Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for Answer to Question in Article in this Wikiproject

Hello. I didn't want to put a tag on the talk page of the article for Mute Math persay, but I did want my question answered by someone who'd be more informed than myself. I proposed it in great detail [1] on the talk page. Anyone well-versed in the scope of the WPP:CM who could provide an answer for my concerns would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyber Hymnal no longer at cyberhymnal.org; updates needed for references and external links

The Cyber Hymnal (TCH) had to be renamed to http://www.hymntime.com/tch earlier this year after their hosting service refused to release the cyberhymnal.org domain name when the site owner decided to change service providers. The rogue host has posted a 2008 image of TCH and is using the well established link traffic to generate ad revenue; it's not yet clear what their long term plan is. Essentially the 250+ references and external links in Wikipedia that use http://www.cyberhymnal.org as the base path are now pointing to a commercial, ad-laden site of unknown intent that is masquerading as TCH. Anyone know the process for getting a bot authorized and implemented to fix the base URLs? I've confirmed the situation with the owner/admin of the real TCH, but figure additional independent verification would be needed for something of this scale. This project seemed the best place to start. Thanks! Rostdo (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The count is 375 [2]. I don't see the same structure on the new website. How would a bot be helpful when there's no direct correlation between one website and the other? There's always the Auto Wiki Browser if a bot can't be arranged. Before anything happens, please explain the reason for the change, because right now the links work and they won't if the name is changed. Royalbroil 02:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Swap "http://www.hymntime.com/tch" for "http://www.cyberhymnal.org" and they're the same. Reasons for the change:

1. The site has moved; it is not a wiki, so the content and intent have been guided over many years by the owner/admin.
2. It's clear a motive for seizing the domain name and posting a clone was ad revenue; the real TCH remains ad-free. So there's the ethical question of routing traffic from Wikipedia to an ad-laden clone of someone else's ad-free work.
3. Future of "cyberhymnal.org" domain is uncertain; it is "owned" by a hosting service that appears to be selling or otherwise leveraging the URL's #1 hymnsite brand. Not sure that "Opting in" for future plans is a good idea.

Looks like some (~50) have already been modified. Thanks! Rostdo (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

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 05:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates 'Christian music' and 'Christian music articles'

For info: At Template talk:Christian music we are discussing, and rapidly reaching consensus on, merger of Template:Christian music and Template:Christian music articles and, further, ensuring that development of the resulting template has scope for encompassing music of Christian nature, historically, geographically and culturally. We would invite interested parties at that Talk page to help shape this work. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

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 are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (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 here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. 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". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:57, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Your project is subscrided to the Alerts, but it neither displays them nor gives a link to them. You kinda have to do at least one of them, otherwise you kinda lose the benefits of the alerts. They are located Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Article alerts.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I came here to point this out! I'm unhiding it. Royalbroil 02:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sales Charts

Does anyone know of reliable CCM sales charts dating back at least through the 70s? I have some ideas for some articles but it would be a lot easier to determine notability requirements with some chart references. Thanks. A.S. Williams (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NEW Full Armor of God Broadcast article

Past writers of this article caused its deletion by adding non-referenced content. Please view this NEW article and help it to be improved. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Earthsuit at GA

Earthsuit is currently at Good Article nominations if anybody is actually contributing to the project. It seems so lonely around here... -- Noj r (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in other WikiProjects that used to be extremely vibrant that are even lonelier. Members of this WikiProject shouldn't really be doing the GA review on the article because they may have a conflict of interest. Royalbroil 05:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know articles

There is a space for Featured and Good articles on our WikiProject's page. Do you think we should keep track of Did You Know articles from this WikiProject? I know User:JamieS93 has done several - I've promoted some of them to the main page. Royalbroil 05:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea – keeping track of the DYKs certainly wouldn't hurt the project page, as I see it. :-) I assume this would simply be a list of article titles, instead of the actual hooks, which would keep it simple. I can make a change whenever needbe by adding a third column at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Featured. Besides my own DYKs, Lust Control, Satisfied (album), and your CCM submissions come to mind, too. Jamie^☆S93 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I created a rough list here. I'm sure that I've missed some, but at least most of them are included (all of DanTheCowMan's DYKs are accounted for). Jamie^☆S93 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Jamie. Would you add the list, or at least add a link to the list in WikiProject space? Royalbroil 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a list, and I thinks it looks alright at the moment. I'm afraid if I continue nomming DYKs, though, the list will become too long since we don't have enough FA/FL/FT/GTs to balance it out. ;-) Jamie^☆S93 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Print Reference Volunteer Page

I've seen other wikiprojects do this, and I think it would be very helpful here. I propose starting a print reference page where project members may list print sources they have accumulated over the years. We can organize it by publication and then by band names. They can also be catagorized e.g. review, article, news clip, etc. Members update the list with their personal print collection. Members can consult each other and exchange information, making articles easier to research and source. Frankly finding print sources for me is very difficult. I have but a small Breakaway collection, and have recently subscribed to HM magazine as well. What do you guys think? -- Noj r (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I wish had had media to add. I think User:DantheCowMan has some. Royalbroil 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How should we go about implementing it? That is unless nobody else is interested. -- Noj r (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's one way that it has been implemented Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport/Library. Royalbroil 12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is a pretty nice one. Our library can stay simple for now. Would you like me to create it, or would you like to start? -- Noj r (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you, please? I don't have any references to put in it! Royalbroil 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get something made up soon. Hopefully making resources readily available may spur more activity on this wikiproject. -- Noj r (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Derek Webb

I have done the GA Reassessment of Derek Webb, I find the article to be fine except for three dead links in the reference section. This will need to be fixed. The links are 1, 12, and 13. I have kept the article at GA assuming the links will be fixed. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude ^talk 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP Proposal

I'd like to propose a new category and parameter to {{Christianmusic}}, which is placed on article talk pages. To help organize our WikiProject's BLP articles, it would be beneficial to add an optional template parameter |blp=yes , which could be applied to the talk pages of performers of Christian music who are living individuals. This would place the articles into the category such as Category:Living performers of Christian music.

I was thinking of simply implementing this myself, but it doesn't hurt to bring it here first, in case there is something I'm missing. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but doesn't BLP apply to groups since groups consist of living people? Royalbroil 03:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It does. However, group/band pages tend to cover less details about individual members (from my experience) than a solo artist would, so biographies are still the highest priority. All of the CCM articles relating to living persons should be monitored, but this would be a way to mark our "most sensitive" ones that have more potential to include unsourced original conclusions or overly-personal details about somebody's life (i.e., Clay Crosse). Jamie^☆S93 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Royalbroil 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I have a few things to update, and of course the category needs to be loaded up - but we've got something set up for BLPs. :-) Jamie^☆S93 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages WikiProject tool

I requested that this WikiProject be added to the new popular pages tool, and has subsequently been listed. At the beginning of the next month, when data will be gathered, it will be listed here. Best, JamieS93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I was incorrect. It's only available via the tool itself: August 2009 page view stats. I love the tool, though. Very useful for individual WikiProjects! :-) JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. THATSA kickin list! Dan, the CowMan (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea Jamie! Some of the results surprised me. This list gives me an inventive to work on Mute Math, considering their growing popularity. I just want to get Project 86 finished, but I'm experiencing a bout of writer's block. -- Noj r (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Christianity coordinators elections

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rework the "importance" system

I believe we should rework the priority assessment system with this project. For previous discussion see 1, 2. As it stands, our "importance" guidelines, in my opinion, have rendered the whole system essentially useless and rather odd. The vast majority of our articles are band/musician pages which get hundreds of views daily, all of which have been rated "Low-importance". It's become too bottom-heavy to be useful with funneling our efforts to high priority items.

As mentioned in previous discussion, priority assessment is intrinsically subjective, to one degree or another. However, I believe that we should generally base all of our priority ratings on the WikiProject pageview statistics (see August data). I believe this would solve the whole problem of "subjectivity", and finally make this system more useful. If you look at that data list, it's obvious that genre pages aren't the highest importance when it comes to public opinion.

In this proposal, all "Top-importance" genre assessments should probably be left alone, and instead, "High", "Mid" and "Low" would be utilized for every other page. As a rough guideline, I think the top 100 pages viewed should be placed "High", and the next 200 pages would be "Mid". I just want this system to become useful (and more standard for a WikiProject, too), so opinions are welcome. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe "Top-importance" should be reserved for genre specific articles; e.g. Christian music, Christian rock, Christian rap, etc. are definitely top priority articles for the project as they represent the project's the "core" interests. I do understand the need to properly categorize these articles, but simply "select-all and assign high priority" seems a little much. Some artists simply do not qualify, such as Plan B (rapper). Most of these articles have simply been inaccurately tagged (or not tagged at all). One humorous example is DC Talk, which is currently "low" importance. IMO, a little work is all it would take to accurately tag all the articles. We would start with some basic criteria and then work the "most-viewed" list over.

• Artists who had/have overwhelming influence in CCM are high priority; examples are Michael W. Smith, DC Talk, Steven Curtis Chapman, Amy Grant, Newsboys, etc. Secondly, high priority is given to artists who had/have overwhelming influence in worship music; examples are Chris Tomlin, Darlene Zschech, Delirious?, etc. High priority tags also go to bands that were highly influential in breaking down barriers for Christian music in the mainstream; examples are P.O.D., Sixpence None The Richer, Reliant K, Mercy Me, Skillet (band), etc.
• Mid priority is for artists who were highly successful in Christian music, but did not have the influence or mainstream appeal of the previously mentioned; examples are Casting Crowns, Jeremy Camp, Third Day, Pillar (band), etc.
• Low priority is for artists who do not meet the above criteria of influence and/or success; examples are Earthsuit, Disciple (band), The Benjamin Gate, PAX 217, etc.

Obviously a reasonable knowledge of Christian artists and their impact is required to accurately tag the articles. Like you stated Jamie, priority assignment can be a debatable issue. However, a list of criteria could make it easier and more accurate than simply the "select-all" option. Opinions? -- Noj r (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The current priority in the articles is definitely not useful since it is far too bottom heavy. Core topics should be Top priority per Noj r. I'd give the high priority acts in Noj r's list Top priority as well. I'd move the next class on Noj r's list up from Mid priority to High priority. Artists with a moderately significant hit (Top 10 on a Christian chart) or a low mainstream influence like Disciple (band), Nevertheless (band), and Inhabited (band) should get Mid importance. Acts with lesser hits like Marie Miller and PAX217 should be low. Royalbroil 04:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done some work in this regard lately. I moved the artists listed in the general market reference Contemporary Musicians to High priority. This was something that I proposed over two years ago. That seems to have added some balance to the listings. I should probably note that there were ~10 that I did not include, usually because their status as a Christian band is disputed. Also I went through all ~1500 articles looking at the diffs since they were last rated (hence the massive log entry on the 9th). Some were bumped up a quality level, showing that there has been some progress made. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Also, I make this as a baseline proposal. Mostly, this is still base on my prior thoughts and doesn't include measures that we now have like hitcounts. Feel free to modify as needed: Dan, the CowMan (talk)

Status	Meaning of Status	Artists	Albums
Top	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.	• Multi-Dove (excluding album, song, specialty (packaging, others) categories)  • any Grammy winner  • Biographical inclusion in general market reference sources  • Foremost Christian artist in a musical genre	• Grammy winner  • RIAA certification Gold or higher
Mid	Subject contributes to the total scope of the project. Subject may not necessarily be famous. Subject fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	• Single Dove  • Grammy nominee	• Dove winner  • Grammy nominee
Low	Subject contributes to the total scope of the project. Subject is not likely famous, even inside Christian music circles. The subject is likely included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic, such as an artist, who themselves may be of a greater significance.	Others
None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

That's a very good way of putting it. I knew the pageview idea was a little off, and there seemed to be a split between defining "importance" by public interest, or a standard of influence upon Christian music. Receiving awards/nominations (along with the other items) is a good way of mixing those two methods. It's a good standard based on a tangible, more official scale, although it's still fairly representative of how a particular topic is viewed by public/media. I like this idea. JamieS93 22:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall sounds good, except for a few things. You are talking about Importance, not Class. The wording for the priorities - especially low priority - it is very insulting because makes someone looks like they are worthless "piece of trivia". Maybe we could use the neutral wording from another Wikiproject, like this one. Royalbroil 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, I've made some changes to the wording. I think that the chart was wholesale copied from somewhere, but it's been in my user space for so long... I'd only focused on the actual criteria. Feel free to continue to tweak as needed, I don't consider it "my table" by any means.

Still, Hitcounts are somewhat important, possibly as an indicator of future importance. They do represent the most obviously visible public face of this project. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Christian music to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On sources

I have created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources with information in sources commonly used in writing here WPCCM. It's just a stub; hopefully it can become a useful source for the entire WP community. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian music industry

Alright, so I did a significant re-write of Christian music industry, and I probably need to mention a few things. (1) What I've posted is basically a start. It's wholly incomplete, especially in history. For instance, it glosses over genres, and doesn't even mention radio. (2) A good bit of the criticisms are parallel to what is/needs to be in other articles, and I would argue that it would have a place in both, presented in different forms. (3) A lot of the information can be filtered to other articles as well. Finally, (4) as a more than 5x expansion, the article qualifies for DYK, if someone can think of a few good one-liners. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Great job. It was an interesting read! I have a DYK hook for you, but I don't want DYK credit for it since I'm at #99 and I have a special article designated for #100. How about ...the Christian music industry was the fastest growing segment of the music industry in the 1990s? Royalbroil 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work. With a little copy-editing, it could probably pass GAN. -- Noj r (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Project 86

I wrestled with the beast many a night and finally smote its ruin upon the mountain side. In other words, I finally pasted my draft of Project 86. And it really is a big relief. I have nominated at GAN and have started a peer review. I would like to see the article become an FA, so any helpful comments or references are most appreciated. Thanks -- Noj r (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the article as a peer review. I never heard of them before this - they have a good sound! I do have a wide range of musical interest well beyond the mainstream pop/CCM area that I usually edit. The only improvements that I think need to be done is to include a list of released singles, in the format of a table, which shows their chart peak. The same thing with the albums/CDs, there should be a table with the chart results. As a reader/consumer, I frequently visit an article to see a list of singles and/or albums, and I expect to see the relative strength/chart success of their releases. Another questionable thing is the early promotional image claimed under fair use - I disagree that it's needed bad enough to justify a fair use image. There are enough free use images. So I'd support it, with these minor modifications, at the Featured Article level. Please give me a message on my talk page once the article gets to be a FAC, and I'll formally give my support. Royalbroil 12:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Regarding the fair-use image, its purpose is three fold; to showcase their early oriental stage design, their dragon logo, and the only two other people in the band at some point. I've seen other FAs get away with far worst (not that it justifies this case: radiohead has an image just for the bear logo!), but I figured that since it is the only fair-use image and it showcases many different items it would be alright. Perhaps I should change the caption? -- Noj r (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the caption to draw attention to the logo because that makes the fair use even muddier. How about adding the names of the 2 former member, which strengthens the case for allowing a fair use image. Royalbroil 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Day of Fire

Should Day of Fire be categorized under Christian rock (and therefore related to this project)? I did not know what to do, but maybe someone ought to add this project under its talk page. 71.172.234.150 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the article to say that they are a Christian rock band (which they definitely are), and added the {{Christianmusic}} WikiProject template to the talk page. So it's now categorized under this project. :) JamieS93 14:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Tollbooth & Cross Rhythms / Sources

Has a consensus been reached on the project regarding the reliability of Phantom Tollbooth? I can remember seeing them as a source of information in a book, but now I'm not sure. If the website's inclusion has been accepted, we should add it to the sources page with evidence of their legitimacy. The same should definitely be done with Cross Rhythms as they're already an accepted source.

On a side note, does anyone think it would be a good idea to let members list books and materials they own and can share in sources? -- Noj r (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Phantom Tollbooth. I'm in other WikiProjects that have a list of books and materials - it's worked out VERY well! Royalbroil 05:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have determined that Phantom Tollbooth is a reliable source and have added it to our sources, along with sections for Christianity Today and Billboard Guide to CCM. -- Noj r (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Noj r in this matter. In an extensive search of talk pages/etc I have found no real discussions detracting from the credibility of the site. One person said that it looked like a blog, and another that it wasn't particularly commercial.

Additionally, Gale Group appears to have used it extensively in Contemporary Musicians, more so than even physical Christian music magazines (excluding CCM).

My disposition toward Cross Rhythms is similar. It is significant that it was a physically printed magazine, with publication beginning in the early 1990s. The only major detraction is that Powell doesn't use it as a source. However it is a UK publication, and Powell doesn't mention any foreign sources as major references. So it may not have been available to him. And, given the time that he would've been writing, it may not have had the same sort of online presence that it currently does. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish Tollbooth would upgrade their website and give it a more credible appearance. It really does look like a blog or something tacky; of course, the research we have done clearly disproves those assertions. Your point about Powell and Cross Rhythms makes sense. I have noticed that research of bands can be regional; for example, Cross Rhythms has coverage on Extol because they are European, but CCM Magazine has none. Powell was truly exhaustive and covered Norwegian bands like Extol and Antestor however. -- Noj r (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How does DYK work?

Don't you improve an article substantially and then it can be nominated for DYK? I think it would be cool to add The Chariot and Project 86. I see Wikipedia as a place to improve my writing skills and help a community, but it would be nice to promote some bands as well. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For an article to be eligible for DYK, it needs to be either created in the past 5 days or had undergone a 5x expansion of the text during that same time period. Jamie & I have accomplished putting several Christian bands on the main page and I think Dan has a few. Royalbroil 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category proposal

Would it be OK to start a category of Category:Christian radio images or Christian radio logos with the parent category being Category:Christian images. As you can see I've put some Christian radio station images in the parent category because there's nowhere else to put them at the moment. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Member of WP Christianity.

It hardly seems controversial to me, I think I would have been bold and done it without discussion. Go for it! Royalbroil 01:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment for Mezzamorphis

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Mezzamorphis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with Mute Math being in the Christian Music Wikiproject

I came across something confusing whilest just reading the Wikipedia article about Mute Math's production company, Teleprompt Records. Here's a line from the previously mentioned Wiki article that birthed my confusion regarding Mute Math's inclusion in the Christian Music Wikiproject - "Teleprompt claimed that the marketing of Mute Math as a "Christian" band on WB's Word Records constituted breach of contract and negligent mis-representation". If they settled in court because Warner Brothers "negligently misrepresented" Mute Math by marketing them as a Christian band, what is the reasoning behind having them in the Christian Music Wikiproject? I just find this very confusing. I know this page doesn't see too much activity, but perhaps someone can clarify? I am both a large fan of Mute Math and Christianity, so don't take this the wrong way. I just think that Mute Math should be depicted in Wikipedia the way that they intend to be.WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Royalbroil 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ibid. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

LifeMusic Wiki

Hey! I hope it's not against the rules for me to put this on a talk page, but I would like to invite you all to LifeMusic Wiki, a Christian music wiki on Wikia. It's new and needs a lot of help. By the way, I've already contributed by adding album artwork to some articles, but I'm thinkg about actually joining this project. God bless. Master Frederique (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)