Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 3

message: If anyone is interested, I may will applying Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Wikipedia OmniMusica. This is a proposal to tag articles as being suitable for inclusion in a print version of music-related topics on Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat 09:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me! Antandrus 15:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia OmniMusica

message: Hello,
User:Yummifruitbat (also under his IP, User:82.32.121.68) has created several templates and associated categories that mimic the Babel templates, but for musical skills, e.g. :Template:User sax-4.  He proposed it at Babel, but received no response.  According to a message he left on my talk page
:my aim was to produce a system similar to the language one which would enable Wikipedians to highlight their interests and proficiencies in a concise way on their user pages. I don't believe this is entirely unnecessary from an encyclopaedic point of view - it would facilitate communication between users about articles in which they have a particular interest; or perhaps might be able to contribute valuable knowledge. For example, a user tagging articles as stubs, finding one about a composer of music for the violin, might be able to bring up the User_violin category, and find someone with an interest in the instrument who would be happy to expand the article. As a secondary function, these templates would also make it easy for people to find like-minded users, and then see what they'd contributed to
I am not sure how useful this would be and, especially considering that prior notification was given, I am hoping that some people on this WikiProject can give him their thoughts on how useful this would be. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User "Babel" templates? 

message: I was cleaning out the Wikipedia namespace, and I noticed the proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music).  I just wanted to make people here aware of it, so it can be commented on an approved as an official guideline, or rejected.  (I have no personal opinions on it right now.) -- Beland 23:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) 

message: There's really no mention for a standard way of listing albums by an artist.  I've seen a few different styles and this is how I prefer it to look (links omitted):
*1990 - Album Title (Record Label) extra note
Since albums are generally listed chronologically the date should always come first.  The year should only be displayed though, adding the day and month looks cluttered because of a more rapidly changing pattern.  The year could be included in parenthesis, it's a really minor difference.  The dash should be included to make it easier to discern between the year and title.  Including the record label isn't of major importance, but without it the listing is somewhat bare.  The record label, if included, should be surrounded by parenthesis because it and the title will most likely be one or more words and harder to distinguish.  It is possible to surround the record label with brackets but requires more complicated code.  Both the year and record label shouldn't be surrounded by parenthesis because it creates a kind of odd symmetry.  Any extra notes like "limited edition", "promotional", or "vinyl only" should be in small text at the end.  I would like to get a concensus going on the style of listed albums so please comment. Tastywheat 10:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
===Lists of works MoS===
I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like.  It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout).  I thought it might be of interest to the partipants on this WikiProject.  violet/riga (t) 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography/Album List Style 

message: I've just created Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) for discussion about the layout of discographies, filmographies, bibliographies and the like.  It is an attempt to standardise these lists, as their styles currently vary greatly (order, content, layout).  I thought it might be of interest to the partipants on this WikiProject.  violet/riga (t) 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of works MoS

message: As a subproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics now exists with a list of articles taken from music encyclopedias (by Gmaxwell). If anyone is looking for something music-related to write, there's a list of ideas. Some of them just need redirects: there's plenty of low-hanging fruit if you're not up for a full article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing encyclopedic articles

message: I am searching for a musician/music group infobox. If there is not one already I am willing to work on creating one, but I don't want to duplicate a previous effort. As there does not seem to be a WikiProject for performers this seems the best place to pose this question. Cmadler 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Musician/Band infobox

message: Is there any consensus on how to list (and link) band members, the way there is albums ("always OK if official unless compilation") vs. songs ("notable hits only")? I have been red-linking musicians, but I see a lot of articles actually don't wikilink their members at all, unless they're independently notable. There's also the question of naming the members in the intro paragraph, when there is a separate Members section. Sometimes you have Band members as the name, this seems redundant to me. I also think that having Former members as a subsection is a useful way to handle that problem, although in the TOC it looks weird unless you also have the Current members (but then a subsect directly under a sect head looks weird). Then there's the question of how to list the members by duty, and how to handle side-projects, which this section sometimes does. My preference, I think, would be for Side projects (or perhaps Other bands, Related bands) under the Members section, with a text discussion instead of a table.  This is the format I like for duties:
* John Smith - (2003-) vocals, guitar
Any reaction? If there's a consensus it would be good to get this into the Wikiproject page and/or the Music style guide. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To a certain degree it has to depend on the band. For example, some bands maintain the same membership for decades, some are really a group of independent musicians gathered for a single project, and some have changed personel every year or two for decades. For a group of otherwise independant musicians, red-linking may be appropriate (these members are more likely to be independently notable). If the personel have changed a lot, this could be noted in the intro and then names (and dates) given in a Members section. If the personel have remained relatively constant, a Members section might not be appropriate. On the other matter, my feeling is that individual musicians should only be wikilinked if they are notable as an individual. However, they may be notable as an individual for their role in the group; these should still be wikilinked. Cmadler 13:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Many of the group/band articles I've worked on have had shuffling lineups (in particular The Supremes, The Temptations, and [The Impressions (American band)|]]). For those groups, I mentioned all of the ntoable members in the article header (for the Surpemes, I managed to squeeze in all 9; for the Temptations, I was forced to only identify notable members). At the end of the article, I created a list of the members and the years they were in the group, and, on a subpage, made a list of each individual incarnation of the group. If the group only traded out a memebr or two (TLC, Dru Hill), I just listed members and dates. In the case of Sly & the Family Stone, I split the list into "original members" and "later members", becasue for some reaso nI felt it suited that article beter. As far as section titles go, I always try to use "Personnel" (or "Members", if another editor objects to "personnel"). As far as wikilinking individual bandmates, I only do it if I can actually write an article about what they've done outside of the group. Not all editors, of course, agree: just last night someone made an article for Betty McGlown, one of the pre-Motown Supremes/Primettes, who I felt wasn't quite notable enough for her own article because I couldn't find any background information about her. On the other hand, I wrote an article for Elbridge Bryant, the "lost Temptation", becasue I was able to learn his birthdate, date of death, and enough biographical/personal information to fill a good-sized article. --FuriousFreddy 19:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Be bold and add that to the guidelines.  I agree-Urthogie 13:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me.  I've added it to the Albums, bands, and songs guidelines list and will start enforcing it. –BurntSky 08:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this works for an article about a musical group, this guideline does not work for articles about specific recordings (albums and songs, for example). The musicians on the recording may include not just band members but also session musicians/guest artists, etc. It would be misleading to list all these people as "Members" but it's not right to just leave them off! See Barren County (album) for an example; this includes four band members (listed first, no indications of specific songs) and three additional musicians (specific contributions indicated). Cmadler 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well how about a main members section and then a seperate one for other guest personell? What would we call the latter?--Urthogie 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is that at times this line (between band members and guest contributors) is blurred. For example, someone may be a regular contributor on a band's recordings but not play with them on tours. It might be better to simply list all musicians credited, indicating specific tracks where appropriate. The section might be called "Musicians" rather than "Members"; this still avoids the problem BurntSky mentioned about calling it "Personnel". Cmadler 14:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should do that.  Memebers should be differentiated, and so should common guests in their own way.--Urthogie 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly see the dilemma here, and I see a number of possible solutions.  What if we keep the "Members" sections for articles about bands/groups, but turn the section into "Musicians" for articles about albums and songs.  Then, under the "Musicians" section, if necessary, we can include two subsections "Members" and "Guests"; if there are no "guests" then the band's members can be listed directly under the "Musicians" title.  Guest musicicans can be attributed with a certain track (or more), if appropriate.  What am I overlooking yet?  BurntSky 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds completely reasonable.  Perhaps it might be simpler yet to just have a Musicians section on albums, and put members in bold.  If you're content with my suggestions I'd completely support your updating of the guidelines.  Thanks for discussing, excellent job!--Urthogie 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure I like the idea of putting members in bold.  It's not entirely obvious to the reader, unless they're already familiar with the guidelines, and I just doubt that article authors will do it consistently.  I'd still like to hear Cmadler's thoughts, since he/she had the first objections, and, of course, thoughts from everyone else before I update the guidelines again. BurntSky 00:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do prefer that articles about recordings call the section "Musicians." Beyond that, the policy has to allow for situations in which it is unclear whether someone is a band member or a guest (which I mentioned above). Examples of such a difficulty: Nickel Creek (although Mark Schatz has played on the last two albums and currently tours with the band, many people do not consider him a member), "solo albums" such as those by Earl Scruggs (which are not actually solos at all, but create an entire band from "guest artists"), albums from multiple musicians/bands (such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack)). These are just a few examples which come quickly to my mind, there are many more. In all of these cases it is difficult, impossible, or meaningless to divide the musicians into "members" and "guests". Cmadler 11:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'm fine with either bolding it or not addressing it.  It's not a good idea to have seperate sections tho.--Urthogie 11:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the common sense approach. The Style Guide could specify that editors should not use "Personnel" for the reasons given above by BurntSky, and suggest "Musicians" or "Members" as appropriate. Cmadler 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "Musicians", although it suffers from the problem that very few pages use it now. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thought about it more and I oppose musicians.  Excludes rappers, singers, no?--Urthogie 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it excludes anyone; would you not consider rappers and singers to be musicians?  Is a song sung acapella not considered music?Perhaps we're trying to be too specific here.  Cmadler brings up some good points concerning soundtracks and albums composed of various artists.  The specificity required to cover all situations may be beyond the scope of this medium.  So, either we try to generalize the guidelines a bit so it can encompass all situations, or we explicitly specify rules for every possible situation, or we say the guidelines apply only to bands/groups/albums/songs of a particular nature (consequently excluding soundtracks, etc.)  Or, I suppose, we could just ditch the whole thing and leave it up to the authors.  I'm running out of ideas.  BurntSky 20:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we give a choice between musicians and members then, and let the authors have some discretion, but still be within reasonable bounds?  That way, I could use members on rap groups, and people could use musicians on rock bands.--Urthogie 10:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with leaving things to editorial discretion, although like BurntSky, I would call rappers musicians also. (Otherwise, are we saying that rap isn't music? In which case it wouldn't be covered by this WikiProject and this style guide!) Cmadler 12:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rapping is musical but it seems to me like musician suggests that they play an instrument outside of their own body.--Urthogie 13:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard it suggested before that singers are not musicians. Are Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas not musicians? Also, there are two possibilities. 1) Rap (and other vocalizations) are music, in which case rappers and singers are musicians. 2) Rap (and other vocalizations) are not music, in which case they are not covered by this wikiproject and the style guide doesn't apply. Either way, it seems to me that people covered by this WikiProject are musicians. Cmadler 00:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All I'm saying is that, from personal experience, calling a rapper a musician is considered awkward in the hip-hop community.  And our naming guidelines should mainly consider what people call themselves.--Urthogie 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really want to get into a heated debate about this, but I still disagree.  Regardless of what they call themselves, I still believe they should be considered musicians.  If we can agree that hip-hop is a genre of music, then, consequently, we agree that hip-hop is considered music, and it would follow that the persons responsible for creating this music are musicians.  They can call themselves whatever they want, but they're still responsible for creating music.At any rate, we're not making any progress here.  Can we at least agree that the section should be titled "Musicians" and then leave everything else up to the author's discretion?  At least until someone can come up with a reasonable proposal. BurntSky 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members style guide 

message: Two related topics, Percussion instrument and Rhythm and blues have been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: The standard of a lot of jazz articles on Wikipedia is shoddy.  There are certain musicians (such as Lucky Thompson) who have next-to-nothing wrote about them.  However, I have been impressed by the standard of certain articles, which convinces me that there are others besides myself working hard to improve the information we have on this vital art form.  Thus, I propose a wikiproject for jazz, with 10 active people at the minimum required.  Since other genres such as classical have a project page for co-ordinating efforts, I think jazz could do with one, due the large amount of work to be done.  Respond either here or on my talk page.  (This includes all forms of jazz, dixieland, swing, fusion, bop etc.)--Knucmo2 19:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Possible jazz project

message: See album rule #10, titling.
Isn't the last word of a title generally capitalized, too?
Reference.
mxdxcxnx T C 23:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper capitalization of titles 

message: Please see my question at Portal talk:Music#Unknown music genre. mikka (t) 20:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown music genre 

message: I've created a new infobox to detail information on classical works in a similiar manner to the infobox for music albums. An example can be seen at Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff). I would welcome any comments at Template talk:Classical work infobox. Cheers! TreveXtalk 00:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical works infobox 

message: See The White Stripes#Discography for an example. I'd like input; is there any consensus on this sort of thing? --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing is certain: you sho'l don't do it like that. The standard format is to use either a list or a table. No pictures, and just the year for the main article. --FuriousFreddy 03:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Xinger has, shall we say, decided otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not his right. We need consistency for the encyclopedia. In addition, using the pictures in a table like that gives an appearance of "fannishness". --FuriousFreddy 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esoteric discography formatting 

message: At the moment Classical music is a disambiguation page. It makes sense to me that since "Classical music" almost always refers to European classical music that it should redirect there. Discussion about this going on at Talk:Classical music. --Commander Keane 10:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical music 

message: Should all bands, music groups, collaborations, and projects use the suffix "(band)" when disambiguation is needed, or should they use different ones?  I've noticed that some use "(musical project)". Is there a standard list from which to choose from? —Brim 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I noticed that one time when trying to link to Enigma (musical project), I instead got to Enigma (band) (whom I have never heard of), so that was to disambig between the two, I suppose.  Are their instances where (musical project) is used when there is no "band" article?  On a related note, I see that we use Prince (artist), but Madonna (entertainer), which I find questionable.  Jkelly 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is a very good reason not to, I always use "band" and "musician".  Note also Arrested Development (hip hop group). Tuf-Kat 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Band" never seems proper to use for most vocal groups (for example, I've never heard Jagged Edge called a "band"), or for music groups which do not play instruments.--FuriousFreddy 00:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of music groups 

message: There are two major (and one minor) disagreements over the formatting of tables used in articles on singles and albums.  The issue seems to be nowhere near resolution, so I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts as a forum for discussion of the issues in the hope that consensus might be gained.  It includes an example of the issues involved (in the form of a set of tables as one group of editors wants them, divided into sets of charts, and with a column for the title, and the same set as another group wants them, unified, with no title column). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts tables 

message: There is some less-than-ideal disagreement at :Template:Infobox band and Template talk:Infobox band.  I'd like to encourage people involved in the Music project to take a look.  It is impacting the featured article candidacy of the lostprophets as an editor is objecting partly on the grounds that this template needs to be used.  It would be good to clear the matter up before the FAC ends.  Jkelly 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Template:Infobox band]]

message: I think there should be a short list of music articles, probably ones that have reached FA status, that we can point people to as ideal. I would like to see a couple of Australian musician articles reach FA status and it would provide useful direction. Even just for the people who are reading this - when you're writing an article, is there another one you keep in mind as what you're aiming for? Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Madonna? Also, some here may be interested in the related Wikipedia:WikiProject Sound. pfctdayelise 12:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features Articles 

message: I think it would be great if all the guidelines here were written up for a specialist WP:MOS page. Thoughts? pfctdayelise 11:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't see that. Shouldn't it be listed in the template on the side? Also it's not exactly the same info as this page... maybe I mean MOS (band)? pfctdayelise 01:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOS needs work before it's ready to be included with the other MOSs, but it would be better to start with what's there rather than starting from scratch. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The MoS (music) is fine, but it only applies to classical music articles. The bigger issue appears to be articles on popular music, which are often of low quality. I propose we expand this one to cover both types of music. --FuriousFreddy 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS entry? 

message: I'd like to propose that we set a specific, streamlined design for all band templates (such as Template:The Beatles), to reduce their bulk and size. I've redesigned the one for Michael Jackson at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Michael_Jackson&oldid=28145160; I think this would be a good standard for incorporating band templates for all popular music articles, and also to keep people from designing gargantuan templates that takeover pages (something I'm guilty of, and have since repented against). --FuriousFreddy 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a WikiProject Musical goups.  Your revision is certainly tidier, and avoids editor decision-making about which singles to list and which to not. :Template:Madonna has a "Greatest Hits" list that seems arbitrary to me. Jkelly 01:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My two-man Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music has some guidelines about article-writing. Perhaps, we can take it and revise/expand it into a WikiProject Musical Acts (not just groups, so that we can get solo artists in on it as well) for all genres of music. --FuriousFreddy 18:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band templates 

message: Currently WP:ALBUM#Categories suggests that you should place albums by Fooband into :Category: Fooband albums, and likewise Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Categories suggests using :Category: Fooband singles. But nowhere is there a guideline about whether or not you should then have a parent category :Fooband. Is there a guideline about this I have missed? It's implemented haphazardly, so we have :Category:Kylie Minogue, :Category:Slayer, :Category:Avril Lavigne but no :Category:Sarah McLachlan, :Category:Bananarama or :Category:Ben Folds (or :Category:Ben Folds Five).
So, I hope to gather consensus so we can implement a guideline on this WikiProject. Given that :Category:Fooband albums and :Category:Fooband singles exist, :Category:Fooband, yay or nay?
--pfctdayelise 02:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it make more sense to have :Category:Fooband recordings rather than separate out singles from albums? Undoubtedly we have a lot of :Category:Fooband songs categories. I vote that the name of the category should express what's being categorized, so :Category:Fooband should be discouraged. There's no need for a "parent category": most people will easily find all such categories linked from the main Fooband article. 68.164.88.82 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with 68.  Combine songs and albums to Fooband recordings, and there's no need for a Fooband category in most cases.  I'm certain :Category:The Beatles is useful, and there are probably a couple more bands that could use it, but most probably have no need for such a category. Tuf-Kat 05:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea, but that's not what the current guidelines are. pfctdayelise 09:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any consensus on categories? 

message: Is this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music still active? The last new one was Aug 28. If it is, it should probably get a link here I think. pfctdayelise 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music-related AfDs 

message: There's a new WikiProject started for improving the Electronic music categories. If you're interested in helping, then take a look at WikiProject Electronic music. Hagbard Celine 18:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic music WikiProject 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. I saw your list of 5 music FAs on the project page, this is useful. Can you suggest some A or decent B-class articles we might use? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 06:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:TUF-KAT has done a lot of thinking about quality music articles and has identified some that are not FAs.  You may want to contact that editor directly as well.  Jkelly 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I have edited point #5 under "Albums, bands, and songs" to remove the suggestion to link to the year of release (eg, Greatest Hits (1997)), as this conflicts with the Manual of Style, specifically the subpage MOS (links). I also removed these superfluous year links in the page in general. If there is anything that I have overlooked or if there are disagreements or other issues, please voice them. --Qirex 12:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to years without reason 

message: Seems to me that there's a rather lack of standardization (and to some extent good information) on many musical instruments (especially non-Western ones).  Is there some interest in a WikiProject to perhaps standardize and boost the amount of organization and information to be found in the musical instrument articles? -- Pipian 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Instruments 

message: Check out what I've come up with, and feel free to make changes/suggestions/comments at User:TUF-KAT/Featured Music Project. The goal is to identify our best articles on musicians and work towards making them featurable. Tuf-Kat 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:TUF-KAT/Featured Music Project|Featured Music Project]] 

message: I've stumbled across 1990s/2000s Identity Theory. This looks pretty much like an original-research theory to me - it's certainly orphaned - does it actually exist? If not, it's probably deletable, but thought I may as well run it past someone competent first.
Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 18:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed on AfD. --FuriousFreddy 23:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Might be worth glancing at the author's other contributions, in case it's part of a set. Shimgray | talk | 23:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd article 

message: Unless you know otherwise, the word and in band names is always an ampersand (&): Is that really best? Even the cited examples don't agree. What about duos (e.g. Simon and Garfunkel) and bands named after pairs, like "Fire and Ice", as opposed to "Lead Singer & the Backups"? Andy Mabbett 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In those cases I guess you "know otherwise". —Wahoofive (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This, or something related, came up at Talk:Me First & the Gimme Gimmes.  Jkelly 22:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ampersands in band names