Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music/Archive 3

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Nomination of Portal:Kesha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kesha is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kesha until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Shakira for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Shakira is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Shakira until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 08:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Musician Portals for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the following musician Portals are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted.


The pages will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drake (musician) (it's a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 the pages during the discussion, including to improve the pages to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the pages. North America1000 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Adele for deletion (2nd nomination)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Adele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

K-391

Greetings. A discussion regarding whether the musician K-391 should have a Wikipedia page or not is ongoing. I urge interested ors to participate and comment whether the page should be deleted or kept in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-391. Thank you. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael W. Smith discography nominated for featured article

I've nominated Michael W. Smith discography, a high-importance article under this project's purview, for featured list. For anyone interested, any and all comments are welcome. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#The Slugs

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#The Slugs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Hunters & Collectors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Hunters & Collectors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hunters & Collectors until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

Category deletion discussion

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article issues

There is a discussion at Talk:Alex Chilton#Article issues that might be of interest to members of this project. Otr500 (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Pop music

Ambox warning orange.svg Portal:Pop music, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pop music and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to the content of Portal:Pop music during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Priscilla Chan (singer)

Hi! I just finished rewriting the article Priscilla Chan (singer) and added a number of sources. Your comments are welcomed, thank you! --Will629 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal of interest

Members of this WikiProject and anybody who works on music-related articles might be interested in a proposal I've started. SNUGGUMS (talk / s) 14:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicole (German Singer)

I've spent the last few days expanding the Nicole article. I've rewritten most of it and added some tables for her discography. Any feedback would be welcome. Up until a few days ago, I've mostly only done small s on Wikipedia. GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chalga compilation albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Chalga compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should band navboxes have all albums and songs or just those with Wikipedia pages?

The issue has come up at Template talk:AJR.

What is the most common practice when a band isn't so famous that all of its works are presumably notable (The Beatles, etc.)? Are items that are not notable left out, or are they put in as "plain-text" items without links? Courtesy ping to ConstructorRob18. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 01:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole point of a navbox is to provide quick access to other related articles by the same artist. So it shouldn't include songs or albums that don't have their own article (not even a plain text list), because there's nothing to access. If you want a complete discography listing for the artist, this is usually done within the article for the artist if there are only a few records, or in a separate "xxxxxx discography" article if the list is longer. Richard3120 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musicians who committed suicide categories at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lana Del Rey has an RFC

Lana Del Rey has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of American Idol finalists

Discussion is made at Talk:List of American Idol finalists#Insufficient amount of sources? --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of American Idol finalists as featured list removal candidate

I created the FLRC page on the List of American Idol finalists page. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justin Bieber RFC

Hi, I would like to notify the wikiproject that there's currently an RFC underway at Talk:Justin Bieber#RFC: Describing Bieber as to how to describe the talents of Justin Bieber. Your participation is welcome.--NØ 10:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Song pages & chart positions

When going on the German Wikipedia for fun, I noticed that pages about songs not only included chart positions from each country, but also the amount of weeks the song has been charting for. The English Wikipedia should also utilize this tool. I know it sounds like a crazy idea to go back to so many song pages just to implement another factor of chart information, but if they're going to show the highest the song has ever been on a significant chart, it would only make sense to put a note after the number like (Charted for 13 weeks) or something. To put this in a sensible way, only including the peak information creates this false illusion that any song that has peaked higher than any other song was collectively more popular than that song. In reality, (for example) the BTS song "Life Goes On" reached number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, and the Imagine Dragons song "Radioactive" reached number 3 on the same chart, so one may think the former was more popular than the latter, if they hadn't known beforehand that 'Life Goes On' had only spent 3 weeks on the chart, and 'Radioactive' spent 87 weeks. I don't want to sound passive aggressive, but this is something we should really consider, and if it still 'doesn't make sense,' then there's really no reason to even include the peak positions on the pages in the first place. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've the impression, with the exception of UK/US, they have implemented this with German speakers territories, which is ad hoc for them maybe. Could be excessive with other countries and with a broader readership as with English Wikipedia if we cherry pick only few countries as well. Instead, like it happens with mainly Albums/DVD we can implement without problems chart positions in different years, e.g Back in Black peaked at 1 in France during 1980, and reached the 126-position on 2012 in same terrotory. Some users seems to avoid this, while others like to implement this. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this going to be automated in any way? Because it's going to be a lot of work for ors to review the charts worldwide every week to add another week onto the chart log for every song and album on every country's chart. This is especially true for albums like Queen's Greatest Hits which spend hundreds of weeks in the album chart, and leave and re-enter the charts over several years. Are you volunteering to do this? Many countries' charts don't have archives, such as Greece or Colombia, so it won't always be possible to determine a song or album's first or last week on the chart unless that week was archived, so a total week count will be impossible.
Also, what "false illusion" is being created? "Life Goes On" reached no. 1, "Radioactive" reached no. 3. These are facts, and no degree of popularity is being implied, that's a subjective opinion depending on the person. There will be people who will still argue that "Life Goes On" is more popular because it reached no. 1. Weeks on chart is no more an indication of popularity than chart position: streaming has ensured that songs regularly rack up 50 or more weeks on the charts, which before streaming was introduced was an almost unheard of figure. There's no way you can compare the popularity of a song in 2021 to a song in 2001, based either on sales, chart position or weeks on chart, because the way songs were sold and the way the charts were compiled were so different as to make comparisons worthless.
@Apoxyomenus: I don't like the use of Infodisc for any chart positions or for sales figures – it's already listed at WP:BADCHARTS for the former. The issue is that this is not the IFOP chart position – as Infodisc explain on their history page [2], their chart positions before the official SNEP charts were launched are based on a "synthesis" (their wording) of various radio and magazine charts blended together. Their sales figures are also their own estimates, not official sales figures. But it provides a good example of the problem with Back in Black and other older albums... their "official" chart positions and weeks on chart will be negligible, because the majority of sales happened before the chart even existed. So this gives another false impression as Trevortnidesserped suggests, because it will look like the album was never popular there. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard3120: While Infodisc is listed under WP:GOODCHARTS for sales/certifications, I also avoid add peaks positions from that website as was suggested in WP:BADCHARTS. Anyway, maybe the French example of Back in Black wasn't enough good. I know there is numerous reasons why an album charted again on record charts beyond the original releases, one of the most obvious will be when an artist passes (and we see examples such as MJ or Whitney Houston). Also because the component weren't compiled by the same data provider. Citing an example, we can see Hitlisten in Denmark thus a "x" album could have a peak position compiled by Hitlisten in Hung Median while Music & Media citing IFPI could have another (and yesteryear) position for that album. Also, because simply an album keep charting/selling and no matters if the artist pasess or still alive. In any case, maybe a general print of this could be The Dark Side of the Moon (FA), as we can see the same weekly components from several countries such as Belgium, Italy or Poland in multiple years.As Pink Floyd's album, there is recent releases in this century with the same chart trajectories in multiple years. Beyond a counter-suggestion, I've a question: that's allowed? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Apoxyomenus: Personally, I really don't think we should be using Infodisc for sales – you can see on their page of "best-selling singles of all time" that it says at the top of the page "Estimation par l'équipe d'InfoDisc à fin 2018" ("Estimation by the Infodisc team up to the end of 2018") [3]. This is the same for all the sales figures on the website. So the sales figures are only estimates by the three people at Infodisc, and they are not official or verifiable in any way at all. The only thing I think Infodisc should be used for is for certifications, and I think this should be stated very clearly at WP:GOODCHARTS/WP:BADCHARTS.
No, the example of Back in Black was a good one... it shows that if you only include the official chart position and weeks on chart from 1984 when SNEP started, you won't have a good idea of how popular the album was before the official charts started. You are right about the problems of using different chart providers for many countries – many of the charts in old issues of Billboard and Music and Media are supplied by one person, or one radio station, and they are not the official charts of the time. What you say about Dark Side of the Moon is also a problem... do we show chart peaks from different years, or the highest chart position at any time since release? This is an issue which affects mainly songs which are hits at Christmas every year – one option is to show the peaks every year, like at "Fairytale of New York", but then the list will become very long over time. Or you show just the overall peak, like at "Last Christmas", but then it doesn't tell you that it didn't reach no. 1 in the UK until 36 years later. Richard3120 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard3120: Good explaination and true about data supplied in both Billboard/Music & Media. Sometimes they cited the "source" (IFPI or "the person" e,g) but I guess worse is nothing and was the only way to do that before the official components of many of those countries/system we know now. In addition, accuracy will be never 100% and many of today data provider doesn't coverage 100% of a country/region as well. With chart positions, I guess will also depends on each point of view and how readers look it, expert/non-experts. At least, I know songs as you pointed out have those issues with among other things, Christmas season and one of the problems is many components are based on "airplay" instead "sales" (sometimes combined). Official albums charts as far I understand, are based on sales/shipments. Maybe in a contemporary album release, a reader/fan could easily identify the main/highest position came during the original release but "that album also charted in the following years" which could be at same time a less extensive list compared to its original release due doesn't apply to every listed country. A direct/indirect indication that a record keep selling despite the main sales came in its original release. While I've the impression there is no indication how to proceed with these, unless I overlooked it in some part, I would prefer (doesn't mean I'll) to implement this than have a long list and lists of critics like with Future Nostalgia or Folklore since opinions by critics lists are subjetive but none less important. Are fine, ofc, but just the treatment applied into it as the same that we will never have every single review from Metacritic (Rotten Tomatoes in films) in the prose. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amy Grant discography up for Featured List

Amy Grant discography, a high-rated list in this WikiProject, is up for featured list. Discussion is ongoing, and any input is welcome. Toa Nidhiki05 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Michael Biggs notable?

Should Michael Biggs have his own Wikipedia article he was a member of the major pop band in Brazil called Turma do Balão Mágico and the was an actor on the television show Balão Mágico. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's all he's done, then no, he isn't individually notable, because the pop group and the TV show were essentially the same thing... the TV show's cast made a few albums based on the show's popularity. You would need to show that he's had some separate notability outside of the show/group. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedroom pop and alt-pop - are they notable enough to get their own article now?

Does anyone know anything about alt-pop music or whether there is any decent references about alt-pop out there in books or online. So many people are using the term online these days but if you do any google search about 'what is alt-pop' takes you to random info about indie rock or out-of-date stuff about indie pop in the 1980s, so I think that a line such as the quote below needs to be placed in one of the music genre sections (for example the teen pop, pop music, indie pop, art-pop etc) if it is not worthy of an article of its own...and as the bedroom pop link is also useless just redirecting you back to the top of the Lo-fi music page...

"In the 21st Century, lots of new acts have been grouped under the 'alt pop' label[1] with the genre being used for a range of artists in the charts[2][3] seen to have a broad appeal but seen to be less manufactured and more eclectic or original[4][5].[6] Artists[7] include Tate McRae,[8][9][10][11] Halsey[12][13] [14][15] Chloe Moriondo,[16][17][18][19] Beren Olivia, [20] [21][22][23][24][25] Jack River,[26][27][28][29][30] and Billie Eilish".[31][32]

— QUOTE

Now some Wikipedia iors think the term is not worthy of its own article because only dictionaries have decided what the term is, even though sites like AllMusic and Popmatters have used the term frequently when promoting various alt-pop artists (in addition AllMusic's description is a bit out of date and merged with that of alt-rock)...the only other thing I found with google was the following but it couldn't be accessed (and I do not know if it can be used as a source anyway)

The Modern, AltPop Perspective - Impakterhttps://impakter.com › modern-altpop-perspective Altpop should be defined as genre that experiments with popular categories of music of all eras and shows the vision and influences of the specific artist.

— QUOTE

Anyway something has to be done as if you google alt-pop or click on a link here it takes you to the wrong information or out of date information...and I don't think that's one of the core values of Wikipedia.

Regards, BEccles81.152.238.125 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedroom pop

In regards to the advice from Michael 'Binks' Knowles...

15:09, 5 July 2021‎ Binksternet talk contribs‎ 66,545 bytes −1,976‎ →‎Bedroom Pop: revert... keep conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music

— QUOTE

So the argument before was whether alt-pop was about popstars like Tate McRae and Beren Olivia or indie bands like Space (not the French band) and The Beta Band.

So should bedroom pop could go in the space where alt-pop used to be on the indie pop page?

At the moment if you click for the bedroom pop article it takes you to lo-fi music and bedroom pop gets about one line in the whole article. Maybe there is a bit more to say there in the indie pop section about bedroom pop than in the lo-fi section, as there seems to be loads of stuff about bedroom pop online[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] - and then when AllMusic updates its genre listings to include these new genres both can get their own articles. Job done! BEccles81.152.238.125 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3pn7dG5TPJuNf9qpY3U6ci
  2. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/52396/billie-eilish/
  3. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/48297/halsey/
  4. ^ "Definition of ALTERNATIVE POP". Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  5. ^ "How bedroom pop became the dominant sound of Gen-Y angst". The Independent. 2 December 2019. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  6. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternative%20pop
  7. ^ https://riffmagazine.com/opinion/top-30-songs-2020-phoebe-bridgers/
  8. ^ https://www.spin.com/2020/10/how-tate-mcrae-became-a-pop-star-during-a-pandemic/
  9. ^ https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-radar/tate-mcrae-all-singing-all-dancing-alt-pop-superstar-2738001
  10. ^ "Tate McRae, dancer turned pop sensation: "There's so much freedom in singing"". Readdork.com. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  11. ^ [1]
  12. ^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8513267/halsey-best-songs-top-20
  13. ^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8548319/halsey-manic-career-recap
  14. ^ https://www.grimygoods.com/2015/11/20/halsey-rips-industry-at-first-sold-out-fonda-theatre-photos-review/
  15. ^ https://uproxx.com/pop/halsey-alternative-radio-female-musicians-biased-problem/
  16. ^ https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-radar/chloe-moriondo-pop-punk-hero-interview-2914816
  17. ^ https://www.nme.com/reviews/album/chloe-moriondo-blood-bunny-review-radar-2934902
  18. ^ https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/epngdw/chloe-moriondo-blood-bunny-music-interview-on-pop-punk-and-tiktok
  19. ^ https://cloutcloutclout.com/new-music/chloe-moriondo-i-eat-boys/
  20. ^ https://www.totalntertainment.com/music/beren-olivia-release-is-that-what-you-like-now/
  21. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/one-to-watch-beren-olivia-is-an-alt-pop-superstar-in-the-making__33478/
  22. ^ https://giggoer.com/2021/06/18/beren-olivia-song-review-hurt-again/
  23. ^ https://starsalert.com/news/one-to-watch-beren-olivia-is-an-alt-pop/679442
  24. ^ https://www.thelowdown.online/post/beren-olivia-history
  25. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000v10k
  26. ^ http://www.nettwerk.com/label/jack-river
  27. ^ https://www.ozy.com/the-new-and-the-next/this-sustainability-star-says-virtual-events-are-not-the-future/303666/
  28. ^ https://primarytalent.com/jack-river/
  29. ^ https://artists.teamwass.com/music/jack-river/
  30. ^ https://notion.online/sailing-down-the-jack-river/
  31. ^ "Billie Eilish and the Alt-Pop Movement". Dailybassandtreble.com. 10 April 2019. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  32. ^ "Alt Pop Genre". Stereostickman.com. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
  33. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/bedroom-pop-billie-eilish-rex-orange-county-clairo-spotify-a9226256.html
  34. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/music/what-s-bedroom-pop-how-online-diy-movement-created-musical-n1131926
  35. ^ https://brokenstereo.medium.com/bedroom-pop-and-the-rise-of-the-diy-artist-1946e83bc7e0
  36. ^ https://thefortyfive.com/opinion/what-is-bedroom-pop/
  37. ^ https://www.collater.al/en/best-bedroom-pop-artists-2018/
  38. ^ https://flypaper.soundfly.com/discover/9-bedroom-pop-artists-we-cant-stop-listening-to-right-now/
  39. ^ https://cherwell.org/2020/07/20/the-beauty-of-bedroom-pop/
  40. ^ https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/breakout-bedroom-pop-stars
  41. ^ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/music/a33396347/popular-bedroom-pop-artists-quarantine/
  42. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/may/12/my-studio-is-an-extra-limb-right-now-bedroom-pop-the-perfect-genre-for-lockdown
  43. ^ https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/2018/04/bedroom-pop-diy-artists/
  44. ^ https://www.albumoftheyear.org/genre/313-bedroom-pop/all/all-music/

RfC on the reliability of Business Insider

Hello! I have started an RfC about the reliability of Business Insider for sourcing in music related articles. This would have some impact (albeit most likely minor) on all music related articles. Feel free to comment at the RfC. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"

Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ayaka Kimura#Requested move 6 August 2021

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ayaka Kimura#Requested move 6 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ( ) 11:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC started on track listing sections

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Singles and promotional Singles

Hello. I have a few questions

1. How to distinguish a single from a promotional single. Example: Katy Perry's song "Cry About It Later" was sent to the radio of Australia and Russia, and it is considered a single, at the same time her song "Roulette" was sent to the radio of Russia, but it is considered only a promotional single, like the Miley Cyrus song "Plastic Hearts", which was also sent to the Russian radio.

2. If a promo single was sent to the radio, will it become an official single? Example: Taylor Swift's song The Archer was released as a promotional single, but it was sent to radio in Australia and Russia, should it be considered as an official single?

3. Does having a music video make a song a single? Katy Perry's song "Not the End of the World" is marked as a single, however, it was not sent to any radio. Nicki Minaj's song "I Am Your Leader" and Lady Gaga's "John Wayne" also have music videos, but they are not considered singles. MemberDecember (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to ask this question at WP:SONGS, where this has been discussed before – for example, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 22#A single or a promotional one?? But in general, the answer to all of your questions will be: is it described as a single by a majority of reliable sources? Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

INTO1

Hi, I noticed that only 2 out of 11 members of INTO1 merited their own articles, excluding Liu Yu. Are the rest of them considered non-notable? Have there been any discussions about this? We're having some trouble with these singers' fandom at vi.wiki. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:BANDMEMBER: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability". If the band members are not known for anything expect being in INTO1, then they don't merit individual articles, because all their notability is as a member of that group. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Bradley Joseph

I have nominated Bradley Joseph 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 ors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on samples in a song

Hello, I started a discussion about samples of one song in another song, it can be found here. I'd like to invite others to join the discussion, because not much happens there (still I see my s on the mentioned page reverted again recently). I hope this is the right place for such an invitation. If there's a more suitable page to draw the right people's attention to that topic, you can also let me know. Best regards, Zijling (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:James Reid (actor)#Requested move 18 February 2022

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James Reid (actor)#Requested move 18 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 14:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Boyz on Block and Draft:Time (Five album)

Draft:Boyz on Block Draft:Time (Five album) Can someone approve or reject these please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil4517 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Bernard Fanning

I have nominated Bernard Fanning 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 ors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge discussions regarding New Found Glory and Lit (band)

Please see separate proposed merges regarding New Found Glory (International Superheroes of Hardcore; discussion) and Lit (band) (Allen Shellenberger; discussion). Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Articles for improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Pop music, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy ing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Requested move for Kelly Sweet

Information.svg Hello, there is a requested move for the page Kelly Sweet, which was relisted twice due to a lack of consensus. Please visit the talk page to leave your input for this discussion. Thanks! Mori Calliope fan talk 03:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]