pavement (band), an article tagged as of interest to this project, has been nominated for GA. I have reviewed the article and feel it does not meet the GA criteria at this time, and the work needed to bring it to GA status would be quite considerable; however, I have put it on hold for seven days to allow people an opportunity to improve the article. Even if the article is not improved to GA level, any improvement is a good thing, and involvement is encouraged and would be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Will you adopt projects?

Dont realy see any activity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nine Inch Nails. Think its best to make this a task force of this project. I propose we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Nine Inch Nails to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Nine Inch Nails task force. What do you think? lets see if we can keep this assessments going?

Dont realy see any activity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkin Park. Think its best to make this a task force of this project. I propose we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkin Park to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Linkin Park task force. What do you think? lets see if we can keep this assessments going?Moxy (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)