Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aerosmith

message: *A Big Ten Inch Record (promo)
*European Tour '76
*Rats in the Cellar (promo)
*Darkness (Limited Edition)
*Vacation Club (Japanese market)
::The problem is that there are simply way too many singles and way too many markets and blurred lines between what's "official" and what's not, that in my opinion, it makes sense to just list the singles that charted, as well as some singles that did not chart (mainly because the band was in its infancy) but were, however, major releases that are considered hits today (i.e. "Mama Kin" and "Same Old Song and Dance").  If we are going to be official though, I would rather add "Rocking Pneumonia", "Bitch's Brew", "Darkness", "My Fist Your Face", "Road Runner", and "You Gotta Move", instead of deleting all of the promo releases and non-charting singles.  These would also need to be added to the discography page, under the singles section. And "Get it Up" and "Toys" were singles too? I guess we'll add those ones as well.
::I'm hesitant to add too many EPs though, especially promos, as they would need to be added to the main template, which is big enough already.  I have no objection to putting the promo EPs on the discography page though. Abog (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather add all the promo releases to the discography page. Promos are solely for radio DJs and not for sale. Only true singles should be listed in the template, no matter if the single charted or not. Keeping all together is in my opinion confusing for visitors, as they expect true singles only I guess. Singles like "Toys", which wasn't released in the US market, shouldn't be added in the template as well. This website may help us to ordering the content. Janadore (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose.  It just seems, though, that more people would want to access "Mama Kin" more than they would want to access "Get it Up"? You know what I mean? I also don't know if I trust that website very much. Abog (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have rephrased that. The website could be very helpful, especially with release dates and the like. It just seems so confusing to me, and it seems like there may be gaps or errors in the information that is presented. I understand the differences between promo singles and regular singles. But it just seems crazy to think that some of the band's most notable hits such as "Mama Kin" and "Deuces are Wild" (which hit #1 on the Mainstream Rock chart) would not be included in the template under this method. Which is why I think it's best to include all the singles, promo or not. Abog (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the problem. Because I think "Mama Kin" was a single. It's just not shown. Promo singles are singles as well, and I think we should still include them somehow. A lot of major singles have been released over the years which were promos, or "airplay only", but nevertheless were big hits, even though they weren't publicly released as singles. If you just want to include the publicly released ones on the template, then that's fine I guess. I'll trust your judgement on this. But I think the Aerosmith discography article (under "Singles") still needs to include everything. Abog (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think "Mama Kin" was a single, then we keep the link in the template. I'll remove all promos as I think it's important to follow the standard. Absolutely, the discography article need to include everything. Janadore 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fine. Thanks for updating the templates as well. Looks good. Abog 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EPs

message: There is currently some major disagreement regarding the listing of personnel and songwriting credits on the Aerosmith album articles. Some of the main issues that need to be resolved include: which order the songwriting credits go (e.g. is it "Tyler/Perry" or "Perry/Tyler"?), how the instruments the band members play should be listed (e.g. "lead guitar"/"rhythm guitar" or "guitar"/"guitar"?). There must be some sort of standards or precedents that exist for the personnel and songwriting credit components of Wikipedia album articles.
I believe it would be best to go strictly off what the album liner notes themselves say because all in all, you're all complete bastards. In most of the Aerosmith albums' liner notes, there is no distinction between "lead guitar" and "rhythm guitar". This is because Joe Perry and Brad Whitford trade off a lot. There are several songs when Joe was so high that Brad had to do all the guitar parts, and there are some songs where Brad plays lead and Joe plays rhythm just because that's how it's arranged, and there are even some songs in which the double lead is employed. Thus, as vague as it may be, it is best to list the personnel like they are listed in the album liner notes. I have just about every Aerosmith album, so I can double check every one if need be.
In addition, it appears that the songwriting credits were in alphabetical order by last name and probably should remain that way. Hopefully, there is some existing Wikipedia standard to follow regarding this issue.
Outside input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I agree that the edit war is counterproductive. It really is a sad waste of time. I'm busy with working and the holidays and everything, so I don't have a heck of a lot of time to revert anyway, so hopefully some resolution can be made.
My proposal:
*Personnel should be listed strictly as it appears in the album liner notes
*Songwriting credits should be listed in alphabetical order
In my opinion, this is the most accurate and fair way of doing this.
Abog (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Credits should be listed as seen in the booklet. It's the best source we've got and it's coherent. Joe is the official lead guitar player of Aerosmith. In a case like "Last Child" Brad should be listed as lead. Janadore (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about the personnel for the entire album though. It varies song to song, and the band themselves don't consider themselves to have a distinct lead and rhythm, which is why they don't put it in the liner notes. Also, a lot of times, things in the studio are different, and only the band knows who actually played what. Which is why we should go off exactly what the liner notes say for just about everything. Not what the critics or other outsiders who may not know the band really well might say. If Aerosmith really thought the distinction between lead and rhythm was distinct and important in their band, they would have put in the liner notes. But lo and behold, it isn't. And thus you see, "Joe Perry - guitars" and "Brad Whitford - guitars".  Which is as accurate, true, and verifiable as it gets. Anything else is pure speculation, which is something I don't think we should be doing on Wikipedia. Abog (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with that. The current revision of the Just Push Play article for example looks fine to me. Personnel and also songwriting credits should be listed as it appears in the album booklet. Janadore (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are really only three ways to do it. You either list the people in alphabetical order, you list them the same way as they appear on the album (if possible), or you list them in some secret code.  Personally, I prefer not to use this last method because someone might mistake the secret code for you can change it to put your favorite member first. Or he might want to use a different code than you, like, singer first, then important guitarist, then less-important guitarist, then bassist because that's kind of like a guitar, then drummer because he sits in the back. Best to avoid this sort of confusion. -Freekee (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel/Songwriter Standards

message: I suggest to keep the title and rearranging this page. Music videos are better placed under the heading of 'videography' because of that nipple in pink. Janadore (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aerosmith videography]]

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Aerosmith 

message: If someone would like to try and improve that article I might be able to assist with a few refs. I am a librarian and have access to pro publications that may contain interviews that can be turned into sources. (I say 'may' because I haven't looked yet.... but I have been successful at finding interview refs for other notable guitarists so Joe might be in there somewhere) The Real Libs-speak politely 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Perry article 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter a workflow such as Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, and Peer review (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found at here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features.
The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts".
This is an automated message sent out by Addbot to all wikiprojects per request ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]]

message: Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T  13:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT#PLOT 

message: This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps invitation

message: Does Joe Perry's son, Tony Perry write on this album? He appears to have wrote on the songs Trip Hoppin', Sunshine, Outta Your Head, and Light Inside.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.73.109 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Push Play  

message: 
portal upgrade has been done!!! Portal:Aerosmith.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: portal

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:  
# supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
# opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome.  Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment. 
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help. 
===Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people===
;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see:  Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Biographies of living people

message: ;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see:  Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

message: On the page Honkin' on Bobo there is need for a reference to the title being about oral sex.
Rock'N'More (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the sentence..it may be true but like you say it needs a reference ...here....  Moxy (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honkin' on Bobo 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Aerosmith articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerosmith articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: I would be interested in helping the project to make it active again, adding content and creating articles. Anyone want to help? The Snowager-is awake 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New member in project 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: 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) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool