Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Asking for feedback

Can someone help me format this a little better so it can possibly be published? I am writing a wikipedia article for a friend of a friend's band. also the name is wrong, it should be "Year of the Rodent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rodent_Death_Orgy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widingt (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, can anybody help me add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jolyon_Petch to this group?

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

Could I get a second opinion on what's happening to the article The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings? This article is about a box set of Frank Sinatra music. For the past week or so, an editor has been greatly expanding it (using several IPs as well as one newly registered account, but from behavior I assume they are all the same editor). The article now contains, not only list of each of the 452 tracks in the set, but for each of those tracks, a purported description of the date, day of week, and occasionally the time of day, on which it was recorded, the city in which it was recorded, and full list of all the musicians performing on each track, roughly 30-40 musicians per track. The article now contains over 20,000 words, of which only 238 words are prose, the rest being these enormous lists of names. This seems to me to fall afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Oh, also, none of this information is sourced. CodeTalker (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Well, it is a bit uncommon...but so are 20+ disc releases. And additionally, somewhere in the guidance, it says that track lists generally don't need a source as long as they're 1) released and 2) non-contentious. So unless you have specific doubts on its accuracy (ie someone was certain there were 35 songs on disc 5 or something), the track lists are okay without a source.

:I guess I'd ask, if it's not okay, why not? How is it different from a single or double album where we list the whole track list? Where is the line drawn? Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not as concerned about the track listing, which has actually existed in the article for many years. My main concern is the 75% of the article that now lists the name of every musician who played on each track. That seems an unnecessary level of detail, and I don't see it in articles about other recordings. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band does not list the name of every member of the 40-piece orchestra, and Days of Future Passed does not list the name of every member of the London Festival Orchestra. CodeTalker (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with CodeTalker's concerns. The section "Contributing performers, arrangers and producers" is overwhelming and unnecessarily detailed. It is also unhelpful because its track numbers are through-numbered 1–452 which is not used in the track listing. This section might be marginally useful if it were restricted to a simple list of "Notable contributors" (those with articles). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I was initially ready to counter with "music credits often vary in detail, with some getting quite granular", but looking closer, the credits are too detailed. They look like the equivalent of someone copy/pasting the entirety of a film's ending credits or something. Judging by some of the formatting details, I wondering if they actually copy/pasted some liner notes, which would be a no-no for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like a nightmare to me. Do we need an article for this in the first place? Is it notable enough / is there enough material to write about it to justify the article existing? Or can it be summarised in one or two sentences in the Sinatra article? Popcornfud (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Googling around, I can't find much coverage of this, which suggests to me the article should be redirected to Frank Sinatra. Popcornfud (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have just noticed that this editor is making similar changes to a number of other articles: This Is Sinatra Volume 2, All the Way (Frank Sinatra album), Ring-a-Ding-Ding!, Sinatra's Swingin' Session!!!, Nice 'n' Easy, No One Cares, Come Dance with Me! (album), Look to Your Heart (Frank Sinatra album), and many others. None of these have sheer volume of personnel as The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings simply because there aren't that many tracks on the other albums, but the pattern of adding every musician, along with dates, times and cities, is the same. I have asked them to come here and participate in the discussion. CodeTalker (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hello! I got a notification on all of this, and have been trying to figure out what exactly is happening here. A few months ago, I went through and compiled the info on personnel for Sinatra records from the book “Put Your Dreams Away”. I’m not ann experienced Wikipedia editor but knew this info would be appreciated. Every edit I made has cited that book. As a musician myself who regularly performs and studies this music, this information was never available anywhere online. Since I found it useful, I decided to add the information specifically under Personnel for Sinatra recordings, album by album. (Many musicians I know are thrilled that this is now available). In my opinion, Wikipedia is the perfect location for this information, especially when it’s located in its own personnel tab.

::With that said, I’ve never edited a collection, because as people are pointing out, it’s overwhelming to list personnel that way, track by track. So I’m definitely not involved with the current edits. While I don’t get bothered by overwhelming information on musicians, I can see why the entire Reprise collection having this info is quite unnecessary. Especially since the info is available more succinctly by album. Ryanshawdrums (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Your efforts and enthusiasm are appreciated, you just kind of went overboard a bit with the details. It's not an encyclopedia's job to compliment to totality of the credits of something. Think of it in terms of my comment above - it's good to outline some key credits to a film, but it would be inappropriate to transcribe the entire 10 minute credits scene from the end of a film. What you did was...more akin to that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what has been previously published in reliable sources, not to publish information that has not been available previously. There are many places on the Internet where such details could be published more appropriately than in Wikipedia. Whether Sinatra would want the information known is irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:NOTDB, which explains that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because information is true and useful does not automatically justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia. It might be useful to some people to have train schedules, TV listings, or car repair instructions available, but that does not mean that such things should be on Wikipedia.{{pb}}Also, you say "{{tq|Every edit I made has cited that book.}} But none of your edits have included citations, to that or any other book. Please read WP:REFBEGIN and the links therein to understand what a citation consists of on Wikipedia.{{pb}}Please do not restore such information to any more articles until this discussion has reached a consensus. Doing so is edit warring and is not the way to reach a resolution here. CodeTalker (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we might have a WP:TOOSOON case with Leo33. So far, the clearly notable Zach Top seems to be the only artist on the label who's released anything, and most of the coverage in the article is about Zach Top and not Leo33 proper. I would suggest this be draftified for a while until the label becomes more notable. Paging {{ping|Caldorwards4}}, {{ping|Martin4647}}, {{ping|Jax 0677}}, {{ping|sergecross73}}, {{ping|CloversMallRat}}, {{ping|ss112}} Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. I kind of doubt it'd survive a close review of WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Zach Top is clearly the spearhead for the label in terms of majority news since he's the big success story so far, but I don't see an issue here as it has received enough press to have a sufficient number of reputable sources (Billboard, Music Row), was started by notable industry executives with ties to big labels, and it has been signing several artists (who have released material even if it hasn't been on Top's level of success). If something like R&J Records can exist with virtually no sources, or Black River Entertainment who has only had 1 real success story in Kelsea Ballerini, I don't see the problem with Leo33 existing as it is. It's pretty clearly going to only continue growing as Top is on the precipice of being huge at the format, so there's no indication that the label will cease to be notable imo. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::If your examples haven't survived any sort of scrutiny like a merge or deletion discussion, they're not good examples of what's acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::* Keep, or send to AFD - I think we should keep it, or at least have the conversation at AFD!. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::*:There's nothing wrong with having a preliminary discussion before AFD to gauge things. Its not like it'd be deleted from this discussion alone. That said, its not particularly helpful to say "I think we should keep it" without giving any explanation at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::*::{{re|Sergecross73}} any suggestions on what to do with the Leo33 article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::R&J Records at least had a large roster of mostly notable artists and was around for multiple years. Black River has had multiple chart entries prior to Kelsea Ballerini, and has received way more significant coverage. The current Leo33 roster is not notable except for Zach Top, and the label only began last year. I argue that it's a WP:TOOSOON and would probably be better served as draftified or redirected to Zach Top as an WP:ATD, unless someone has a better idea than that. As it stands, it's just too new a product to be notable, but may be notable in the future, so the current content should be preserved in some fashion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

I’m working on a draft article about the Argentinian hard rock band LUJURIA, based on reliable sources and written with a neutral point of view.

The article is currently in my user sandbox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stanlukubrik/sandbox

Since I have a direct connection to the band, I’d prefer the article to be reviewed and, if appropriate, moved to mainspace by an experienced editor to avoid any conflict of interest.

I would really appreciate any feedback or help!

Thank you so much for your time Stanlukubrik (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 9#File:Ssmlt.JPG. George Ho (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I am looking for feedback at Featured Article Nominations for Vince Gill, which I am trying to get to featured article. Please check it out here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

New stub: LGBTQ representation in jazz

Collaboration welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

In another project, I'd like to use some images from Wikipedia that are generated from the score module along the lines of what you get if you right-click and download the images in Peter and the Wolf#Instrumentation. Since these aren't actually uploaded images, they don't have their own pages with file attribution guidelines. Can anyone please point me in the right direction for correct attribution? Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I suspect that attribution would be the same as for any text from Wikipedia, WP:CC BY-SA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Katy Perry regarding her studio album chronology based on her major-label debut. Please share your opinion on the discussion page. Thanks. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 07:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started an RfC about what guidance, if any, there should be for bonus and alternative tracks in album articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#RfC_on_bonus_and_alternate_track_listings. Thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Good morning everyone,

some weeks ago, I reached out to Oricon regarding the availability of the You Taiki page with contains the full coverage of every Charts published by the company. As I am currently focusing on Japanese musicians and bands I (and I am translating articles from English to German) some information like chart entries below 50th place in the Oricon Singles and Albums Charts (after implementing You Taiki and earlier entries bein archived online) I reached out the company asking if it is possible to get access from overseas and adding PayPal as payment method.

Oricon replied to me some days later and unfortunately, they wrote that You Taiki is and will only be accessible in Japan and they disapprove the usage of the data from You Taiki (including chart positions and first-week sales, even I did not ask for using the latter).

This is the message Oricon had sent to me:

{{Blockquote|text=(Introduction deleted as it would show my personal name)

この度は弊社「you大樹」サービスにお問い合わせいただき、

また貴重なご意見をいただき誠に有難うございます。

「you大樹」では利用規約におきまして以下のように定めております。

■第３条（申込の方法）

１．本サービスは、日本国内に居住する個人のみ利用を申し込むことができるものとします。

よって貴殿におかれましては、「you大樹」のご登録、ご利用はできない状況です。

また、以下のようにも定めておりますので、想定されているご使用方法は不可となります。

■第４条（本サービスの利用について）

３．会員は、本サービスの利用にあたり、次の各号に定める行為をしてはならないものとします。

（1）コンテンツを複製、頒布、貸与、譲渡、公衆送信、送信可能化または上映を行い、

　　　もしくは第三者をしてこれらを行わせる行為

何卒ご了承ください。

誠に恐れ入りますが、何卒よろしくお願い申し上げます。

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

オリコンランキング月額有料情報サービス「you大樹」：http://ranking.oricon.co.jp/

お問い合わせ先： ranking@oricon.jp}}

--Goroth (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well that's quite upsetting. Did they state why they disaprove of it being used outside of Japan?★Trekker (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm working with Wikiproject Unreferenced Articles and I was wondering if there's any good database sources that count as reliable that can be used for unreferenced album articles? AllMusic is clearly right out due to WP:ALLMUSIC, as is any other user-generated source like Discogs. So, what good non-user generated databases are out there for music? Silverseren^C 23:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Allmusic is still good for bio and album reviews, it's not as much as their database, but the usable content still has pretty good reach. But yeah, honestly, I'm not sure there are many. Unfortunately, in this day and age, most databases are user-generated, AI-generated, or Wikipedia-generated. There's aggregators like Metacritic I guess, but there's not usually much original content to be used there either. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing wrong with using Allmusic for matter-of-fact confirmation of discographical information. Discogs is far and away the most comprehensive and reliable source in the world for anything discographical, but because it is UGC, you should use it and then not cite it. (This is silly, yes, but it is what makes a better encyclopedia.) More than anything else, you can trust the albums themselves as sources, since they are published works (and since Discogs usually has photographs of them, you often don't even have to have them on hand). An album is a reliable source for information about itself, just like a published book is. Chubbles (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

A while back there was a long discussion on the Micheal Gira talk page about an abuse allegation against him and it's inclusion on his page. An editor claims that the coverage of the allegations shouldn't happen because he's "not a public figure", among other claims on why they think the claims should not be included. I have responded to several of them on why I think they are incorrect. I would like to have some other editors revisit this as I felt the discussion didn't really go anywhere with only a few editors involved. RF23 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)