Jump to content

Talk:Cash Cash/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This is an issue that should not be ignored.

I’m always looking at other band’s wiki pages and I don’t ever find statements or quotes that describe the artist using other artists of the same era and I’m pretty sure I know why. When an article describes an artist’s sound by using another artist of the same era it’s somewhat demeaning the main artist being discussed. It makes the artist being spoken about sound inferior. Wikipedia isn’t a review harboring site or place that should give “rank” or “status” to an artist by stating “who sounds like who.” I don’t think this section should walk that line and should describe Cash Cash’s style with neutral things like genres, types of instruments used, basic review statements, live set up - or words like bluesy, jazzy, soulful, heavy, light and so on. There’s so many adjectives that can be used to deliver the point here. Having said that, I would really like to remove the statement “opined that the group's style "suggest[s] Fall Out Boy with some synthy window dressing.” from the style section. There’s just no reason to use Fall Out Boy to describe their early work especially since they are bands of the same generation. I find it disrespectful to have that quote in a place like wikipedia. Those kind of statements are great for reviews and websites that are opinion orientated and exist to cause external discussion and chatter with comments and stuff, but I feel genres, instrumentation, and general statements are more than enough to get points across here.

It might not be such an issue if one was comparing a current day artist to a past one like The Beatles or the Rolling Stones, but I think some consideration and respect should be given when comparing current day artists with each other in an online encyclopedia that doesn’t thrive on comments and outside feedback. I know I will be fully satisfied with the page if that one line gets removed. - ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a more representative pull quote from that article that you think would be a good one with which to replace it? Chubbles (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all just your personal opinion though. There's no actual policy, guideline, or prior consensus that backs this line of reasoning. Can you cite anything that makes this not okay?
  • Being called a more synth based Fall Out Boy is not overtly offensive.
  • About a minutes of searching had me finding a counterpoint. At Tool (A Featured Article) they are referred to as A heavy metal Janes Addiction. Both bands formed in the 80's, found mainstream success in the 90's and early 2000's, and are still active today. So your whole argument is disproved right there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh Holly, you just remove it and have some respect for the artist. You have some vendetta against them and I don't know why. Using a comparison to fall out boy on wikipedia...It's not needed. Have some respect for the band that you created a page for. Your intentions have gone bad. Sergecross, I don’t know about finding a citation to show that it’s disrespectful to compare two artists of the same era in a place like wikipedia, but I would like to have faith that someone with good fair judgement would realize it’s degrading, wrong, and unnecessary. It's not ok to make Cash Cash sound inferior to Fall Out Boy on wikipedia. That stuff is meant for reviews. Tool came 5 years after Janes addiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have no vendetta towards Cash Cash. I only looked into this dispute when I saw it over at WP:DRN and recognized the name "Cash Cash" as an artist that did songs for the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise. (I work a lot in video game articles, though music/albums are my secondary item.) You still haven't explained - why is it such an insult to be compared to Fall Out Boy? I have no idea why it is "degrading" or "disrespectful". It'd be one thing if it was some sort of ludicrous comparing Metallica to ABBA or something, but that is hardly the case here. (Ironically, if we take your argument that Cash Cash started in 2008, that means they formed 7 years after Fall Out Boy formed. Not that it matters, as I've stated, this information is not factored into decisions on Wikipedia. But I'm just pointing out further flaws in your flawed reasoning.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I was referring to 2002 not 2008 which puts them in the same era. Moving forward - the more important issue here is the styles section. An outside administer made some beneficial changes that should not have been reverted. He used his judgement and research to make the content more neutral and less contradicting. I feel strongly that administer Salvidrim's edits should be restored. Chubbles should not have authority over his judgment to neutralize the situation. That doesn't seem fair to me. There should be compromise. If you are set on keeping the fall out boy quote then keep it but Salvidrim's prior edits should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, his edits were undone because on Wikipedia, we handle arguments by following WP:BRD. To further break it down. Salvidrim Boldly suggested a change, Chubbles objected to it (the Revert stage), and so then we Discuss, and only make the change if there is consensus to do so. You would find things a lot less "unfair" or "outrageous" if you took the time to learn how this website works. Along the same lines, you really need to start making arguments based off of policy, guidelines, and precedent (as seen in things like featured articles. You're unlikely to garner an support (consensus) in your favor if all of your arguments hing around your personal opinions and what the Cash Cash Marketing Team deems good for their branding image. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross, I’ve read the wiki process of doing things and I understand reaching a consensus but it doesn’t seem to be the way things are working here.. it seems like Chubbles is calling all the shots and there’s not much anyone else can do. An admin made an edit, 2 editors agreed but Chubbles didn’t so you reverted the admin’s work…It doesn’t feel like we will ever reach a real consensus here because you're giving Chubbles the final edit for some reason regardless of what other editors or admins say. I thought admin Salvidrim’s edit was the compromise but there’s no real compromise here. You are governing in a way that is favoring one user's point of view. A lot of respect is being thrown out the door when 2 editors think an admin's edit should stick but 1 editor doesn’t and you favor the minority. I don't think there’s much I or anyone can do at this point..You seem to be very confident in your decision but you should at least admit you are favoring the minority in this argument which I personally don't think is fair. You aren’t really listening to my concerns plus don’t respect admin Salvidrim’s edit so what else am I or anyone to do at this point? I keep explaining my reasons over and over again on the talk page saying the same things to try and help Chubbles understand why Admin Salvidrim’s edits are actually beneficial to the page but you claim there needs to be a consensus...I could technically come back to the table saying well I think the consensus should be needed to erase Admin Salvidrims edit vs restoring it...whose to say what the consensus needs to be in favor of? What's my point?...It's not a fair fight being fought.

Second, It’s also a poor excuse that you feel the edit is to brand the band a certain way. It has nothing to do with promoting, branding, or marketing of any kind. I don’t work for the band or anyone connected to the band. I’m a supporter/outside writer and my objective was to help update the page a little because it was outdated. I simply stated my concerns on the talk page, an OUTSIDE Admin then assesed the situation and made a judgement call that I supported. I feel like that should have been respected but it was not. The edit I’m fighting for has to do with how their old material was being listed and has nothing to do with promoting or branding them the way I want to. So make sure you understand that. That was an unjust attack at me to try and validate other people's intentions. I cared enough to help update this page while it was collecting dust and missing a lot of important information. I wish you guys could appreciate all the recent work put in mostly by LaurenCastellano as my contributions were minimal compared to hers. She took serious initiative to add a lot of new content to the page. It’s kind of sad you both don’t acknowledge or see that. To end this conversation....It feels like there's no reasoning, compromise, or consensus to be reached here because Chubbles get's his way at the end of the day. As frustrating as this is for me, I'm really glad the article is at least up to date. All I can hope for at this point is other admins crossing the page, reading my reasoning and restoring admin Salvidrim's edit because they agree it's the right thing to do. This is me throwing in the towel. - ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure you understand things. I am not some sort of bully to Salvidrim or something. Salvidrim is a buddy of mine. He was just trying to help me out because he had seen me try to mediate this situation. And I appreciate that. But some of his edits were challenged, and he has not defended them or persuaded people on the talk page, so they have not been reinstated. Again, it's all following BRD, although, Chubbles viewpoint is backed by Wikipedia policy and two prominent reliable music sources, where yours rely largely on your personal viewpoints, not rooted in policy or precedent at all, so I would count on a person randomly just passing by and undoing things. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, I think one of the biggest issues here is that Ken never dealt with my reasoning. I had what I thought was pretty significant evidence which directly refuted the claims he made about emo-pop, and about the early history of the band; he never offered evidence for his own position based in reliable sources. As hard as I tried to steer the conversation in that direction (since it is a bedrock principle for Wikipedia content), it never took. Salvidrim's edits were dialed back on the same principles - there were issues with source reliability and with source corroboration. I explained in detail why I thought, with respect to Wikipedia's own principles, certain aspects of Salvidrim's edits seemed to muddy the waters rather than clarify the group's musical oeuvre. Ken was never really able to speak to those principles - he kept returning to things being "offensive" and "demeaning", but I see no WP:BLP issue in being called emo-pop or being compared to another successful rock band (and in any case I asked for a suggestion for a more representative pull quote, and didn't get one).
Consensus and compromise are not the same thing; the point is not to give the majority the rule nor to impose the will of a minority on the masses. The point is to determine how best to structure an article's form and content according to Wikipedia policy. That means that people who don't follow those policies ought not get their way, even if they are in the majority. Having said that, I could point to many aspects of this article in which you and Lauren have gotten your way; the lede still refers extensively to the Rzeznik track, the information about the songwriting agency is still in the article, emo-pop is no longer in the infobox, and virtually every club appearance they made in 2014 is now documented (which I maintain is overkill). The style section was created in an overt attempt to make you two happy in a way that would comport with Wikipedia content guidelines and reduce infobox battling. If you are not getting your way here, it is because the sources contradict you on important grounds, not because I hold any power over you. Chubbles (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That’s what surprised me the most..If admin Salvidrim is your friend and peer I would think you would respect the edit and know that his intentions are good. His edit has nothing to do with how anyone wants to brand the band and is not based around my opinion. He made a properly sourced edit that neutralized the section to read less contradicting and base the styles around how their albums were released. He used genres that made more sense and didn’t leave any confusion or contradiction. You’re claiming that Chubbles has the content sourced correctly but so did Salvidrim. This isn’t about sourcing...It’s about deciding what is fair and best for the page and band and I really feel that Salvidrim’s edit is better for a place like wikipedia that isn’t based around external feedback and comments. He made it read less bias and opinionated and used styles that don’t cause any confusion in an encyclopedic place. 

- ken  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll let this speak for itself. Salvidrim, if you think your edits have been mishandled, please let us know. Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Salv "thanked" me for the last edit, if that's any indication. Also, as I said on my edit summaries, I don't take issue with what Salv added, I just took issue with what he removed in his edits. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I would have responded on here sooner but my touring schedule has been hectic the past year. I’m honestly really stoked with the page minus one thing. First I have to say I'm very surprised our early stuff is being referred to as emo pop and compared to Fall Out Boy but hey..We know and love those guys I’m just very surprised and confused haha. The truth is we were the opposite. I understand that a couple reviews stated it but not every review has the best information, opinion, or taste. I would think that anyone who knows about the genre and is familiar with our early stuff would agree it was the opposite..Our early lyrics were party nonsense and far from emo. There are better fitting genres that could be used instead to describe our early stuff like electropop because that’s what most people called it but do what you guys feel is right..That is not my main issue here I just felt like I needed to chime in on the conversation. What’s actually bothering me is the line about autotune vocals because it was made by a writer who didn’t know any better or have any technical information about us. It’s a real bummer seeing that up there because we actually took pride in using real physical and digital vocoders, talk boxes, and melodyne to create those vocal sounds. That was our whole thing and it’s lame to see that misrepresented on our wiki page because a writer didn’t know and decided to just call it autotune. Reviews don’t always have all the correct information. As producers we spent a lot of time tweaking and refining those vocals for them to be written off as autotune..plus all our fans knew Alex as “the robot” using the vocoder and talk box live. I respect and understand COI on wikipedia and I will only voice my concern on something I truly believe needs to be changed and this is one of them. You have to remember that we're talking about people and their lives on pages like this vs random subjects. To some people this is just another wiki page but to us it's our most important biography and the first place people go to learn about us. It’s one thing for a mistake like that to be in a random online review made by a misinformed writer but not cool being on our wikipedia page. I hope that you guys can respect that and agree to remove that one line. That’s my only problem with the article. Thanks. - JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPcashcash (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point; if the reviewer is indeed in error here (and using "Auto-Tune" as a lazy metonym for all voice processing), then I suppose that portion ought to be adjusted. I'll try my hand here. Chubbles (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If that's objectively wrong, I support removing that too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That all sounds fair. I have the compromise as far as emopop goes. Salvidrim’s edit did actually have some validity and here’s why…If you look at the album details down to the left of the Allmusic review [1] that Chubbles is citing for “emopop,” you will see that ALLmusic does actually list the album’s official genre to be “electronic pop/rock” the way Salvidrim corrected it to. So Allmusic as it’s own entity officially classifies the album to be “electronic pop rock” and the review by Tim Sendra is what refers to the album as “emopop.” We can simply have both and compromise. I don’t think it’s appropriate to list it 3 times in a row especially since there are valid concerns about it but I will accept it being up there. Let’s finally compromise on the issue and close this book. Remember everybody has to budge a little. There can not be one executive editor that decides what is added and removed. Wikipedia is about writers working together and compromising. It’s teamwork and I know we can work peacefully together. I’m going to combine Salvidrim’s edit together with Chubbles so everyone is happy. Sending good vibes to everyone involved. 2point5ken (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/take-it-to-the-floor-mw0000806484
As I've said before, I have no problems with what Salvidrim added, just with what he removed. I'm all for adding more well cited info, just not removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember, the word emo-pop appears three times because it was made clear to me I would have to explain in some detail why it was important to put on the page at all. That required me to find the actual usages in the writeups and quote them directly. There is no "official genre" - that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what genre is. No appointed or elected overseer decides what music is what genre - not Allmusic, nor the label, nor the bands themselves. I've already added a portion of Salvidrim's edit to the page in the second paragraph, since the UndertheGun review was, in my opinion, a good enough third-party source to include. Given the page's history, I'd honestly suggest that you preview any rewording here or in your sandbox and request comment before moving it to the live article. Chubbles (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I acknowledge that Chubbles did some amazing stuff for the page but some of his work needs refining just like anyone else’s. Some solid points have been made as to why emo-pop is not the most accurate genre being confusing and contradicting so there’s no reason to be overly redundant with it. Even if the concerns didn’t exist, one style should not be overkill with that much repetition. Each instance there isn’t really bringing anything new to the article it’s just stating the style 3 times in a row. Let’s keep relevance and neutrality in mind here since especially these sub styles are heavily based on opinion. I don’t feel it’s appropriate for this section to have that much repetition on the debated genre or any genre. It’s also not fair play if Chubbles is able to add and remove material without consensus but other editors need his approval for edits. There was never really a full consensus for all of his additions and removals but the page was protected after so nobody could really alter them. Now that the protection is lifted, it’s time to address them. We all need to compromise and respect everyone’s concerns. I could easily find 3 or more different sources talking about them being electro house but that wouldn’t strengthen the page or get a point across any better. It’s not necessary and would just be taking away from other valuable information in the section. I respect that he wants the genre listed and that’s fine but it should not be overkill. Back to Salvidrims edit, Allmusic does clearly list the album as “electronic pop rock” in the details section so I brought that back because it’s a more accurate way to describe their early material. It’s properly sourced and valid. Allmusic as an entity should be held equal or higher then a opinionated review they are hosting. This is a reasonable compromise for all the editors involved. I made a very fair edit that combines Salvidrim’s work and consolidates redundancy while still keeping all the styles listed. Chubbles, can we please agree on this? Thanks. 2point5ken (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I maintain that the article is less confusing and less contradicting for the edits which have expanded on emo-pop. The article now explains with much more context why emo-pop was part of the early critical reception of the group, which the previous placement in the infobox (subject to its own lengthy battle) described very thinly. This is not a majority-rule situation; also, consensus is not necessarily synonymous with compromise. Part of forging a consensus is demonstrating that what you advocate follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which I have been meticulously scrutinized over as a result of this protracted debate. This tends to weigh more heavily than merely expressed desire, and certainly more than that of WP:COI editors, which (let's not forget) was a longstanding issue with the page before Lauren and Ken's arrival. Perhaps you are arguing that this is an WP:IAR situation...I do not believe it is, of course, but you are welcome to make that case if that is indeed what you mean. If you can find three reliable sources which discuss in detail the band's recent electro-house leanings, then by all means please add them! It would be great to have more discussion in the second paragraph of critical reception from major review sites which discuss their move toward electro-house. That, however, is not justification for removing well-sourced material. If you want to use Allmusic as a definitive source (which it is not, but it is admittedly a good one), here is a list of genre descriptors they have used to describe the band: Pop/Rock, Alternative/Indie Rock, Emo-Pop, Pop, New Wave/Post-Punk Revival, Electronic, Club/Dance, EDM, Dance-Pop, Progressive House, Electro, Electronic Pop/Rock, Alternative Dance, Left-Field Pop, and Punk-pop. Not all of these are applicable, and not all of them are common descriptors of their early work specifically. I'd think we'd want to use the most common descriptors found in contemporaneous sources, of which we have three, for their first album; techno-pop and emo-pop are present in two of those, which is why I chose them. Chubbles (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The redundancy is not needed here and discussion on the talk page gives valid reasoning why. This is compromising and Salvidrims content is properly sourced. Consolidating is perfectly fine since it does not remove the genre. One person can’t have full authority over a section. A lot of my content was changed, deleted, refined, and reworded because that’s what wikipedia is about. The same protocol will be used for everyone else. Overstating an opinion has no purpose here. This section needs to lean neutral instead of listing the same opinion over and over again. There are less biased ways to describe the music and a line needs to be drawn. It’s one thing if we were dealing with facts but these statements are based on reviews and opinions. By overstating misleading opinions we are taking away from other important factual content on the page making it harder for readers to absorb other relevant information the article has to offer. Ken’s edit is indeed compromising and needs to be accepted. Salvidrim’s edit should have been respected better in the first place given his admin status and proper use of citations. He made a smart judgment call that other editors approved of but was completely disregarded. User 2point5Ken is adding back the part of Salvidrim’s edit that describes the bands early music more accurately while still leaving the genre that Chubbles wants listed. That is a clear compromise. Salvidrim’s original edit removed all instances of the genre but Ken’s edit leaves it there meeting this argument half way. That seems fair to me. It’s time to accept the compromise and move forward. LaurenCastellano (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple. Add the information, without removing any. It's not a large section, there's no reason anything needs to be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat myself, verbatim, from a month ago, in re compromise:
Consensus and compromise are not the same thing; the point is not to give the majority the rule nor to impose the will of a minority on the masses. The point is to determine how best to structure an article's form and content according to Wikipedia policy. That means that people who don't follow those policies ought not get their way, even if they are in the majority. Having said that, I could point to many aspects of this article in which you and Lauren have gotten your way; the lede still refers extensively to the Rzeznik track, the information about the songwriting agency is still in the article, emo-pop is no longer in the infobox, and virtually every club appearance they made in 2014 is now documented (which I maintain is overkill). The style section was created in an overt attempt to make you two happy in a way that would comport with Wikipedia content guidelines and reduce infobox battling. If you are not getting your way here, it is because the sources contradict you on important grounds, not because I hold any power over you. Chubbles (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to add the first part of Salvidrim’s edit back while keeping the rest of the content untouched. I give up trying to make you guys understand why I was fighting for my edit because it just keeps getting reverted. I can live with this… Also, Sergecross can you please semi protect the page again for only auto confirmed users?…at least for a little bit longer. I personally feel it would be a good idea. What do you guys think? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 04:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What was the first part that you were planning to add, again? And as for semi protection, I don't have a problem with that, but it seems like all of the edit warring is being done by autoconfirmed editors. Chubbles (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Coming to consensus

Alright, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to how to handle content disputes on Wikipedia. Its not enough to just "leave a note" on the talk pages. We need to follow WP:BRD and come to consensus before we make changes. Time after time, an editor leaves their thoughts, and then goes crazy with their editing, and doesn't stop even when there's clear opposition on the talk page. (And honestly, given the history of these arguments, one should probably have the common sense that all the suggested changes aren't going to be automatically accepted by the other party.) This has been going on for weeks now, so I've further protected the page, to make sure that there is clear agreement on the talk page before changes are implemented. It'll be revoked after 2 weeks, or once there are no more disagreements, whatever comes first. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Good move.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue is a little irrational... You wouldn’t put the formation date of Blink 182 on Boxcar racer or Plus 44’s page…I don’t see why this is even an issue and it’s a disappointing to see the page get protected further immediately after Chubbles makes his edits…I’m not happy with this at all. This is a page on Cash Cash and it’s becoming overly confusing when it doesn’t have to be. I also don’t agree with the stuff Chubbles has added to the style section. This isn’t supposed to be a review site and he’s making it very opinion based. This is very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the issue is, if there is disagreement, then there needs to be consensus. I'd focus on that rather than how "outrageous" this is or isn't. Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Salvidrim's clarification in the infobox is quite sensible from my viewpoint, and follows the sources. I will await the arrival of further rational, reliable source-based argument to support the removal of "emo-pop", which has not been forthcoming from the warring parties. Those seem to be the two remaining principal battlegrounds. Chubbles (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As for the admin genre edits, they are using some sources I'd argue are less reliable than third-party review sites (CheapTickets is a blatantly promotional site, and Plixid has no prose content - it also looks like a commercial site; the Under the Gun review would qualify there, but I'm not so sure about the others). Another problem is that they are more recent sources; the first paragraph in "Style" was carved out to discuss the band's style as The Consequence and for their first album, which was released in 2008, but all of these new sources date to several years after that, once the band had been moving more towards EDM. That's the crux of what this discussion has been about. If they should stay, they and their content should be moved to the second paragraph of the Style section. Chubbles (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Plixid and CheapTickets aren't great, but UTG and PopCrush I think are okay. I'm fine with removing those 2 sources. As far as the rest of the reworking goes, do you want to build off of Salvidrim's current edits, or revert back to its original state? I greatly appreciate Salvidrim's efforts, but the whole purpose of my full protection was to make it so things are discussed first and put into effect second, a problem that has plagued this article for weeks/months. I don't want to be right back at that even despite the protection. On the other hand, if Salvidrim's edits are a step in the right direction, then please let me know how to build off of them further, and we can see if there's consensus for that too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No Chubbles, you are incorrect. The point of Salvidrim's edits was to show that there are better genres to list then emopop that don't bring up any confusion or concerns. He is basing the genres off their early work. I support his changes and they should stay. I mean this in the least aggressive way possible, it's really time to move forward Chubbles. The page is in a great place. Let's be happy and move on from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it concerning there is so little discussion going on when forced to discuss first. I feel like the same thing happened when Chubbles went to DRN. If you or Lauren chose to go right back to doing wherever you feel like after the article protection is over, then it'll just be protected again, so I wouldn't count on that approach... Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin Salvidrim's edits put me at ease. I'm cool with where the article is. Of course there are things I would like to change but I will compromise on not changing them for the sake of keeping things peaceful. I personally liked having their touring history a separate section but Chubbles didn’t agree so I’m going to let him have his way. I really do love how Chubbles combined/reworded all the content I added to read like a cohesive article instead of an outline. That made the page look a lot more professional and I tip my hat to him….Anyways, my eyes are already looking forward on new things when the ban is lifted like adding their Lollapaolloza show as it’s a legendary festival to be a part of! so yes, overall for the most part I'm cool with where the page sits. I’m going to swallow my pride on the little things that bother me and look forward. It’s currently a solid piece that shows their long history as well as their recent endeavors. When I started here my main goal was to bring this page up to date and I feel like I did that successfully. Now when I look at the page as a whole I see a very in depth, well written, relevant, and complete article on Cash Cash. I’m pleased with it. Cheers to everyone involved and to keeping things positive around here! <3 LaurenCastellano (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to run down your future plans, like the ones regarding Lalapalooza, on the talk page first, since there's been so much disagreement so far. Might make that go smoother... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I’m happy that there is no confusing or misleading content which is what I care about the most but I do have one last major issue. I’m always looking at other band’s wiki pages and I don’t ever find statements or quotes that describe the artist using other artists of the same era and I’m pretty sure I know why. When an article describes an artist’s sound by using another artist of the same era it’s somewhat demeaning the main artist being discussed. It makes the artist being spoken about sound inferior. Wikipedia isn’t a review harboring site or place that should give “rank” or “status” to an artist by stating “who sounds like who.” I don’t think this section should walk that line and should describe Cash Cash’s style with neutral things like genres, types of instruments used, basic review statements, live set up - or words like bluesy, jazzy, soulful, heavy, light and so on. There’s so many adjectives that can be used to deliver the point here. Having said that, I would really like to remove the statement “opined that the group's style "suggest[s] Fall Out Boy with some synthy window dressing.” from the style section. There’s just no reason to use Fall Out Boy to describe their early work especially since they are bands of the same generation. I find it disrespectful to have that quote in a place like wikipedia. Those kind of statements are great for reviews and websites that are opinion orientated and exist to cause external discussion and chatter with comments and stuff, but I feel genres, instrumentation, and general statements are more than enough to get points across here.

It might not be such an issue if one was comparing a current day artist to a past one like The Beatles or the Rolling Stones, but I think some consideration and respect should be given when comparing current day artists with each other in an online encyclopedia that doesn’t thrive on comments and outside feedback. I know I will be fully satisfied with the page if that one line gets removed. Sergecross73, I’m curious to hear your stance on this and hope you understand my concern. - ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for delay in response; I was out of town for a few days. I was hoping Salvidrim would return to give some more detailed explanation of his edits, which I presumed were for the sake of not leaving controversial material in a protected revision. I do think they are ultimately untenable. As I noted earlier, the sources he's integrated into the first paragraph are descriptions from later in the band's stylistic evolution, and while it'd be fine to keep them, they'd need to be keyed to the second paragraph of the style section, which expands on the band's more EDM-oriented last few years. That leaves us with what to do with the first paragraph. The admin edits carefully, surgically removed "emo" from all of the pull quotes (leaving the "pop" of emo-pop in, in the Allmusic case). The style section was created in the first place as a conciliatory gesture over the battle of having "emo-pop" in the infobox; I thought it made more sense to leave a simple descriptor in the infobox and then expand more robustly about style in a separate section that could draw pull quotes from sources. But the quotes I added, from two major contemporaneous sources (and there is not a ton of media coverage of their first album), discuss emo-pop as a key indicator of the band's style - one of them even says the album "could be...the definitive statement" of the style. I wouldn't have fought so hard to keep it on the page if I hadn't seen that crop up significantly in critical assessment of the album, and the current revision doesn't tell that part of the band's history. That was also why I attempted rigorously to source the use of the term even in the face of reversion.

With that in mind, I'd like to see the new genre sources moved to the second paragraph and the earlier wording and sourcing of the first paragraph restored. This comment is primarily aimed at the admins, since the other disputing parties' most recent comments assume the current wording is best and take it for granted. Admins, please let me know your thoughts. Chubbles (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, I’m sorry but you need to accept the fact that having emopop on this page is wrong. I’ve listed the reasons for you very clearly. There is valid justification and reasoning. There is no reason to list a conflicting genre when there are other clear genres to describe their early material. Just because it was said in a review does not warrant it to be listed in an encyclopedic article. Their early work was considered synthpop, electropop, and powerpop. It seems like you are trying to tarnish this group’s reputation for a motive I can’t figure out. Listing emopop is a total contradiction and I’ve listed my reasoning multiple times on the talk page. It’s time to move on. An outside administer assessed the situation, read everybody’s concerns and made an executive decision. He clearly agreed that it’s not the best way to describe the group and worded the section so it’s more neutral sounding. I don’t know what else you want to hear. This argument is getting old and it’s time to end it. It’s simply time to move forward. - ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken here Chubbles, you stated that “the sources (salvidrim) integrated into the first paragraph are descriptions from later in the band's stylistic evolution).” That is not true in any way. The genres he listed are in fact their “old” early genres. They started from the very beginning as a synthpop, power pop, electro pop/rock band like all their releases show on wikipedia and elsewhere. Those are the correct early genres that don’t cause any misunderstanding or conflict. Their new later genres are electro house & progressive house, electronica, and nu disco. There’s no confusion on this and I have to say you are wrong in saying Salvidrim is using new genres to describe their old ones. He’s 100% spot on and nailed his edits to make things less biased and opinionated. It is time to put this issue to rest.LaurenCastellano (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Can someone explain why the emo pop label is so "tarnishing"? I can, in theory, understand it being wrong. But emo-pop is not a slanderous term. You two need to assume good faith, there's no reason to think that Chubbles is out to get the band or something.
  • Ken, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cash_Cash#Styles_Section - the last comment. Your argument about emo-pop being a "contradiction" is not valid in the terms of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, Allmusic and PopMatters definitely meet the definition of reliable source, and they are prominent in the music industry. Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say. If you do not like those websites label the band as, take it up with them, not Wikipedia.
  • I also see no problem with the Fall Out Boy comparison. It was by a reliable source and the quote wasn't taken out of context. There's no existing policy or consensus that a band's timeframe or "generation" has any bearing on whether or not it can be used to describe another band's sound. Sergecross73 msg me 11:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It'd be nice to find other sources from that era - I wonder whether Alternative Press might have reviewed Take It to the Floor. I may be able to get back issues from the library, since they don't archive all their reviews online, but it could be tough. Chubbles (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic & emo-pop

One thing to note: Allmusic has technically retracted from describing the band as "emo-pop". They used to list "emo-pop" in their infobox of the associated review. After further consideration, they left the text of the review untouched for presumably obvious reasons of original authorship, but have decided to replace "emo-pop" with the more potentially more appropriate "Electronic pop/rock". Make of that information as you wish, but it denotes clearly that this particular point is disagreed upon even amongst reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the general consensus is to not use what they use in their side column, but to use what is mentioned in their actual prose. This is because their sidebars use a few limited, preset genre that aren't always very articulate. (For example, They refer to Slipknot's genre as "pop rock", which is generally only considered to be true in the most broadest terms of them being a rock band that is popular in a general sense.) So, in this example, its emo-pop that is mentioned in the prose at Allmusic... Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Also: that retraction is probably due to actions taken on this site. The history of this Wikipedia page is rife with attempts by the band's management, or by persons claiming to be band members, to control the information on it and promote the group. (You can see some examples above, in the conversations held before the arrival of Lauren and Ken; there were months of debate with editors with names like "JPCashCash" and "Jeanpaulmakhlouf", as well as IPs.) Since I have used the Hiponline and Allmusic sources to back up claims about the band's history, they actually contacted those sources and demanded they replace them with new band bios which burnished their histories and made it look like they had always been an EDM group; that's why the citations use both current and Internet Archive-cached versions of those pages, because I did not want the page's content to be determined by the band itself or by their handlers (and no other regular editors had ever come to work on the page). I didn't use much in the way of genre descriptors when I initially wrote the article; I tend not to. But repeated edits from others kept adding "emo-pop", and when I looked into it source-wise, I thought it made sense for the label to be there, despite whatever controversy it might cause (and "emo" has been bled out of countless appropriate articles because it is such a hated term by its detractors, and such a carefully protected term by its devotees). Chubbles (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus but yet Chubbles edits are the final ones and admin Salvidrims got reverted?!?! Why does Chubbles get to override everyone else? I'm very confused. First things first...The band was clearly disgusted with the discrepancies on this page so you can see JP voiced his concerns hoping to receive some help. There's nothing wrong with that. Chubbles isn't the authority of this page. Secondly, nobody is trying to rewrite their history. All the sites simply updated their bios with a new one...What makes you think that the band is trying to burnish their history?!?! this is absurd! I've had it up to here with this. You are the one that is trying to tarnish their history and it's disgusting that you're getting away with it. Allmusic respected the fact that there are clear issues with emopop and removed it from the sidebar and left it in the review where it belongs. There is reasoning why emopop should not be on this page and nobody is taking the time to read it.

Sergecross I'm truly let down with your actions and can't believe you are letting this occur...You've still yet to answer my concern regarding the issue about comparing artists to other artists...you're just here fighting for Chubbles....I have serious issues comparing this group to other groups in their era and it needs to be addressed as well. Where's the mediation? where' the respect? I'm deeply offended here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what else to say...Everything's been said and addressed on this talk page but because Chubbles doesn't agree means it's wrong...I thought nobody owned an article or had the right to take over it...this isn't right guys...this isn't right or fair at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD to understand why it was reverted. As I've said countless times, in times of arguments, you discuss first, and make change only if there is agreement. You and Lauren have ignored this time after time. That is why the article is locked. I'm now forcing everyone to follow the rules, because no one would do it on the honor system. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
So, Lauren's first edit back after the page lock was to remove the pull quotes from the first paragraph of the style section. (Of course, it's pure coincidence this also removes all of the style discussion of emo-pop.) The lock comes down, but the edit warring continues. What do I do now? Chubbles (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I do believe I have amply argued already for why this material should not be removed (in the section called "Styles Section", above). It has been removed as the first action after an administrator lockdown; it is exactly what was requested that Lauren not do upon restoration of editing abilities. Is anyone going to argue that this isn't a disruptive edit? Chubbles (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Having heard nothing after three days and two talk page requests for justification, I have reverted two edits. The first cut the referenced extrapolation of critical assessment of the band as "emo-pop", and the second again continued to reword the article as if The Consequence were a different act entirely. Neither of these edits comports with available sourcing, and they are particularly galling given the two-week-long full editing ban we just went through due to your edit-warring on these two very subjects. If you are unsatisfied with the pull quotes from the AMG and Popmatters articles, I'd suggest offering alternative quotes that you think are more representative - here, before you add them to the article. In other words, please discuss changes before implementing them, as in wait for a reply from other editors before taking an action. I hope this has been clear enough, as earlier requests in the same vein have apparently not been worded correctly enough to impart my meaning. Chubbles (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, Response to my recent edits. I don’t mind the FOB comparison staying and listing emopop as a style, which is compromising with you….but there’s no reason to be redundant with regards to a style that is being debated on the page. It’s fair leaving it up there but there’s no reason for redundancy given how contradicting and confusing it is. Let’s be reasonable here. Also, the line taking about singalong choruses and slick-as-oil vocal harmonies is puff and unnecessary as I've stated multiple times before. This is not a review site. This section should be neutral and not be pulling random opinions and biased remarks from reviews. It's not just needed to get the point across and is more professional without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Vocal harmonies" and "sing-along choruses" are musical attributes worth noting. Well written articles have descriptors like this so people can get an idea for what they sound line without listening to it, which is good, because, as stated before, the articles are supposed to be written for people who have no prior exposure to the article subject. I suppose the "slick as oil" part could be trimmed out, if you truly object to that for some reason, but the rest is fine, and not puffery. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
So, on the point of redundancy: The pull quotes are not redundant, as they help to give a fuller picture of style than a simple genre label can give, and I saw them as necessary when it became clear that, since emo-pop was going to be so controversial, it would need extrapolation so that a reader could better understand why that critical assessment was made in the band's early career. Nothing about that is redundant. It is not clear what you find contradicting or confusing, unless this is again a stand-in for complaint about the fact that "emo-pop" appears there at all (which I maintain is, in and of itself, neither contradicting nor confusing). By calling the vocal harmonies "puff", are you concerned that the pull quote is too positive toward the group? Do you have a suggestion as to a less fawning, more illuminating pull quote from the same source, or any additional sourcing covering the first album specifically that we could integrate into the article? (I have searched and come up wanting, but of course it would be nice to have more. I still wonder about whether there is an Alternative Press review of this record.) As for "random opinions and biased remarks", as I have suggested before, style and critical reception sections are actually the one place in an article where (reliably sourced, representative and/or noteworthy) opinions would actually be sensible to include; the point of such a section is, in part, to explain the judgment of others in the public arena on the art in question. Chubbles (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No further thoughts on this matter, then? I thought user JPCashCash might pop in, as he's active editing again, but I haven't heard anything from him in a few days. Chubbles (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what to do to help them anymore. Any time I lock the page, or you take them to DRN, they just stop discussing. You've given them alternatives (like suggesting they find alternate pull quotes), I've given them alternatives (like suggesting they add more info/quotes on different genre, as to place less emphasis on the genre they don't approve of), and yet they haven't even appeared to try to do this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


Here’s where I stand. I’m fine with keeping the Pop Matters and Fall Out Boy statements but I do believe that the all music qoute should be trimmed for puff reasons. I just want to keep this section more neutral. I will be fully satisfied after trimming the All music quote down to read “All Music described the band's first album as "emo-pop.” Chubbles, can we compromise on this and put this argument to rest? If so you won’t hear anymore from me on the issue.LaurenCastellano (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I responded above and explained why those things aren't "puff". Any counterpoint to that? Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles - Please feel free to refine any content I add but I'm standing strong on keeping Salvidrim’s genre addition since it’s properly sourced by Allmusic and has just as much of a right to be listed as any other. It can be listed with yours together without any conflict. There’s no reason for you to edit war me over this. You want a certain genre listed and I want a certain genre listed. Amazingly they are both from the same source therefore we should be able to list them both without any disagreement. There’s no reason why both genres can’t stay up there together in perfect harmony since they come from the same exact source (Allmusic). Neither of us have the right to hold one style higher over the other since the source is the same. The solution is simply to list them both together. Moving along - I saw the unreliable source tag you listed. Both sources are two notable electronic music blogs that are monitored by hype machine. I’m not sure why they would be considered unreliable but I will definitely try to find others when I have some time. I’m fine with the quote trimming you did and change to processed vocals so please continue to quote time, refine, or reword anything I add but you must accept people adding and refining the section as well. We need to be fair and work peacefully together. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 06:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I have a solution for that. You're right, there's no reason why the two genres can't be listed side by side. Chubbles (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, Stating the specific sources that refer to the referenced styles reads more factual and detailed than just saying “described variously as” which is very vague. My newest addition shows what source claims what and keeps the styles grouped accordingly. You need to let other people edit and refine content on this page the way other editors let you. My addition deeper defines the specific sources that claim the styles while keeping all of them listed. This kind of fine detail is beneficial in a section like this. Thanks 2point5ken (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I made some reference adjustments and copyedits. I am satisfied with the current version of that paragraph. Chubbles (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Flag Removal

I’m thrilled that there is finally consensus and agreement on all the issues that have been haunting the article. Healthy peaceful editing has finally returned. Many compromises were made along the way and the page is currently a very accurate and up to date representation of Cash Cash. It’s extremely detailed and is sourced very well. The overall tone of the article is unbiased and neutral. The flags have been up for ample time and have been successful. The article was rewritten/reworded by user Chubbles to better fit wiki standards and to read more like an encyclopedic article instead of notes or an outline. Sergecross73 helped refine content that was seen as promotional in the equipment section and did a fair job refereeing the fights. A styles section was also created to further elaborate on genres and accommodate everyone’s needs. LaurenCastellano, Chubbles, Sergecross73, Salvidrim, myself and many other random editors that popped their heads in have really strengthened the article over the past year. Charts and tables have been created that look very professional and the article has expanded in all the right ways. Most importantly, all of the content that was in question has been validated and I think it’s time to remove those ugly flags since they’ve fully served their purpose. As of today, this is a very professional well written article. If anyone has any further concerns..please voice your opinion here on the talk page and we will address it as a team. 2point5ken (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

While I just brought up a concern in the section above, I agree, I don't think any of the concerns are bad enough to warrant the tags anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead information

One of the bits that was never quite cleared up and ended up being dropped. The WP:LEAD could use some clean up. This is the part that is suppose to give a brief, general outline for the path of the rest of the article. Its pretty basic stuff, but in efforts to "practice what I preach", I figured I'd discuss first.

There's too much individual name dropping of songs or collaborating artists. This is fine if there is, for example, a song that truly defines a band, or was a massive hit. Something like Smells Like Teen Spirit being mentioned in the lead at Nirvana (band). The single lead to a diamond (10 million) selling album. Contrast that to what we have here:

  • "Lightning", a non-charting single without its own article, off of an EP that failed to chart.
  • "Live for the Nights" a song they only produced and cowrote, which failed to chart or have an article.

These things are fine to mention, but not so prominently in the intro. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, but am too fatigued to fight tooth and nail over the changes anymore. Chubbles (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it’s all relative to the band and their success but aside from that, Take Me Home is their highest charting song that has certifications in multiple countries. “Live for the night” is a song they produced and co wrote that also charted in various countries and is currently one of their most notable accomplishments. “Lightning” is an original song with a very unique notable feature. Releasing an electronic dance song with a massive rock singer from an iconic band such as the Goo Goo Dolls is a huge talking point for a band like Cash Cash. Regardless of it charting or not, it’s currently one of their most notable endeavors and should be absorbed in the Lead without having to read the entire article. Notability is a very subjective and relative term. Try to look at this case by case. Cash Cash is notable enough to have a wikipedia page in the first place but the content is going to be on a smaller scale then a Rihanna or Nirvana. The reason that needs to be taken into account is because WPLead states “The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead.” The lead right now is an effective summary of the group’s most important notable talking points.

The remix statement shows they have done official remixes for major artists which is important because a lot of DJ’s and producers put out bootlegs and unofficial remixes instead. As a producer it’s a notable accomplishment to put out official remixes for those type of artists on major labels. It's not promoting anything aggressively and find it to be very informative letting the reader know key aspects right off the bat. Most dance producers or DJ’s do not receive as many platinum or gold records as a pop star and are more known in the community for their remix and collaboration work. Giving an example of that here with Live For The Night and some of their official remixes shouldn’t be a problem as the type of artist needs to be taken into consideration. Every article is different.

WP:lead also states, “the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.” & “The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.”

This lead seems to fit those guidelines. Being signed to major label is definitely a sign of being notable which is why it's spoken about along with the rest of the content. It’s all relative to the artist and their career level. Electronic Dance Music is a fairly new/smaller genre and these type of artists will be spoken about differently all throughout wikipedia. Their success shouldn't be compared to pop artists that are 10xDiamond certified. It’s going to be on a different level but it still fits the Wiki guidelines. I think it's a really solid lead. I'm very pleased with it. 2point5ken (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, as is, the lead does a terrible job of summarizing the article. It doesn't mention a single album or EP, it just name drops a bunch of acts they worked with, (which isn't covered in more detail in the article) and lists some non-notable, non-charting singles. Sure, some of this is relative, but still, your conception of LEAD is way off. It should be more like a table of contents in paragraph form. This is not that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Extrapolation on Sega collaborations

Maybe I'm wrong (I doubt it, but there's always the possibility), but I would assume that a very large chunk of "recognition" this band has received in the past 5 or so years is due to their collaborations with Sega, namely the Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations soundtracks. Thus, it seems fairly strange that the only place that any of this is even acknowledged in the article is in a list at the very bottom. Isn't there any information that could be added about this collaboration other than a very roundabout "it happened"? It's pretty unusual - and notable - for an American music group to collaborate with a Japanese game developer, even more so for it to happen multiple times. -Wohdin (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly see your point of view on this one, as I'm pretty sure that's how I first heard of the band myself, and it is a rather unusual situation for a Japanese video game company to work with an American band like this. (Usually they work with more like the Crush 40 type bands.) I'd be fine with expanding you expanding on it, provided you've got the reliable sources that cite the respective content. For some background on why the article looks the way it does: - there were some major arguments over the content of the article a year or so ago, leaving both sides burned out. While the article is far better than it was prior, there's still a lot of room for improvement. (For instance, there's far too much name-dropping going on in the lead, and comments about singular songs that didn't even chart.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Cash Cash discography

Support split - Discography section takes up about one quarter of this long page, and should be split to a new article entitled Cash Cash discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I've never quite understood when it is or isn't appropriate to start up a separate discography article, but I have no particular objection unless there's a standard I'm not aware of... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cash Cash. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

DJ trio

User:Chubbles, User:2point5ken - Hello, I noticed your dispute on this article several years ago. I think the 'hostility' towards newer contributors was caused by lack of understanding the policies on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Please understand that no article is owned by editors. @Chubbles: @2point5ken:

About the intro, I think that 'DJ trio' is more appropriate because it is their main profession as explained in the sources. "Electronic music trio" doesn't even sound right, because it's too general. Is "electronic music" an occupation? It's a genre. DJ is an occupation and they were described as DJs multiple times. I would like to seek resolution at WP:DR if we cannot oversee this dispute. - TheMagnificentist 22:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The lede should identify what Cash Cash is in its first sentence. Cash Cash is the name of a musical group. It has three members, and the type of work they do in the band is DJing, which is reasonable to mention in the lede if you like; that seems like a fine thing to mention in a second sentence of the lede.
As you note, the page was subject to long-term edit warring by members of the band themselves (or their representatives). The use of "electronic music" in the lede reflects a commitment to using the most general genre descriptors, rather than devolving into endless genrewarrioring over specific electronic music styles. I'd like to do whatever I can to keep revert wars from re-erupting here.
You are of course welcome to involve DR whenever you would like, but since this discussion is perhaps an hour old, it feels rather premature at this juncture. Chubbles (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be lecturing anyone on OWN issues here, seems like a relatively minor dispute with valid arguments. I can't imagine why DR would be needed either. It's good you decided to start up a discussion, but you're kind of escalating awfully quick here, especially over two wording choices that are both correct really... Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The OP was right to go to the talk page about this and get consensus. I support Cubbles' compromise here. Karst (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, discussion in general was a good idea, I'm just saying the parts regarding OWN and DR seem misguided. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
That has to do with the WP:1RR restriction the OP is currently under. Karst (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user Chubbles. His recent edit has great flow. It starts with defining what they are in a simple readable way, to who the group is comprised of & that they are DJ's, to how they operate as a trio. There's no need to change that. The flow is perfect.2point5ken (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess it seems ok now. - TheMagnificentist 08:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cash_Cash/Archive_3&oldid=1146746250"