Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41

Magazine archive (Computer Music)

Hi project members. Does anyone have back issues of, or access to an archive of Computer Music magazine? We are looking to improve the referencing in the various Audio Trackers articles. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's the June 2007 (issue 113) that I'm after. Marasmusine (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally subscribe to that magazine but I do know that publishers often post their back issues online or make them available upon request. You'll probably have to pay, though, of course. Have you contacted the publishers to see if they can help? --Jubilee ♫clipman 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split-apart of MUSTARD

Following my audit of MUSTARD a couple of months back and the more recent move over to Wikipedia space, it has been suggested that the page be split apart into the other Music Guidlines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)#Page Split. Thanks --Jubilee ♫clipman 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD) for the full discussions and rationale behind the merge. Some sections were merged into MOS:MUSIC, the rest were left out of the merge. MUSTARD has been marked as Historical. Please let me know if I have left anything unresolved; I will clean up the Music MoS as soon as I can. Thank you to all all those that have helped, encouraged and advised me throughout this long procees --Jubilee ♫clipman 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record label standards

Why is the notability standards for record labels covered under WP:CORP instead of WP:MUSIC? I was recently involved in a deletion discussion about a Christian subsidiary for one of the major U.S. record labels which shocked me that someone would nominate for deletion using CORP or WP:GNG. It's very difficult to find sources for some subsidiaries like this one, especially in Christian genres. All of its artists were notable to very notable, many records charting on Billboard, Grammy awards, etc. Seems to me to be a topic worthy of discussion if I'm not treading on a perennial topic. Royalbroil 02:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is currently under review by several editors. This question could certainly be raised as part of that review. Thanks for the heads up --Jubilee ♫clipman 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with marking Manual of Style (MUSTARD) as historical

The whole of the Manual of Style (MUSTARD) has been marked as historical. MUSTARD has fulfilled a useful purpose as an 'all music project' brain-storming forum, so I don't think we should close it down, see the MUSTARD talk page --Klein zach 00:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MUSTARD has again been marked as historical (Quote: "Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear."). I think we need to discuss this here, hopefully bringing in some real contributing editors (as opposed to the ubiquitous metapedians), including those who have actually contributed to the guidelines.

One of the main reasons for having MUSTARD has been to involve members of different music projects, creatively and collectively in style and standards issues. Various editors have put effort into developing what has become a long document. Unfortunately instead of processing past contributions (moving finished sections as appropriate to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) then replacing them in MUSTARD with links to their new location) while leaving other sections for further work here, one or two editors are going for the lazy option of simply abandoning the whole thing with a 'tag', to prevent further work being done on it. Why is this?

Last year, when I was interviewed by the Signpost about the work of this project: I wrote:

The Project also has the MUSTARD or 'Music Standards' guidelines. More work is needed to make sure they include editing practices and styles developed by individual projects on the one hand, and are consistent with WP-wide practice, the Manual of Style etc. on the other, but this will become an important resource in the future.

That's still my opinion. If MUSTARD is going to be removed we need to consider the purpose of this project. Is it still viable? What is it for? --Klein zach 09:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted several times inviting people to comment about my reappraisal of the Music MoS and MUSTARD. See Archive 25 for example. I have also posted in other Wikiprojects, on WP:VPP, WP:VPR, in WP:CD, and took part in discussions over at WT:MOS (now archived, of course). Perhaps Kleinzach missed all of those posts for some reason? I take it as a compliment when he called me a Metapedian, BTW: without such people, the Policies and Guidelines would be in a far greater mess than they they are at present. Please see the talkpage of MUSTARD for more. Thank you --Jubilee ♫clipman 11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think Jubilee did a great job here in organizing years of edits to the mustard page..The appraisals were one of the best i have ever seen. This whole process was done in the open and well explained during its process (however this does not mean something is missing or wrong). Perhaps if you could mention what you believe was omitted to the new page, maybe it could be intergraded back into the new page. Having the page as historical is fine the info is still there and usable. What we have now is much clearer for new people. As i mentioned before in the talks - I believe when it comes to individual wikiproject styles there is no need to duplicate the info on multiple pages that is y there is a sub group style page. Moxy (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy has now removed all mention of MUSTARD from the project page [1].

To clarify. 1. Information should not be duplicated on multiple pages. This is a linked publication and we should use links. (I don't think there is any disagreement about this.) 2. Marking MUSTARD as 'Historical' (really a tag for projects not guidelines) closes it down and makes it unusable except via (quote) "broader input via a forum such as the village pump proposals page." I oppose this.

What is happening here is that censorship and centralization are once again killing creativity, initiative and encyclopedia building. (This is the story all over Wikipedia where the number of encyclopedia-contributing editors is plummeting, while the bureaucracy becomes more and more inflated.) The various Music projects are now largely inactive - will this one soon be as moribund as the others? Does anyone care? --Klein zach 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) {{Historical}} is indeed for Wikipedia:Project namespace pages. MUSTARD resides in Wikipedia name space. b) What exactly is being censored? No one is saying discussion can't carry on as normal: the page is still available for scrutiny and this WikiProject has a talkpage... c) Moxy removed the link because the page was marked historical. d) The fact that I posted in multiple places over an extended period gave editors plenty of time to engage in discussion. I ask again: why leave it till the process of merging is complete to start commenting? My appraisals and comments surrounding them made clear what I felt should happen to MUSTARD: if I had indeed made a full split-apart (as I suggested on the Music MoS talkpage and in the MUSTARD apprasial), it would have lost altogether! This way we can keep it intact if anyone does feel it might serve some useful purpose in the future. Perhaps we could move it back to this WikiProject's subpage? Or move it to WP:Music standards and mark it as an essay? Or we could userfy to your userspace if you would like to work on it more? As stated, I personally feel it serves no further useful purpose now that the sections that were not duplicated elsewhere have been moved to the Music MoS. Which brings up a final thought: since all of MUSTARD is indeed duplicated elsewhere, every section of it should be blanked and linked to those other Guidelines, if we follow your logic! That probably would not be helpful however... --Jubilee ♫clipman 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the main page back in ..see [2], this way it is clearly still visible/usable to all and in the appropriate section. However not sure if it should be there. Moxy (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I... Also, I am looking at the history of MUSTARD and am not convinced it was ever used as a brainstorming page in any sense. Even the creator, TUF-KAT, agreed we don't need two pages: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)/Archive 3#Official Guideline?. I will look into this further and get back to you tomorrow, though. It is interesting that most of the activity on the actual page has taken place this year, however, the previous edits being merely to add sections and to categorise, i.e. no edits to clarify or change the advice after TUF-KAT moved it to WikiProject space and the lead was added. Only one edit each in 2007 and 2008. If this was a brainstorming exercise, it failed to recognise the contradictions, inconsistencies, and redundancies that have remained until this year... In fact, even TUF-KAT marked it as historical in 2006! We need other participants in this discussion, however, or we will go around in circles! More thoughts tomorrow, though --Jubilee ♫clipman 02:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thought: we could use {{superseded}} as {{superseded|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)}}, instead? --Jubilee ♫clipman 07:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]