This wikiproject oversees all active music projects: see Music Projects and WikiProject Council for a table and a list. Posts about specific topics (e.g. albums, composers, jazz, rock or whatever) should be made to the relevant project - not here!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Music Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
One of the editors on the AfC page pointed out that it was surprising that there was not already a category for RS's 500 Albums/Songs. I agreed with them, but it also made me wonder if there is a specific reason why there are no equivalent categories for these albums and songs already; has this been an idea that was rejected in the past? If not, and if there is no pushback against the creation of these categories, I would love to see it happen and get some help with page categorization! :)
BTW, if anyone does have any issue with this, I am also open to hearing reasons why this may not be an appropriate category to pursue creating. Afddiary (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-project-member comment) As a person who commented on the AfC/C page, I do endorse the idea of this category if there is no opposition. I am also ready in assisting of adding the categories using AWB if the idea is accepted. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't have a particularly strong opinion, and was leaning towards accepting the request originally. However, I can't find other examples of similar categories, which makes me question whether it is WP:DEFINING enough. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is a defining characteristic, whether we should make categories for other (popular) best of all time lists. And if we shouldn't, why should it only be Rolling Stone? AstonishingTunesAdmirer連絡02:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with other "best of all time lists" having categories. In fact, if categories are created for Rolling Stone's lists, I'd argue it would be appropriate to create categories for the others as well. I understand there are a few similar lists of "greatest" songs and albums, including (but definitely not limited to):
(VH1 has a list of 100 greatest hard rock songs of all time (mentioned on the pages of each song, including its #1 entry "Welcome to the Jungle", but their list does not have a Wikipedia page.)
The reason I was surprised about the lack of categorization for the RS lists is because of how much attention RS's lists receive in the media (well, at least western media, from my perspective). However, despite the fact that I have long been aware of several other lists, the comparative amount of press and attention I see RS's lists receiving definitely eclipses what I see the other lists receiving. I don't really see the other lists as part of a cultural conversation around musical reception in the same way, although to be fair, that could be because RS repeatedly updates their lists, automatically forcing them to remain a part of musical conversations as each update gets released every few years. (I know the 1001 Albums list technically receives occasional updates as well, but I don't see its updates getting the same amount of press.)
I can also understand the argument that inclusion on the list isn't really a defining characteristic of each song (per Wikipedia:Defining). I don't know if RS's lists' level of notoriety works in favor of creating categories for them, but I did figure I'd mention it; however, looking over WP:DEFINING again, I'm wondering if it might be more appropriate to create an article containing a full list of each edition, instead of categories. As it stands, neither RS 500GOAT article contains a full list; the "Songs" article contains the top 10, and the "Albums" article contains no lists at all, although it contains statistics.
Yes, I'm frequently reminding people of this. We should not be replicating other websites lists verbatim like that. If people want to read a Rolling Stone list, they should be going to their website, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73msg me23:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a risky move. Hopefully it doesn't get deleted after dumping a ton of work into it. I've seen it happen countless times with the video game content area... Sergecross73msg me16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Been having a difficult time deciding how I feel about this. On one hand, probably no publication's lists should be considered defining, and we don't really need to collect that information because it can already be found published by that publication. But on the other hand, this list could be the exception. It is Rolling Stone after all, probably the biggest music publication in the world, and I guarantee there's plenty enough coverage of these lists out there to speak to its value above any other. For safety, I would probably lean toward non-defining anyway, but it feels like it's right on the edge.
However, it's also worth discussing the value of the category in terms of the information this list can provide. I'm not sure it's worth it just to load a category with >500 items (because different albums have been added to/removed from later lists so the grand total is over 500) without any further explanation. Were they on the first list, but later removed? How highly did they rank? A category can't tell us any of that info, but I'm sure the prose in these albums'/songs' articles already do, and I think that info is far more important than just blankly saying this thing appeared on this list at some point in history without any further context. What all is to be learned from that? Ends up just a collection of names for collection's sake methinks. For that reason, I wouldn't make the categories. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject for History of Music?
I searched the directories for wikiprojects: music and found nothing related to history of music. I also searched in the directories for History. If such a project does not exist, should we not create one? Sneakers McSnuggles (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having WikiProjects focused on different parts of music history (e.g., ones for opera, American music, drum corps, etc.) is a better way to do it than something broad like all of music history. Unfortunately, outside of maybe four large ones, most music WikiProjects are underutilized as it is, so creating an entirely new one to divvy attention may not be the greatest strategy. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former are cases where the artist is credited as "featured"; the latter are cases where they appear and are credited but aren't "featured". It's generally as simple as whether that word appears. Some of the entries in Tyler's guest appearances section may have been misplaced (or their respective articles have mislabeled him as a featured artist) and could use a check. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. What are we basing that off of? Genius? Youtube? Spotify? Apple Music? Because some websites say "featured" and others don't.
2. What about an artist appearing for one song on an album that's not theirs, but the song is completely made by them. For example: Waiting in Vain - Daniel Caesar was made for the Bob Marley: One Love movie soundtrack but the song is his.
1. Ideally, it should be based off the official track listing for the album, whether that is printed on a CD liner or record sleeve or found on a streamer like Spotify. Regardless, the source for this information will always be the liner notes, as stated at TRACKLIST and PERSONNEL.
@QuietHere: I believe the reason why the Tyler page is mixed up because the "as featured artist" says "singles" and "guest appearances" says "non-singles". Should we remove those two terms and just keep it as featured and guest because it doen't make much sense otherwise. Mwiqdoh (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Blackhawk (band), Randy Threet was formerly a "real" member but is now credited solely as a member of the backing band. Since he's not a former member in the sense that he still performs with them, should he be listed as a current member in the infobox but with a footnote, as is the case now? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a pretty standard mid-level independent review site for a long time, though it never got formally evaluated at RSALBUMS. I've added it to pages in the past and am unaware of any good reasons not to treat it as generally reliable. Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't exactly say for certain, but what would help is if you could explain their editorial policy with citations directly supporting it. Graywalls (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I will note that this isn't really possible with a lot of even reputable music sources. I should search and see if they've ever issued corrections, that's a good way to tell if a source is reliable. I did email IVM and I'm waiting to hear back. Whether they will respond, I don't know. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the discussion. I searched for "Doug Van Pelt" and "John DiBiase" (of Jesus Freak Hideout, which I also searched for) in several different talk pages and noticeboards. If I didn't name drop them, which seems to be the case, then I don't think I'll ever find the discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The band is defunct, so per fair use we could probably put an image in.
I think all the band members except Pat MacDonald should be merged/redirected, as none seem to be independently notable and one has had a two sentence stub since 2006.
Hey! Created a page on Imagine Dragons song Take Me To The Beach. It’s my first page, and I would love for it to be approved. If someone could please help edit it to make it better/more likely to be approved, that would be much appreciated…
I'd recommend reorganizing per the guidance at WP:LEAD. Much of your intro should probably be repurposed into a "History/Background" sort of section, and then rewrite the intro so that it only summarizes the article body content. Sergecross73msg me15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when we write or make new document of singer's albums or songs, there's sometimes producers list. how do y'all find producers credits? i tried Discogs, Spotify, Apple Music etc but i still couldn't find the way how to check them.
also i wanna know how y'all find songwriters) credits &
genre credits. Arismauve (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello! thanks for your reply. also can i refer other language wikipedia's information? and i usually check producers or release date by genius.com, but i remember someone said it's not a reliable source.
i searched Discogs, and i just entered like Mariah's 4th album Merry Christmas, i can't find any producers list. i tried it on other artist's "best" albums, which are popular. but still i couldn't find anything.. Arismauve (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can check other languages Wikipedias for leads/ideas of information, and you can take sources from them and add them to the English Wikipedia, but you can't use other Wikipedias (or any wiki/wikia) as a source directly per WP:USERG. Sergecross73msg me15:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Started a discussion yesterday regarding Template:Morrissey singles and whether it should be separate. Unlikely to get much attention on a template talk page on its own so I figured I should just reach out for any responses I can get rather than letting it be between two people who probably won't come to a consensus on our own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see - there's no hard and fast rule. If the artists identify the release as an EP, that's usually definitive; otherwise, as a rule of thumb, releases that are less than a half hour in length AND have eight tracks or fewer generally qualify as EPs. There are exceptions. Edge examples can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Chubbles (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Do y'all count a studio album related to their release dates? If the studio album named "A" were released ij 2009, and "B" were released in 2010, then "A" is 1st studio album and "B" is the second? Camilasdandelions (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
