Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Main page

Discussion

Deletion talks

Help & tools

Manual of Style

Statistics

Directory

Discussion at Talk: What a Man (song) § Split of Whatta Man

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk: What a Man (song) § Split of Whatta Man, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. George Ho (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

User deleting verified songwriter discographies

Can anyone here please help restore the discography for Ilsey Juber. It was updated on April 27th, and a user deleted not only the updates but the entire discography on May 17th. All the updates were accurate and within Wikipedia standards. No reason given for deleting, just saying "apparently not notable", even though Ilsey Juber is a notable songwriter and the discography has been on her page for years. Thank you Muppetgraybies (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. It was correctly removed for being unsourced. You'll need to find sources for each bit you wish to re-add before it can be returned to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. If the sources are updated, and everything is cited, it can be re-added to the page? And does each song need a source and can a full discography be cited? Muppetgraybies (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Besides being unsourced, IMHO, that table is excessive. ShadyGroupers (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, how can the table be improved? Muppetgraybies (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Sarah Vaughan singles discography

You might be interested in taking a look at User talk:Matt574#Block appeal.
Yes, I'm overreacting. But I reverted some articles to their original state. And what I get is... See for yourself. :-) And maybe someone here has a spare 3 hours to re-write the tables so that they have more data. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You can always revert a Wikipedia page back to a previous edit in the "View History" without having to re-type everything. Matt574 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk: Open mic needs an independent reviewer

Hi all. I have posted a {{edit COI}} request at Talk:Open mic proposing that the article's statistics citation, currently sourced to a page retrieved in February 2013, be updated with a current, openly published dataset of UK open mic venues that carries a Zenodo DOI.

I have a conflict of interest (I am the founder of the organisation that published the dataset), so I am not editing the article directly. I would be grateful if an independent editor with an interest in music topics could review the request and place it if appropriate.

Thank you. Naumaanzahid (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Weird situation at Low Year

So Dollys was moved to draft space in 2019 per WP:UPE, then deleted not long after. However, the band's albums -- Low Year, Oh, Please, and EP1 (dollys EP) -- were not deleted along with them. Normally this would be a WP:A9 situation, but all three works have reputable looking sources which suggest the band may be notable.

Is this a good enough case to take Dollys to WP:REFUND, seeing as the admin who deleted the draft is no longer active? Or should the albums be deleted anyway since they appear to have fallen under the same WP:UPE issues as the band? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. An album can be notable while the band is not yet notable. A band can be notable while a release is not notable. Please evaluate each instance as a separate consideration. I am speaking in general, as I am not actually investigating these album articles. Please evaluate each album article individually to determine if the album article is adequately supported. If it is poorly supported, and a reasonable web search fails to locate supporting citations, then propose the album article for deletion. As for the band, please search the web or your local supply of printed periodicals and determine if there is sufficient citations to create a new article for the band. Treat each and every article as if it needs to prove it's existence, but never treat a good article as a pillar to support a weak related article. Mburrell (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mburrell: I feel like that's a really patronizing answer that assumes I know less about Wikipedia than I do (I've been around since 2005, I know how to find sources) and completely ignores the greater question of WP:UPE. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It was not a patronizing answer, but anyone can take an answer and read it through their set of filters. Take it as well-meant, take it as informative, take it as patronizing, take it as simplistic. I had no idea how long you had been on Wikipedia, and don't really care. You posed a question that seemed to seek a response, I responded with what I thought would be good advice not just for you but any reader. You were offended. Oh well. Not my intent. The advice is still good, if not for you, then for other readers. Mburrell (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If an album is notable, a band is notable. Coverage of an artist's work is coverage of that artist; there is no NOTINHERITED problem here in the slightest. The album articles clearly indicate this band well passes WP:MUSIC and the article should unquestionably be restored. Chubbles (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Band member timelines

Is there a standardized way to do these? I’ve seen some that are unnecessarily detailed and cluttered adding like “additional percussion” or “occasional co-lead vocals” for example while others just list the primary instruments/vocals in the lineup. I didn’t see anything on MOS:MUSIC about it, wondering if there was a consensus somewhere. RF23 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is. I personally try to remove clutter like "occasional guitar" or "additional percussion" because they're generally not important or common roles, but it's a constant battle with passerby editors who love to bloat things with trivial examples. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Of songs and uta

From Felicity Lott: "Her main interest was the interpretation of mélodies and lieder." I think this would be better written as "...French and German art songs." I think accessibility (in the general sense) is important. I quite often look up something I know nothing about in WP, and find I have to click on several links just to find out what the first sentence means. Should every reader already know what "mélodie" means? As a young pianist I certainly met Lieder ohne Worte, but the other thing was called Chanson sans paroles. What if an artist specialised in the interpretation of Japanese and Norwegian art songs?? Please comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ilsey Juber

this seems like overkill to me. I'm tempted to cut it back to songs that have their own article, but wanted to check first. ShadyGroupers (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

What makes it overkill? Having a comprehensive and well-formatted list seems like a real bonus to me. Cutting back to songs only with their own articles is an arbitrary constraint, and I don't see how it benefits the reader. Chubbles (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

As long as it's all well sourced I don't see a problem with a full credit list.★Trekker (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Dispute over lead definition: Interpolation (popular music)

I am requesting a technical review of the lead section of the article Interpolation (popular music). The article long featured a consensus-based definition of "interpolation" that was accurate and stable for over a decade. On 21 April 2026, an editor unilaterally replaced this definition, asserting solely on their own authority that they had written a "better definition" with "better citations."

No prior discussion or community consensus was sought for this change. When I restored the long-standing consensus a couple of days ago, the editor reverted that change, dismissing the original text as "too wordy" and claiming the previous citations were "unusable."

My primary concern is that the current lead is technically imprecise. It conflates the legal and technical concept of "interpolation" with the general process of "re-recording." These are distinct copyright concepts – sampling involves the original audio (implicating master rights), whereas interpolation involves the musical composition (implicating publishing/composition rights).

Furthermore, the new lead uses unnecessarily dense, non-accessible language that fails to communicate the concept clearly to the general public.

The "better citations" the editor introduced – The Guardian and SoundOnSound – are inadequate for this purpose. These are reputable publications, but they are general-interest or trade features that do not actually substantiate the specific, technical claims made in the new rewrite; the editor has simply linked to them without them providing the necessary legal definitions required for an encyclopedic lead.

The original Wikipedia definition was notably clear and effective; it was read out in its entirety by educator Rick Beato in a YouTube video (29 August 2024, with 2,9 million views) to explain the term to his millions of viewers.

Replacing such a vetted definition with an imprecise, inaccessible rewrite, supported by irrelevant citations and implemented without community input, does not improve the article. I have proposed restoring the consensus-based definition and collaborating to find legitimate, professional-grade copyright references to support it, but the editor has resisted this.

I would appreciate it if members of the Project could review the lead and its sources to ensure the article maintains the necessary standards for technical accuracy. The discussion can be followed here: Link to Talk Page Aikclaes (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for input: Proposed updates to XG (group) article

Hello. I have proposed a comprehensive update to the XG (group) article, including new sections and a sourcing correction to the current "based in South Korea" claim, which appears to be contradicted by the citation currently used to support it.

Proposed changes are supported by recent reporting from The Hollywood Reporter, NME, Rolling Stone, BBC News, and Billboard.

Full draft: User:Alphaz-gizmo-mogwai/sandbox

Talk page discussion: Talk:XG_(group)

Any input from experienced editors would be appreciated.

~~~~ Alphaz-gizmo-mogwai (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Those are good sources to use, but you probably want to reorganize it into more standardized organization and flow. History, musical style, listing out band members, etc. I usually recommend looking at Green Day or A Perfect Circle, but it looks like BTS is a WP:FA, so maybe that would be a closer subject to model it after.

Some of your prose borders on doing PR for the band too. Make sure you're not writing it as if you're promoting the band. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I've revised the prose in the sandbox to address the promotional language. To clarify — this proposal is not intended as a full article overhaul. It focuses specifically on updating the Lead and adding Identity, Artistic Concept and Fandom, and Formation sections. History, Musical Style, and member listings already exist in the current article and are not being replaced at this time. The BTS featured article will serve as a structural model for future proposals addressing those sections.

~~~~ Alphaz-gizmo-mogwai (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)