 | Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot 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. |
[edit] Propose a listing of 'important indie labels' To reduce confusion with criterion 5, I propose a list of approved and unapproved 'important indie labels' similar to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - While it seems like it could be nice to have, I think that could be very hard to do, particularly when it comes to excluding labels. While review sites tend to be reliable or not, a label can easily cross the threshold to "important" simply by signing a few notable bands and hanging on for a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that your argument supports the need for the list and also points out the vagueness of the criterion. The current wording begs for disagreement "more than a few years" What is that, four years? "roster of performers, many of which are notable" how many are in a roster? how many are 'many'? In listing the labels, consensus can decide the answers to these questions and put them in one place. Once these decisions are made the hard part is over, there will be plenty of editors wanting to list their favorite indie, and quick to add when the decided upon threshold has been achieved. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- While certainly the criteria could use clarification, I'm not convinced that the list will be quite that easy to compile or update. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is the sort of thing that can be maintained by a WikiProject (and should be if people are willing to do it), but should never be "official" since it is nearly impossible to be 100% accurate and 100% complete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree w/Moonriddengirl and ThaddeusB.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Musicals We're going to want to nail down some criteria for Musicals and Operas. I'm seeing a few of these float through AFD, and it'd be nice having something to point authors to. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - Seems reasonable to me. Do you have any thoughts on the subject? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think a lot of the criteria for ensembles fit well, though I'd add a tony award to the list of awards that confer notability (I'd think that would make sense, since individuals can win it as well). As for the rest, I'd add a subheading that expands some of the criteria for musicals. Something like this: UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Draft Criteria for Musical Theatre In addition to the criteria for other ensembles, the following criteria apply specifically to Musical Theatre productions and ensembles, to include Musicals, Operas, and similar productions. - Has had a charted album or cast recording on any national music chart.
- Has received a notable award, including a Tony Award, a Grammy, or the Pulitzer Prize.
- Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of a national or international touring version of the production.
- Is a production which contains two or more independently notable performers in leading roles, or for which the book was composed by an independently notable composer and/or lyricist.
- Includes one or more songs that are independently notable.
The following criteria do not automatically confer notability, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. - Productions that perform in a venue that is independently notable are not automatically notable themselves, unless the production's presence at the venue is responsible in part for the venue's notability (Long period of time performing in the same venue, etc).
- Comment seems like a good start. :) Not being all that familiar with musical theatre (aside from an odd musical here and there :D), I do want to ask about points 4 & 5. If, say, two of the notable actors from the t.v. show Gilligan's Island do dinner theatre in some retirement resort in Florida, is that production notable because they are? If not, is there some way we can clarify that? (The similar point 6 of criteria for musicians and ensembles has been contentious, and I'd hope to head off future issues at the pass by considering it now.) With respect to point 5, I would wonder if it is possible for a show to incorporate independently notable songs that have notability for other affiliations. The only extant example I can come up with is Love (Cirque du Soleil), which is obviously notable, so it's not a very good example. But the music from that production is not notable because of the production and probably would not lend towards notability of the production. Would it work equally well to indicate that the production originated one or more songs that were independently notable? Or is there some other word to help clarify that notability is not inherited in this way? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely needs some work, then, as I'm not sure how it would be best to address those issues. In the meantime, though, I think a Tony Award is enough to grant notability, and I'd like to add that to the MUSIC guideline. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Certainly, I think a Tony Award is plenty. :) What about starting with points 1-3 and leaving 4 & 5 here for further development? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reviews / Review Sites I think it would be very useful to determine whether an ensemble who is has an album review or two in reliable sources, but no other reliable sources is notable. I see a lot of band pages on here that, other than an album review or two, are completely non-notable (never mentioned anywhere other than on their myspace pages and fansites). I think that reviews would be fair to use as inline citations and references, but I don't think they are enough to establish notability, unless they are in a wide range of notable publications. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - If the reviews are significant coverage and appear in reliable sources, then two of them is sufficient to pass criterion 1 for bands and musicians. --Michig (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- But that's what I'm asking -- i.e. are reviews considered significant coverage. I understand that an article in a reliable source would satisfy notability guidelines, but I'm not sure that a band that just has an album review or two and no other coverage is really notable.Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bands and musicians basically perform live and release records. The vast majority of coverage of bands therefore consists of reviews of live performances and records, so such coverage, as long as it's "significant", i.e. not one or two lines saying little about the band or the work, then that is a reasonable indication of notability. A feature article in a well-regarded publication/website is clearly a good indication of notability, as is a decent interview (although often of limited use as a source). Bear in mind also, particlulary for older bands, that there where web content exists there is usually print coverage that isn't available online. The notability bar is intentionally set fairly low, so bands with no releases that nobody has written about are excluded (and there's plenty of these that get speedied each week) but a band wouldn't have to be really famous to be notable enough for an article. Each case needs to be looked at on its own merits re. how significant the coverage and how good the source is, but as a rule of thumb, WP:BAND works quite well.--Michig (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Record labels This guideline should probably include a section documenting practice for record labels. I offer the following as a proposal to start the discussion — it's a summary of the existing practice, not a new rule, but may still need to be expanded and/or rephrased for clarity nonetheless: - While a record label which has released material by notable artists is likely to be notable enough for inclusion, the roster alone does not confer notability on a label whose article does not contain any other sourced evidence of notability. For example, unless media coverage that is specifically about the label itself can be found, an artist's own personal vanity label may be more appropriately discussed in the artist's article than in its own separate article.
Feel free to suggest appropriate additions, changes, edits, whatever. It's just meant to start the discussion; it's not a final wording that I'm wedded to. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC) -
- I'm not sure that we want to discount labels that have/had impressive rosters or releases. Labels by their nature are not going to be the subject of media coverage. There should be some sort of other criteria for notability such as a certain number of certified gold albums, a number of notable acts, a number of albums on the Billboard 200, etc. Food for thought...J04n(talk page) 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] Deletion After reading text calling for Defiance, Ohio's deletion, I came to this page. I think that if editors are investing significant time to describe a band, there must be some significance, and hence the deletion criteria as written here are irrelevant. Furthermore, significant intellectual and cultural information may be lost by deletion, simply because Capital passed it over ("humbots").--John Bessa (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Notability criteria for songs (I originally wrote this on the talk page of WikiProject Songs but I suppose it makes sense to cross-post it here) I'm pretty sure nobody wants to take up that fight but the notability criteria for songs are causing problems. While working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable songs, I find many instances in which a song stub was replaced by a redirect without any merge of the content (see Music (Erick Sermon and Marvin Gaye song) or Just Another Day (Jon Secada song)). I also see a number of cases where some enthusiastic newbie starts articles on his favorite band's most important songs only to find all his work turned into redirects within a few seconds and without any sort of notification, explanation or encouragement to expand the more deserving stubs. Moreover, people don't bother to classify the redirects as Category:foo songs (see just about any random example) and more importantly don't bother to check that the song is indeed insignificant. The language used in WP:NSONG basically encourages this and while I understand the motivation behind it, its impact is negative. I'd rather have a ton of stubs that are properly written and properly categorized than a ton of redirects to places with zero info on the subject. Pichpich (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
