| Revision as of 11:05, 14 June 2012 editBabbaQ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users104,439 edits →One-off group that won Eurovision Song Contest← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:14, 19 December 2024 edit undoCambalachero (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,909 edits test editsTag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{redirect|WT:MUSIC|the WikiProject discussion page|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 130K | |maxarchivesize = 130K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 23 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{talkheader| |
{{talkheader|WT:BAND|WT:MUSIC|WT:NMUSIC}} | ||
| {{Notice|Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by ] after 30 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 130K in size, a new one is automatically created.}} | {{Notice|Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by ] after 30 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 130K in size, a new one is automatically created.}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Albums}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Songs}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} | ||
| == Notable bands bar too high == | |||
| == Names == | |||
| Why are some artists listed with their nicknames, while others are listed with their real name? What is the standard naming? See ] and ], versus ] and ], for example. ] (]) 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not an issue of notability. The relevant policy is ]. Further guidance is at ], but that is secondary to the policy. ] <small>]</small> 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed modification to Others category == | |||
| For Musicians outside Mass media traditions I believe the following set of rules are quite unhelpful and impractical Specifically the rule that states "5.Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". Errr... What exactly is a publication of subculture? The US is the only country that has commercial media specificallly for subcultures. In India traditional musicians dont rely on magazines or journals for establishing their work but instead rely on recognition amongst peers, critics and listeners. They tend to scoff at self promotion or even publicity. They believe that the responsibility of educating and publishing any literature about music is the specific responsibility of students (academic not artistic), scholars and historians. For all of the above any attempt to setup reputable magazines or litterature in this field meets with failure. I would like to instead draw attention to the concept of patrons. Most musicians in history (even european musicians) were known for their patrons (including kings, royal families etc.) In India this holds true. I would suggest that notability for classical musicians should instead include (1) awards and recognitions won (2) notable events to which they are invited to perform and (3) notable critics (ummm... notably criticised is a better word). ] (]) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :By "publication of subculture" I think the authors want to accept "underground" publications, i.e. publications that may not be covered by general reference sources. Of course there is a lot of this in the U.S. but it stems from European traditions of publications that might not have been acceptable by censors who wanted to control information (just think of the enormous amount of underground publications that existed in formerly Communist countries in Eastern Europe). So even though a person might not make, e.g. the New York Times, they might be found in numerous publications that used to be circulated among fans and adherents. As a recent discussion argued, the mere existence of one award is not enough for a person to be notable, and I believe if a person's only claim to fame is having a patron, that too is not enough. If they are already notable, then this information can be folded into their article. -- ] (]) 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for the response but I don't think you understand my dilemma completely. These are some of the problems I face | |||
| # Their is no reputed journal of Hindustani Classical Music. Their is no magazine or printed Journal which will meet the Misplaced Pages standards. In absence of these there are a couple of websites that discuss about these artists but I don't think Misplaced Pages encourages that | |||
| # The awards I am talking about are National Awards that offer a lifetime of benefits to the recipients. A suitable comparison would be the medal of honor. Does a medal of honor recipient require to be mentioned by reputed journals to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages (O.k. I Know that medal of honor is not given to artists, but the awards I am talking about like the Bharat Ratna are lifetime achievement awards given by the government. | |||
| # Some artists like Lata Mangeshkar and even the poet Rabindranath Thakur was never mentioned in any journal in India. A few European and American journals might mention them in the passing. But Lata Mangeshkar has been a Guiness Record Holder and Rabindranath Tagore is Nobel Laureate. My point is that these standards cannot be used for all artists all over the world. In most places around the world artists are better known from their reputation than their presence on billboards or journals ] (]) 10:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''': I share the sort of concerns that Wikishagnik is raising. Especially about publication discrepancies in different contexts. Language issues aside, my experience suggests that it's easier to find citable material for a contemporary British composer than for an Italian one (] saved mainly by allmusic.com). Such discrepancies may arguably end up tilting content in certain directions even within articles. For instance, it might appear that the musician in ] is primarily a crossover artist, whereas in reality that's just one aspect of his work which also focuses very much on extending the artistic traditions of his gharana. Citation availability may affect content in subtle ways: although more balanced, ] shows some signs of a similar distortion. To tackle these issues, I feel it's important for Misplaced Pages guidelines (and their implementation) to remain flexible and sensitive to context. Otherwise, "]" risks taking on an unintended meaning. My two pebbles, ] (]) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''': Thanks, Wikishagnik, for explaining it better. I see it in a complex way now. I still think that verifiable information is necessary, but I accept that different cultural practices might mandate a special response. You can always create the article, and then see what administrators say about it. I've never been to India (for example), so I have a hard time imagining a popular performer who has absolutely nothing written about them. But I'll be willing to follow what happens when a few articles are created with a dearth of the typical documentation one expects. -- ] (]) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :While I am sensitive to systemic bias problems, I don't see how we can do away with the needs for reliable sources. Otherwise, how would we (random editors who've never heard the music) tell the difference between someone who is legitimately "notable" and someone who is just trying to promote themselves on Misplaced Pages? At a bare minimum, we would need an article that verified that they had been a recipient of the medal; that article itself should have information. If it didn't--i.e., if all we had was proof that a medal was awarded (like "Name: Awarded X on this year") how could we even write the article? Where would the information come from? And what would be the value in having an article with only one sentence in it--wouldn't it be better to create an article titled, "List of Prize X recipients"? ] (]) 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: OK, I take the arguments of Mistymom, Kosboot and Qwyrxian, Thanks for reading through my suggestions but maybe I have more work cutout for me. There is a Page about Padmabhushan awards but does not mention the year 1993, the year when the artist I am interested in. I will have to do some more research on that. I dont mind all the work. Its just that I find it unfair that artists who do not enjoy the same literary cover of established European or American artists should be at a disadvantage. But I am not loosing hope. I will get this article posted. Oh, BTW I think Qwyrxian is confusing my artist with some wannabe's but trust me that's not the case. As I mentioned in my earlier argument the artist is not printed about, not that he is not recognised or respected, In India of course ] (]) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Roxx Gang == | |||
| I feel that the gold record or higher criteria for music, along with the rest of it is a little too high a bar. I understand that a small screaming punk garage band called “My Nefarious Loins” or something may not be considered notable, however a band that has recorded and published music but is not Green Day size should not be blocked off of Misplaced Pages, especially if they’re good. This band in question is , I am not part of the band or know them but I am interested in creating a page for them. ] (]) 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] is meeting WP:NBAND? ] (]) 21:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Nobody is saying that they have to have sold millions of records to be included on Misplaced Pages. But "notable" means that someone outside of their social media and friends and family have written about them. We need to establish some criteria for notability otherwise Misplaced Pages would include literally anyone who's played music. I have three different cousins who have all recorded and published music on YouTube, Spotify, etc. but there's no way I would call any of them notable. If the band has coverage in newspapers, magazines, established online sources that aren't blogs, then they would be considered notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 21:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It's close, I think. There appears to be of the band (mostly in the '']'', the band's hometown newspaper). Then there's a '']'' article in which an ] guy describes for a couple paragraphs why signing Roxx Gang was one of his "biggest mistakes". They have an entry in a book called , which notes the band's debut album sold more than 250,000 copies. There is probably enough material from online sources to meet ], but I doubt their albums meet ]. Those articles can be nominated for deletion or be redirected to the band's main page if you prefer. Have a look and see if you agree. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 07:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks ] (]) 21:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::A gold record is ''one'' way that a band can attain notability, not the ''only'' way. Bands that have never had gold records can still pass other NMUSIC criteria listed here, and can still have enough ] coverage to pass the bar. ] (]) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tpq|especially if they’re good}} is an impossibly subjective standard of no use to Misplaced Pages editors. Who gets to say any band is good or bad? Professional music critics, not individual Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In all fairness, requiring a ''gold'' certification is completely excessive for the UK, which has a different grading system to most other countries. A silver certification requires 200,000 sales, and required 250,000 sales before 1989. That is actually more than enough, especially for a country that does not have diamond certification, and whose silver certification is (having regard to relative population) much stricter than gold certification elsewhere including the US. The present criteria is obviously based on RIAA and is USA-centric. It should be changed. Silver certification in the UK should suffice. ] (]) 06:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == template message == | |||
| == inherent notability via chart == | |||
| Is there a template message people can use when they find band spam? I'd like to be able to leave a message on talk pages explaining the criteria and linking here. Is there such a thing? If there's anything good it would be great to add it to twinkle. ] (]) 12:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Do itunes sales charts count for this purpose? I am aware of several songs/albums that are otherwise not notable, but seem to be using this as the criteria for keep] (]) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :You can use <nowiki>{{Notability|1=music}}</nowiki> to tag bands that may not meet the criteria for inclusion, which links to ]. ] (]) 08:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Notification of discussion == | ||
| {{{icon|]}}} {{slinkno|WP:NMUSIC#Future material}} is currently being discussed ]. Please join the discussion to form a consensus on its language. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> (]) 04:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| "The musician must meet one of the following crieria: Has had a single or album on any national music chart." Is this really enough? If an artist has one song charting at #73, then surely that's not notable? I once considered creating an article on UK band Two People, but decided not to as there was no way they could be considered notable enough. is their UK chart discography : two hits - one charting at #63 the other at #87. Their planned album never even got a release in the end. Perhaps the criteria could be redefined to at least one top 40 (or even top 20) single/album perhaps. The following criteria of at least one gold record is a far cry from one charting single.--] (]) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I think those charts may not be notable enough for the inclusion of their articles on wikipedia, but if they had a song or something chart on the Official Charts Company, then they are in fact notable. As long as, the band or song had a hit on a chart on the official ] chart by the any nation then they are notable. It does not specify number because the charts company decide what to chart and what not to, so we need to respect that! If they chart they are notable if not they are not.] (]) 06:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is the Official Charts Company (or Gallup as it was back in the 80s). - just officially a top 75. So yes, this particular group did chart in the UK, but I still don't think that they are notable for just this (they don't meet any other criteria). But I'm curious, you say The Official Charts Company '''decides''' what charts? --] (]) 12:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It's rare for a band to have a top 75 hit without anybody writing about them, and it's inconceivable that Two People didn't receive any coverage, although unsurprisingly for a band that came and went in the mid-80s, most of it will be offline. They had a live concert broadcast as part of BBC Radio 1's ''In Concert'' series, so there's another of the notability criteria met. They also appeared on television - clip . So, I would say that having a top 75 hit in the UK is a pretty good indicator of notability. --] (]) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :What Michig said. It's very rarely possible for anyone to reach even the bottom of a chart and get no attention. For example, there are one or two country music artists who only got to #60 or #59 for a week (the country chart only has 60 positions) and were never heard from again — those artists might be on the fence for notability at best. The band in question here is on the fence, but the proof that they were on a BBC series adds to their notability. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I guess I'll have to accept the criteria as given, but the difference between having a chart hit is having a #63 against another factor which says they must have had a gold disc which indicates a song which must have at least hit the top three (and even then, many No.1 singles don't achieve gold status). As for this band in particular, I'm sure there was coverage in music magazines back then, but all that can be found online is chart links to their hit (other than that it's all blogs and YouTube, which don't count towards an article).--] (]) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == An extremely short article referencing a closed Billboard rating == | |||
| == One-off group that won Eurovision Song Contest== | |||
| Hi, I have a question regarding an ensemble of two separate artists ] who won the ] that were chosen to compete for an event by singing "]". So they eventually won that event and now have an article based on the ensemble itself. The event is highly notable in Misplaced Pages. But after the event they didn't record anymore material together. They began working separately as solo artists. I have a feeling that they were just separate artists. ] (]) 02:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I am at a loss applying ] #2 to ]. How exactly are we supposed to ] when the only claim to fame is a chart hidden from casual users? Perhaps, ] can be modified by adding that an important chart should be at the very least publicly available? Any hints will be appreciated. ] (]) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why have you brought this here? The result of your nomination ] was a ] keep. Did that not answer your question?--] (]) 10:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Per ], the fact a source cannot be accessed without payment is irrelevant to its ability to verify claims. With that being said, NMUSIC explicitly states that {{tq|meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article ''must'' be kept}}, and it's entirely possible that there is simply not enough extant information on the band for an article to be viable; you may nominate it for deletion if such is the case. ] 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I tend to think that AFD is indicative of the problem we have with the Eurovision song contest. People are insistent on documenting every detail of the contest and every winner, with each song in the contest being given individual articles. Many of these songs and artists have no notability outside the context of the contest and would be better off being document as part of an omnibus article.—](]) 12:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tangential–does "national music chart" in NMUSIC#2 refer to any chart considered worthy of inclusion in an article (which is what ] is about, not notability), or ''specifically'' the primary, genre-indiscriminate chart for a country, such as the ] or ]? ] 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well that's not really my point but I think that there should be a guideline to what makes a group an actual "group" in this site. Just because two individual artists competed together in a notable competition and won plus their song charted around the world, an article should be created that states that they are a group (which meets one of the notabilities of this article). Then why isn't there an article called "Kanye West and Jay-Z" then? (they won a Grammy, an achievement that makes them notable enough). ] (]) 06:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re| Mach61}} I understand the ]. However, here the situation is different: the popular music is not some obscure scientific field that might have no free sources: there are plenty of charts available for reading, so using one that is hidden does not help ]. All I say, if a ''modern chart'' (not any source! not even any chart!) is not easily available, can we just force editors to use ''another one'' by modifying the criteria in a way that the hidden charts simply do not count for ]? ] (]) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] PAYWALL explicitly includes online publications (such as ''Billboard''), why would you think it's limited to obscure studies? Anyhow, it's not as if there aren't plenty of editors (or readers, for that matter) with ''Billboard'' subscriptions; it's ok if, as a new page patroller, you have to give up on reviewing a specific article because the sources are too hard to access; doesn't make the sources wrong. ] 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for the advice. This particular situation is actually quite simple, as the article in question is both brand new and clearly deficient in all other aspects, so I am going to ] it for other reasons. I have nothing more to say here, but would be listening to additional advice here if it will be forthcoming. To save bandwidth: I think that I understand both the PAYWALL and the reasons for that quite well, it is a ''particular'' chart that bothered me. My question essentially was and is: is it worth even bothering here with paywalled charts when public ones, like are readily available from the same organization and thus presumably reflect the same ratings? ] (]) 23:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Have you considered that the chart in the article the ''only'' chart that band has made? ] 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, of course. I have also read the following statement on ]: ''in the vast majority of cases, any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on the other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article''. So IMHO it is up to our community to decide if we ''want'' to use the inaccessible "dependent/component/mathematically related charts" (terminology from CHARTS), but we do not seem to ''need'' to do that. With the particular article, I did not reject notability out of hand, and draftified for other reasons. ] (]) 00:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Survival Records == | |||
| :::Possibly true that not every songs needs its own article, but certainly every artist who has ever appeared in Eurovision would meet ], so yes, they should have an article, but perhaps the songs for many of them should be merged into the artists' page.--] (]) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Every song performed and every singer/group/duo who has performed in Eurovision is notable beyond WP:MUSIC.--] (]) 13:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Only if you treat the contest's "awards" as meeting ]. It's a perversion of the guideline to treat every element of the contest as notable because the contest gives awards: it's self-referential notability.—](]) 00:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A contest with over 100 million viewers has inherit notability. Most songs in the contest charts within days of being performed so mostly it's not a problem.--] (]) 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::A group performing in the contest would have instant notability, but not necessarily the songs themselves. As the guideline for song articles state; Song articles should only be created if there is enough information for a worthy article as well as saying that most songs do not merit their own article and information should be merged with a parent album article or group article. If you look at examples like this: ] and ], neither article is decent (nor ever will be, let's face it). The song information could (and should) easily be merged with the group. And even if neither article existed, you still have this: ]. So we have three articles concerning one song which placed badly in the contest and flopped in every chart in Europe.--] (]) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Nothing, nothing at all, is inherently notable.—](]) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Those articles require some expansion though. If they won a national song selection for example and you put sources about that in there they can become notable. Winning a national song selection contest can make it notable. ] (]) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{{icon|]}}} There is a discussion taking place on ]. Opinions / guidance would be greatly appreciated. | |||
| Ok just forget what I initially asked here but are there guidelines to what makes a group, a "group" in Misplaced Pages articles? Like about how they were formed. Do group/band articles have to meet a criteria? Ell & Nikki are already notable since they took part in the contest and I understand that. I just have my doubts if they were actually a group or were just separate artists that competed together. That's what I'm wondering. ] (]) 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| :Despite all the dissenting opinions, I have to agree with what Bleubeatle is saying -- famous musicians often made albums together than are classics, but we have articles on the album and of course on the individuals, but they aren't a 'group'. The question is, because they only preformed together specifically for the event, are they a group or did they simply combine their talents for the event? I'm thinking potentially the Ell & Nikki article could be merged into the article on the song they sung (and keep their separate articles as well, of course). ] (]) 13:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : |
] (]) 22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Hey guys, thank you so much for the input. I completely agree with this. There should be something in Misplaced Pages that 'defines' what a musical group is and not just rely on notability. If they can be meet the definition then an article should be written about them. Anyways I don't want to question the notability now since that would be ] and going against consensus but if you guys have any more input to give feel free to post them at Ell & Nikki's talk page ] (]) 00:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: In the AfD I said I alluded to a combined group/individuals article and a separate song article, but I can see merit in the similar proposal of two separate biographies plus a combined song and group article, as this may display the information better in the long-term, presuming this group was indeed only temporary and will not make a come back - if it does, that position will be changed. In any case, I remain opposed to a straight deletion and suggest the group article be re-directed to the song it is connected to with information merged in as appropriate. The status quo is hardly terrible, but some merging will make things more complete and less fragmented. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> ]</small> 09:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I still oppose any merging of the article Ell & Nikki. Clearly it should have its own article and the song should have its own article. Now lets end this discussion. ] (]) 11:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 19 December 2024
"WT:MUSIC" redirects here. For the WikiProject discussion page, see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (music) page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot II after 30 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 130K in size, a new one is automatically created. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Notable bands bar too high
I feel that the gold record or higher criteria for music, along with the rest of it is a little too high a bar. I understand that a small screaming punk garage band called “My Nefarious Loins” or something may not be considered notable, however a band that has recorded and published music but is not Green Day size should not be blocked off of Misplaced Pages, especially if they’re good. This band in question is Young culture, I am not part of the band or know them but I am interested in creating a page for them. Darkheart24 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that they have to have sold millions of records to be included on Misplaced Pages. But "notable" means that someone outside of their social media and friends and family have written about them. We need to establish some criteria for notability otherwise Misplaced Pages would include literally anyone who's played music. I have three different cousins who have all recorded and published music on YouTube, Spotify, etc. but there's no way I would call any of them notable. If the band has coverage in newspapers, magazines, established online sources that aren't blogs, then they would be considered notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Darkheart24 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- A gold record is one way that a band can attain notability, not the only way. Bands that have never had gold records can still pass other NMUSIC criteria listed here, and can still have enough reliable source coverage to pass the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
especially if they’re good
is an impossibly subjective standard of no use to Misplaced Pages editors. Who gets to say any band is good or bad? Professional music critics, not individual Misplaced Pages editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)- In all fairness, requiring a gold certification is completely excessive for the UK, which has a different grading system to most other countries. A silver certification requires 200,000 sales, and required 250,000 sales before 1989. That is actually more than enough, especially for a country that does not have diamond certification, and whose silver certification is (having regard to relative population) much stricter than gold certification elsewhere including the US. The present criteria is obviously based on RIAA and is USA-centric. It should be changed. Silver certification in the UK should suffice. James500 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
template message
Is there a template message people can use when they find band spam? I'd like to be able to leave a message on talk pages explaining the criteria and linking here. Is there such a thing? If there's anything good it would be great to add it to twinkle. Secretlondon (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can use {{Notability|1=music}} to tag bands that may not meet the criteria for inclusion, which links to WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Notification of discussion
§ Future material is currently being discussed at WikiProject Albums. Please join the discussion to form a consensus on its language. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
An extremely short article referencing a closed Billboard rating
I am at a loss applying WP:NMUSIC #2 to Stratejacket. How exactly are we supposed to WP:V when the only claim to fame is a chart hidden from casual users? Perhaps, Misplaced Pages:Record charts can be modified by adding that an important chart should be at the very least publicly available? Any hints will be appreciated. Викидим (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Викидим Per WP:PAYWALL, the fact a source cannot be accessed without payment is irrelevant to its ability to verify claims. With that being said, NMUSIC explicitly states that
meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept
, and it's entirely possible that there is simply not enough extant information on the band for an article to be viable; you may nominate it for deletion if such is the case. Mach61 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- Tangential–does "national music chart" in NMUSIC#2 refer to any chart considered worthy of inclusion in an article (which is what WP:CHARTS is about, not notability), or specifically the primary, genre-indiscriminate chart for a country, such as the Billboard 100 or UK singles chart? Mach61 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mach61: I understand the WP:PAYWALL. However, here the situation is different: the popular music is not some obscure scientific field that might have no free sources: there are plenty of charts available for reading, so using one that is hidden does not help WP:V. All I say, if a modern chart (not any source! not even any chart!) is not easily available, can we just force editors to use another one by modifying the criteria in a way that the hidden charts simply do not count for WP:NMUSIC? Викидим (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Викидим PAYWALL explicitly includes online publications (such as Billboard), why would you think it's limited to obscure studies? Anyhow, it's not as if there aren't plenty of editors (or readers, for that matter) with Billboard subscriptions; it's ok if, as a new page patroller, you have to give up on reviewing a specific article because the sources are too hard to access; doesn't make the sources wrong. Mach61 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. This particular situation is actually quite simple, as the article in question is both brand new and clearly deficient in all other aspects, so I am going to WP:DRAFTIFY it for other reasons. I have nothing more to say here, but would be listening to additional advice here if it will be forthcoming. To save bandwidth: I think that I understand both the PAYWALL and the reasons for that quite well, it is a particular chart that bothered me. My question essentially was and is: is it worth even bothering here with paywalled charts when public ones, like HOT 100 are readily available from the same organization and thus presumably reflect the same ratings? Викидим (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Викидим Have you considered that the chart in the article the only chart that band has made? Mach61 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I have also read the following statement on WP:CHARTS: in the vast majority of cases, any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on the other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article. So IMHO it is up to our community to decide if we want to use the inaccessible "dependent/component/mathematically related charts" (terminology from CHARTS), but we do not seem to need to do that. With the particular article, I did not reject notability out of hand, and draftified for other reasons. Викидим (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Викидим Have you considered that the chart in the article the only chart that band has made? Mach61 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. This particular situation is actually quite simple, as the article in question is both brand new and clearly deficient in all other aspects, so I am going to WP:DRAFTIFY it for other reasons. I have nothing more to say here, but would be listening to additional advice here if it will be forthcoming. To save bandwidth: I think that I understand both the PAYWALL and the reasons for that quite well, it is a particular chart that bothered me. My question essentially was and is: is it worth even bothering here with paywalled charts when public ones, like HOT 100 are readily available from the same organization and thus presumably reflect the same ratings? Викидим (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Викидим PAYWALL explicitly includes online publications (such as Billboard), why would you think it's limited to obscure studies? Anyhow, it's not as if there aren't plenty of editors (or readers, for that matter) with Billboard subscriptions; it's ok if, as a new page patroller, you have to give up on reviewing a specific article because the sources are too hard to access; doesn't make the sources wrong. Mach61 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Survival Records
There is a discussion taking place on Talk:Survival_Records. Opinions / guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)