I spend my time in an obscure subject: jazz. It hasn't been a popular genre since World War II. I found an article from 2015 placing jazz sales figures at 1.4% of music consumption, making it the least popular genre in America, selling less than classical. It's difficult to find reliable sources for popular subjects, let alone unpopular ones. No sources, no article.
I've been chipping away at the Wikiproject Jazz Cleanup Listing, which consists of the backlog of 4000 articles out of about 29,000 articles in Wikiproject Jazz. My first step was to remove from the project articles which didn't fall under the category of jazz, which I thought would be easy. It wasn't. Simply removing the Wikiproject Jazz template from articles resulted in a variety of reactions from contributors—a variety of negative reactions.
Proposals to have an article deleted (AfDs in Wikipedia slang) are difficult to say the least. There's lots of addition on Wikipedia and very little subtraction. Very little resolution.
Stubs and orphans are common on the backlog list. These articles aren't going to be improved, but they can't be deleted if people are going to protect them for arbitrary reasons.
One reason collective projects fail is because of the natural tendency to feel ownership for something one has worked on. The more work you do, the more you feel it is yours. The more you feel it is yours, the less you want someone to meddle with your efforts.
I seek a moderate approach that balances individual interests with the interests of a useful encyclopedia. Fundamental to this is an attempt to achieve some degree of impartiality. When one edits, one tries not merely to correct mistakes but to prevent them from happening again, to avoid playing whack-a-mole. Such an attempt can mean the difference between progress and going in circles.
Please use the pop up templates for citations. Please use "cite web"for information found on the internet (not cite journal, cite magazine, or cite newspaper).
If you are using Google Books, use this template. Make necessary changes before submitting. Remember to enter the date you accessed it.
On any Wikipedia page, click "Edit Source" at the top of the screen.
Click "Go to editing area"
Click "Cite". Options are revealed.
Click "Templates"
Scroll down and choose: "cite web" for an internet source, "cite book" for a physical book in your hands
In the cite web window, enter the URL (starts with http...) and click the magnifying glass. Time passes...Some or all of the data you need will appear automatically.
In the cite book window, enter the ISBN and click the magnifying glass. Time passes...Some or all of the data you need will appear automatically.
Make necessary adjustments. If you make a mistake, try again. No one will laugh at you. For very long.
Click "Insert".
In most cases, you will have to make adjustments. If nothing else, when using cite web, click the calendar icon to enter today's date. That's the access date, the day you read (accessed) the web page and borrowed the information.
The most important items are authors' first names, last names, title of article, web site. For a book, first name, last name, page number, publisher, and year of publication. Please try to find this information.
The jazz project has been following the trend of the rest of Wikipedia by adding citations to every sentence. It's the best way to ensure that material is properly sourced, and it's the best way to try to prevent your work from being reverted. With sources, you have an argument. Without sources, you can't even begin one.
Avoid words like "currently", "recent", "now", which are time sensitive. Time will render those words false. Encyclopedias exist in a kind of eternal present.
Don't count albums, as in "Miles Davis's fourth album". Counting is time sensitive.
Pipe labels on first occurrence in the article and discography.
Try to avoid having two linked items next to each other. Link one or the other.
My goal is to a create a discography that is sufficient to give the reader an overview of the musician's albums. Not one that is perfect, comprehensive, containing every detail (every catalog number, matrix number, etc)
Forget how you've seen discographies in other publications. We have our own rules at WP.
As in other encyclopedias, reference works, and web sites, Wikipedia editors try to maintain consistency. That's why there are templates and standards for organizing information. This makes it easier for everyone. Keep it simple
Don't write "Selected discography"
Write headers for "As leader" and "As sideman" if needed.
Put album titles in italics
If necessary, add co-leaders (not sidemen) and the word "with" next to album title.
Add label, comma, year of release. (Columbia, 1962)
Link and pipe the label on its first occurrence in the list
List the albums in ascending order (oldest album comes first)
Use release dates, not recording dates
Make a table only if you feel the discography is nearly complete. Tables are harder to edit than lists.
Omit details like "live", "reissued by Columbia in 2001", or "dedicated to his mother"
Omit catalog numbers and matrix numbers
Don't add chart positions and awards next to the album title; these have their own sections
If there is information that seems important, find a way to enter it in the body text of the article instead of the discography.
Songs belong on album pages, not in discographies or discography articles.
If there are more than two albums with the same leader, group them together
Don't put brackets in headers. It will make the table of contents too long.
Concentrate on getting the facts right first.
When in doubt, defer to the millions of articles on Wikipedia. Use them as guides.
DVDs, singles, 78s, 10", bootlegs, compilations, samplers, remasters, SACDs unless it is a unique release, re-releases, unofficial releases, cassette-only releases
Albums not released in the U.S. or U.K. unless the musician is foreign, in which case of course most of the albums will be released by foreign labels. This can get complicated. But try to concentrate on official mainstream releases rather than obscurities.
Exclude albums that are planning to be released. Wait for something to happen before you write about it.
Please avoid entering musicians who don't have articles. Let's concentrate on musicians that have articles and get that work done before creating stubs that no one will ever improve.
Jazz albums are released at different times all over the world, sometimes with different songs, titles, and album covers, by different labels and distributed by different companies.
Albums are re-released, remastered, and regretted.
LPs didn't become the dominant format until well into the 1950s. This means some of the jazz of 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s 1) wasn't recorded; 2) existed only on cylinders, singles, 78s, 10" etc. 3) can be found only on compilations or remasters.
The transition to CDs began in the early 1980s. Most jazz that was intended to be released has been released. But there are labels, like Resonance, dedicated to re-releases. Sometimes these albums are worth mentioning. But only sometimes.
It's sometimes difficult to tell who is a co-leader and who is a sideman or guest. The album cover doesn't always help. Pat Metheny said that on one album the musicians agreed to have their names listed alphabetically. How the checks were divided is anyone's guess.
Many discographies list recording dates but not release dates. Look for release dates first because this is how most people are used to seeing albums listed.
The album itself is the best source, if you own a copy. Album covers and liner notes sometimes have mistakes, but this is uncommon.
A published discography by a serious, reliable researcher and publisher (these are rare, and the books are expensive)
The musician's site
The label's site
AllMusic.com: For some reason, there are many mistakes in the jazz entries. Do your best. Four editions of the AllMusic Guide to Jazz were published in print. The last was in 2002.
Books
Magazines or web sites such as Billboard, DownBeat, JazzTimes
Newspapers
Google books
Try search engines other than Google, such as DuckDuckGo
Blogs – Rarely. They can be used only when the blog is a web site run by an established, reputable critic, assuming there is such a thing.
Forums and chat rooms – Never.
Official site – Sometimes reliable. The official site can be used for certain simple facts but cannot be used when the information is intended as praise or promotion.
Record labels – Sometimes. Many labels engage in advertising and promotion to encourage people to buy music. They concentrate on what sells now, often ignoring the past. Labels re-release albums, making dates confusing.
Retail sites – You can't use a site where the main interest is selling, marketing, or promoting a product, service, person, cause, movement, or idea.
Venues – Rarely. Venues want you to come to the show. This leads to the use of promotional language. Good for them, bad for an encyclopedia, which must stick to the facts. There is usually not enough information in such articles to be of value, though sometimes there is a brief interview.
One doesn't "post" to Wikipedia the way one posts to Facebook, Twitter, a forum, or a chat room. Anyone can write or edit Wikipedia, provided one knows the rules. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. It isn't television. It isn't the place to go for the latest thing. It isn't the place to read about gossip or scandal. It's an encyclopedia, which means a boring reliance on facts. No site that has user-generated content can be a reliable source for Wikipedia, and this includes Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Instagram, iTunes, Discogs.com, Musicbrainz, RateYourMusic, Soundcloud, LinkedIn, YouTube, blogs, forums, retail sites, and any site whose purpose is to sell or promote rather than to record facts. Even if the sources are appropriate, Wikipedia isn't the place to post "A new album is coming next month" or "the band said they plan to record a new album" or "the band might go on tour next year". It isn't a diary, a tour book, or a place to mourn dead loved ones. It's isn't the place for tributes or free advertising. It isn't the place for drawing attention to people, places, or ideas that you think deserve more attention. We have rules for notability.
Think before reverting. Don't assume that you are always right and the other person is wrong.
Talk pages are for talking. Try to allow a minimal amount of decency and consideration for the opinions of others.
Everyone on the internet is a stranger. It's not the best means of communication. It's Internetworld, not the real world. Misunderstanding and conflict occur. Therefore contributors should be given more freedom, not less, to speak, to discuss, and to understand each other. If people are afraid to talk, no work gets done and Wikipedia suffers.
Before debating another person, state (if only in your mind) what that person's argument is before stating your own. Try to understand the other person's reasons or point of view.
Aim for literal rather than figurative speech. Irony, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions don't work well on the internet. Don't read between the lines. Read the lines.
It's impossible to avoid human judgment. As long as humans (not bots) are doing the editing, Talk pages and every other page will contain opinion to some degree.
Distinguish between fact and opinion. This sounds obvious, but it isn't when you are fan of a person, movement, or idea, and when you have strong feelings and opinions about a subject.
On Wikipedia, I don't write about the subjects I care about most. I hope this is an example of critical disinterest, impartiality, neutrality.
Ask for help. Ask for clarification. Read the documentation. It's not always clear. Discuss it.
It's OK to make mistakes and it's OK to be wrong. But try to learn from your mistakes. Otherwise, you end up in a loop.
Use the serial comma.
All work on Wikipedia is collaborative. There is no private property here. The article doesn't belong to you, even if you have done most of the work. This is difficult. Every article is the result of the efforts of many people. Given time, someone will come along and change your efforts, sometimes for the worse. That's a normal day.
There's a kind of religious sentiment among some members of Wikipedia who object to articles being deleted. Articles are inert data, not living beings, so it is false to say one is "saving" or "rescuing" articles.
If not enough has been written or published on a subject, it's impossible to write an article about it. Articles come from sources. No sources, no articles.
When an article is up for deletion, you're not supposed to think "But I like this" or "But this is important". If you think it's that important, then you write the article. Otherwise stay out of the way. If you have good reasons to keep rather than delete, you will have a chance to give those reasons. Don't assume deletion is always wrong. As editors we are supposed to be impartial. That means leaving at the door our preferences, desires, feelings, causes, movements, politics, religion. Don't leave for others work that you are capable of doing.
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. This award is presented to Vmavanti, for successfully fixing 2297 links in the challenge of January 2018. This user is also recognized as the Bonus List Champion of January 2018.
