Talk:Cavetown

Tours Section

Hullo, I think it might be useful to create a list of all the tours Cavetown has done on this page, as well as small descriptions of each one. I will be pleased to work on this myself, and if anyone wants to join me, they may. I am looking for resources on how to find this list, and if anyone thinks this is a bad idea for whatever reason, please let me know. TariffedSparrow (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, never edited a talk page so let me know if anything is wrong! I see this is from a while ago now, but wanted to revisit. I thought it was odd that there is such detailed info on his tours in the 2019-2021 section, but then nothing in the 2022-present section, despite the fact that he did US tours in summer 2022, summer 2023, and summer/fall 2024 -- and that's just off the top of my head and just US as well. I think he's also toured UK and broader European tours in recent years. I feel more info needs to be added or the info in the 2019-2021 section needs to be removed, but not too sure of wiki rules and of what precedents are already set. --K31r2 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Twitter Apology

First time creating a section of a talk page, please message me if there are any issues with this. In the most recent edit at the time of writing, details revealed in his twitter apology were removed. Link to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cavetown_(musician)&oldid=977901282 . While I feel that this is probably for the better, what precedent has been set on Wikipedia about issues like this?

Certain keywords were kept out of this so as to not show up if searched for, although I assume the robots.txt should take care of that. See the description of the linked edit if confused. Knotimpressed (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Great question! We have special rules for people who are alive or who have recently died. You can see these rules at WP:BLP and WP:BLPRS.

Whenever a Wikipedia page covers a persons ethnicity or sexuality we apply a few tests. These tests have been developed because there are people who will say that someone is gay, straight, black, white, male. female, etc. when that person does not want to be called that. We apply the same rules when identifying boyfriends, girlfriends, sexual partners, etc.

• The first rule is that we must include a source where the person self-identifies. So if a person has a twitter account, we know that it is their account (in the case of musicians and actors we sometimes see that a fan has created a page where they pretend to be the person) this meets the self-identifying rule. Or if they self-identify in a direct quote in a high quality source (The New York, Times, CNN, NPR, that sort of source) this meets the self-identifying rule. We do not trust sources such as the Daily Mail, National Enquirer, some random person on Youtube, etc. to get the quote right.

• The second rule is contained in our WP:WEIGHT policy. Is their sexuality or ethnicity noteworthy? Have multiple high-quality sources discussed it? Being covered in Gay Times and Pink News are not considered evidence that someone's sexuality is noteworthy. For example, plenty of sources say that Barack Obama is black and that Ellen DeGeneres is gay and that those aspects of their life are noteworthy, and they both have self-identified, so our articles cover those aspects of their life.

So, what about a musician such as Cavetown, and in particular the material about their personal life? Cavetown is notable because of their music, not their personal life.

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their ethnicity (not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their religion (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their sexuality? (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their recent posts on Twitter? (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their romantic or sexual partners? (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on aromantic and transgender identity

Should the following, or very similar content, be added to a Personal life section? Glee^anon 01:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Skinner’s songs “are deeply personal, something that he acknowledges helps him makes sense of the world around him.” Skinner’s song “Sweet Tooth”, which opens Sleepyhead (2020), is an “ode” to Avery, his boyfriend. According to The Spinoff Skinner “maintains an extremely open and genuine social presence online” via his social media. When New Musical Express asked about his talking “openly about things like sexuality or mental health” he replied, “You’re allowed to just have a mental illness or be a certain identity, there doesn’t have to be anything further than that. You can just be.” He identifies on the “aro”—or aromantic—and asexual spectrum, and discusses this with fans online. In September 2020 Skinner came out publicly as transgender while explaining his past use of tranny, usually seen as a derogatory term for trans women. In July 2020, Skinner debuted his Cave Collection of genderless clothing of his own designs.

   I think that is well written however I would replace one of those words with "a slur often used in transphobic contexts" IAmIndeedAFrog (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Frog

@IAmIndeedAFrog: it'd be more comfortable, but we do have WP:NOTCENSORED in the way there.

Sourcing

References

!votes

• Keep, of course. Cavetown is extremely open about his personal life, and talks with fans online about these issues, and as a practice doesn’t use traditional media to get out his messages. These are self-disclosed facts as covered by reliable sources, and documented on his social media covered under our Self-published guidelines for these statements. Glee^anon 01:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails our WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP policies. Per WP:BLPRS,

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• As WP:WEIGHT says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I can also show a direct quote where Cavetown tells us what his favorite brand of ukulele strings is. But for that information to be noteworthy is would have to covered by other sources, not just in one video Cavetown put up. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Skinner self-reported all this information, there’s nothing “contentious” about any of it unless there’s the belief that LGBTQ identities are something to be ashamed.

  And we don’t write content based on what sources we wished existed but on the reliable ones that we do have. Skinner, sans publicist, sells out shows worldwide and gets chiefly covered in professional media in his industry. If you want to be dismissive and paint them all as tabloid, a slur on Wikipedia, that’s certainly your right, but it doesn’t make it true. Glee^anon 04:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per what Guy Macon said. We do not lower our standards because someone "...doesn’t use traditional media to get out his messages." --Rob (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  No lowering of standards is needed, nor asked for; just stated facts. Per WEIGHT, we are representing what the vast majority of of reliable sources say about him. Unsurprisingly most focus mainly on his music, but this is what the remaining content is about, especially recent sources with this newer information. Glee^anon 04:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Since he self-ids, I don't see any BLP issue here. The suggested paragraph may be too long / undue, but I think at minimum the article should say something like, "Cavetown identifies as aromantic and transgender. His song "Sweet Tooth" (2020) is addressed to his boyfriend." In 2020, it's hard to see how self-id of LGBT status can be considered "contentious". (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. Most of these sources do not meet the Wikipedia trifecta of "reliable, independent, secondary". NME is the most reliable IMO, and in that he says "I admire people who really talk in-depth or advocate for things they believe in but I want to be able to show people that it’s ok to just be yourself. You’re allowed to just have a mental illness or be a certain identity, there doesn’t have to be anything further than that. You can just be. I’m just being and the fact people can see that and feel welcomed by it is really cool." We are doing the exact opposite: making a big deal out of something he explicitly does not. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  That’s a bit ingenious, he doesn’t proclaim his identity enough to be recognized for doing so? He utilized the one channel for communication and talked about his issues in the same nonchalant way he does everything. These just happen to be the only ones reliable, secondary, and independent sources have discussed. As far as I can tell all but one interview meets the “trifecta”. Glee^anon 09:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  You do realize that yo are replying to every single remove !vote, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  An RfC asks for dialogue, if I feel a comment is false, misleading, or otherwise needs course correcting it’s not like the subject or his thousands of fans is watching this lonely talk page. Someone needs to stand up for what is blindingly obvious, that the information is now well-sourced, NPOV, and certainly true. Glee^anon 17:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  "It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own." Source: WP:BLUDGEON. Knock it off, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment You can't claim that something isn't contentious in a thread where multiple editors are contending about whether it should be included. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  If Trump has taught us anything, it’s that perfectly normal things like a musician coming out as transgender and aromantic, can be turned into a battle if you whip up a frenzy. Glee^anon 17:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The proposed content has been expanded from the earliest version posted here. Also postings of this RfC were made at BLPN (on the original thread), at AN (with a false accusation), and two threads started on sources at RSNB. If anyone needs links I can dig them up. Glee^anon 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (Sorry, this is long.) I've been following this pretty closely (I requested the article be PC-protected due to the edit warring over this section) but I've had trouble coming to an opinion, I think because I don't like either of the binary options that seem to be being presented here: I suspect the paragraph above is undue weight, and there are issues with the sourcing. But saying nothing, especially when the material is not contentious, doesn't seem to best serve our readers, especially when it's extremely common to have a statement on Wikipedia of someone's orientation—and including such a line, even when only sourced to the subject themself, seems to be permitted by WP:BLPSELFPUB. (As an example elsewhere on WP—yes, yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument—most of the people linked from 500 Queer Scientists are listed as LGBTQ on their own articles because they self-report as such on that website, which is effectively a self-published source.)

Contentiousness: I contend(!) that, despite the fact that we're arguing about its inclusion, the material is not contentious. My understanding of that word, in the context of WP:BLPRS, is that it refers to whether the material is factually contentious, rather than whether there's a dispute over whether to include it in the article. I think that's what it has to mean, or there's an immediate loophole: someone who wants something removed from an article says it should be removed because it's contentious, with the evidence that it's contentious being that they don't think it should be there; then policy says it should be removed. (I'm not saying that's what anyone here is doing, just to be clear.) So I think something like Buidhe's suggestion should be the entirety of coverage of Cavetown's sexual/romantic orientation, if appropriately sourced to either clear WP:BLPRS sources or to WP:BLPSELFPUB ones.

Separately, there's been edit warring for a couple of months over whether coverage of the old tweets should be included, and parcelled in with that the fact that he is trans (which he announced as part of the apology for said tweets). I think the tweets are much more a WP:WEIGHT concern that someone's orientation, and I don't have a strong opinion of whether they should be included. Judging by this edit summary, it seems that a section of the people wanting it removed feel that, because he outed himself as part of the apology, but said he'd not wanted to make such a statement until it became necessary when addressing something alleged to be transphobic, it shouldn't be included. I don't know whether that's valid grounds to exclude it or not, but I do feel that saying that he'd made such tweets and not mentioning that he himself is trans (which some past revisions of the article have done) does create a WP:BLP concern, as the latter fact is an important mitigating factor in the former. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 13:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts

Compare the current RfC question with the version posted here:[1]

By making radical changes in the question being asked as the RfC progresses, different people end up !voting for or against different things. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I should have predicted that a mere handful of reliable sources wouldn’t be enough, so I had to research for more. As long as we correctly get the article updated to accurately reflect Cavetown’s self-identified sexual and gender identities I feel a little inconvenience is acceptable.

I’m more concerned we get the article correct, if not today, then ASAP. Glee^anon 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Continuing your perfect record of WP:BLUDGEONING every single comment that disagrees with you, I see.

If you really thought that more sources were needed, you should have posted them in your !vote. Changing the question after some people have responded to the previous version is disruptive.

Also, you should have added sources supporting the contentious material. Nobody is going to disagree with a statement like "Skinner’s songs are deeply personal, something that he acknowledges helps him makes sense of the world around him." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree about the problem of moving the goalpost. We need to stay focused on the narrow BLP-specific questions of whether to identify the subject as trans and aro (and related issue of using derogatory word for trans). That's it. Since there's only one editor advocating inclusion, can they please list *just* the relevant sources to those *specific* items. This will help additional editors to contribute to the discussion without reading a dozen links, that are mainly unrelated. We don't need an rfc/!vote on exact wording, especially wording about non-contentious stuff like, how songs are "deeply personal". Those statements are so common and non-contentious, you could pretty much drop them in every artists biography, without much of a fight. --16:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  It’s pretty clear that the sources applying to those identities are already on the proposed content, one sentence each.

  Also of note is that although I’m the only editor to research the reliable sourcing on this, other editors added the content. Glee^anon 18:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've striken all comments except the RfC statement from User:Gleeanon409 as they have been blocked as a sock. Although there are no formal !votes besides the sock that are bolded keep, some of the comments seem to be supportive so it's probably best to leave the discussion open. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:LGBT

Tbhotch has twice removed the WP:LGBT banner from this article, the second time over the express objection of a project member. Per WP:PROJSCOPE, WikiProjects define their own scope, and whether a WikiProject banner is justified is determined by the active members of that WikiProject. A WP:LGBT banner states that the article is of interest to the WikiProject. Unless specified in the parameters, it does not state why the article is of interest, and the WikiProject's scope is not limited to LGBT-identified persons.

Without getting into the issue discussed above about what content is appropriate to add to the article, after reading the Billboard and Flood articles, I can say that the article is of interest to me as a member of WP:LGBT. I agree with Gleeanon409 that it should be marked as such.--Trystan (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject members are just editors, like everyone else. They do not have any special status that gives them more authority over content on articles. Decisions are still arrived at by consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the article indicates that Cavetown is covered by the LGBT studies project, nothing. The addition of WikiProjects have to be justified in the same way that categories are added. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I explicitly made no comment on the content of the article.

@Tbhotch: The test for a category is whether the category is a defining characteristic of the subject (WP:CAT). The test for a WikiProject banner is whether the subject is of interest to a group of editors who volunteer to track and support it (WP:PROJSCOPE). The two tests are nothing alike. While it is true that a general consensus can override a project's members and prohibit them from expressing interest in an article, how is that warranted here? Is it so disruptive for WP:LGBT to express interest in this article - where we have multiple reliable sources on the subject describing how his boyfriend relates to his art - that we need to be overridden? On what basis?--Trystan (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If we had multiple reliable sources describing what you said, we wouldn't even be having this conversation or the RFC above. All the categories, the Personal life section, the WP, the MOS-TM template, etc., would be here as it was a few days ago. But as it lacks reliable sources and as there is no consensus to have them here; the WP cannot be here, as the article never indicates why it is covered by the project[2]. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Billboard and Flood articles are clearly reliable sources. Whether the discussion of Skinner's boyfriend warrants a mention in the article is a separate editorial issue, but both see fit to discuss his boyfriend. That may not be sufficient to categorize as LGBT - a stronger statement of identity is probably needed - but the subject being in a same-sex relationship is certainly enough to make the article of interest to WP:LGBT. One reason would be so that we can be notified of and participate in discussions over whether or how that information should be covered in the article.

WP:PROJSCOPE says that WikiProjects define their own scope, though community consensus can override. That suggests a two-prong test:

1. Is the article of interest to the active members of WP:LGBT?
2. If it is of interest, is there a broader consensus to overrule that decision and prohibit the WikiProject from expressing its interest in the article?

Subject to the input of other WP:LGBT members, the answer to question 1 seems to be yes. (By its nature, question 1 can only be answered by members of the WikiProject; it makes no sense to argue that another editor or group of editors is not interested in a topic they say they are.) So we're on to question 2. What is the basis for prohibiting the WikiProject from expressing its interest in this topic? In your first edit summary, you cited "BLP". I don't accept that our mere expression of interest in a topic constitutes a BLP violation. That argument has been tried before, and has never gained consensus. Is it disruptive? Moving the number of WikiProjects from 6 to 7? We could collapse the list, if that's the case.--Trystan (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No. First you must gain consensus to add material to the article that says Cavetown is LGBT, overcoming the WP:WEIGHT objections. Only then can you add a banner to wikiproject LGBT. (Free clue: you don't establish due weight by saying again and again the the material can be found in reliable sources. That is necessary for inclusion but not sufficient for inclusion.)

Adding a wikiproject LGBT banner to a BLP where there is no consensus that the person being LGBT meets the requirement of WP:WEIGHT is an obvious attempt to game the system. WP:LOCALCON specifically prohibits a consensus among participants in a WikiProject overriding community consensus on a wider scale. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. A person being in the Wikiproject doesn't in any way suggest that the person is LGBT.

E.g. Talk:Fred Phelps is in the Wikiproject scope but because of any suggestion he is LGBT, but because of his extreme opposition to LGBT issues which is noted in our article. (He may no longer be living, but going by my 2008 comment, I expect his article talk page has been tagged since 2008 or earlier.)

Talk:Diana Ross is likewise within the scope of the wikiproject. AFAIK, there's no suggestion she identifies as LGBT in any way, indeed she didn't understand the possible meaning of I'm Coming Out and was evidently initially unhappy to find out. However probably in part due to that song, she's a gay icon as mentioned in that article and so is of interest to that wikiproject.

Talk:Tom Cruise is likewise in scope in part because he successfully sued publishers who claimed he was gay or "homosexual" something which is noted in our article. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tom Cruise.)

Talk:Prince Azim of Brunei is technically still covered by BLP, and has been in the LGBT studies Wikiproject before his death [3]. For some reason there was a weird kerfuffle over him being in the Wikiproject Autism, which I just re-added. However frankly the current version of the article provides more reason for him being in the scope of the autism wikiproject since he spoke at least 2 different times about supporting those with autism and their families. But the reason he is within LGBT is a bit weirder in our current article phrasing as it sort of sounds like he just replied to Perez Hilton on some issue (you need to read between the lines compared to before [4]). Still based on the current version of the article, even treating this as a complete BLP, both wikiproject tags seem reasonable.

I have been a BLP hawk for a long time, but I have no problems with Wikiprojects tagging articles of interest, as I said back in 2008 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive49#Charlie Crist.

AFAIK, this advice from this old RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people largely still holds. We generally let Wikiprojects tag articles if they feel they are of interest. Generally speaking, it should be obvious in the article why the article is of interest, and I don't particularly see anything in the current version of our article which provides a reason why he is of interest but perhaps I'm missing something.

Adding the article talk page to the wikiproject scope (which I appreciate also adds it to an internal category) is far less of a BLP problem then the above RfC which IMO is reasonable and does not have to be deleted or hidden once done. As said at the beginning, tagging his article as of interest says absolutely zero about him personally identifying as or being LGBT in any way whatsoever. Whereas the RfC above is explicitly commenting on that aspect.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems Kafkaesque—and therefore contrary to WP:NOTBUREAU—that the article for a person who self-identifies as LGBTQ, something which is not in doubt, can't be added to WP:LGBT. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 13:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree on that one. Self-id means that this is not in any way a BLP issue. (t · c) buidhe 13:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider a a Nobel-prize winning chemist -- a person notable for chemistry, not sexuality -- who years ago mentioned in a twitter post that they are gay and deleted the post the next day, with zero other sources mentioning the twitter post or mentioning their sexual preferences in any way. Assume that claims that they are LGBT have been removed from their BLP per WP:WEIGHT. Assume that LGBT categorization has been removed per WP:DEFINING. Assume that there is an overwhelming consensus that their sexual preferences do not belong in the article. Yet they did self-identify and so you say they can be added to WP:LGBT? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider a Nobel-prize winning chemist -- a person notable for chemistry, not nationality -- who years ago mentioned in a twitter post that they are born and grown up in France and deleted the post the next day, with zero other sources mentioning the twitter post or mentioning their nationality in any way. Assume that claims that they are french have been removed from their BLP per WP:WEIGHT. Assume that France related categorization has been removed per WP:DEFINING. Assume that there is an overwhelming consensus that their nationality do not belong in the article. Yet they did self-identify and so you say they can't be added to WP:France? Gehenna1510 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, probably not, for the simple reason that the retraction of the tweet suggests that, say, perhaps their account was hacked, which creates a BLP issue. (Is this a real example, our of interest?) No such issue exists here. There also is no overwhelming consensus here: I'm counting about three !votes each way, all with reasoning, for whether or not something about the subject's orientation or gender should be in the article (and either of those would pass the threshold for inclusion).

Most LGBTQ people aren't notable for their orientation or gender in 2020 (thankfully). If we were to remove all such people from WP:LGBT on the grounds that that's not why their notable, it would make the project's person task force, dedicated to improving biographies of LGBTQ people, pretty pointless. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the main point of contention here stems from different views about what it means for a WikiProject to mark an article of interest. The consensus of the RFC cited at WP:PROJSCOPE is that "a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful." Since WikiProject banners are typically collapsed once there is more than a handful, the main people that will be aware that a given article is in a WikiProject’s scope are those who are reviewing the reports for that WikiProject. And that’s exactly why an article gets added, so that the WikiProject members can track discussions and participate in improving the article in a systematic way, including helping to ensure inappropriate material isn’t added (governed of course by relevant policies and decided by community consensus). It's much more akin to adding the article to a shared watchlist than to a subject category. While a broader consensus can of course override a WikiProject's desire to help improve an article, I think such consensus should be based on a clearly expressed reason why it would be necessary to do so.--Trystan (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting since LGBT content added to article

Trystan’s message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Requested move: Cavetown (musician) brought my attention to this discussion. It seems since this discussion tapered off, the article has been updated with Cavetown’s self-stated trans identity and being on the aromatic and asexual spectrum. Is there any contention at this point that this article is within scope of WP:LGBT? Politanvm ^talk 14:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My only hesitation in just going ahead and re-adding the project tag was that the sourcing currently in the article appears to be the same sourcing that was objected to last November, in this discussion and the RFC above. However, the Personal Life section has now been a stable part of the article for 8 months, without any objections being raised on talk.--Trystan (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Cavetown (musician) → Cavetown – Cavetown (musician) is the obvious primary topic with 38,415 views in the previous 30 days, as opposed to 111 and 14 from the Maryland and Virginia articles respectively BappleBusiness (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• @BappleBusiness, BarrelProof, Ahecht, and Niceguyedc: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Malformed request; the target page is populated with non-redirecting content. Also WP:RECENTISM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think any reasonable person would read the request as swapping Cavetown with Cavetown (disambiguation) first (WP:NOTBURO). As for WP:RECENTISM, going back to 2015 (which is as far back as the pageviews tool goes), it's ~17k for the census-designated place in Maryland, ~3k for the 1-sentence stub on the unincorporated community in Virginia, and ~723k for the musician. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you. At the time I made the request, Cavetown was moved to Cavetown (disambiguation) to make way for the technical move. The page was moved back by Niceguyedc before BarrelProof made his reply. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Cavetown is a disambig with 4 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There are four contenders for the title Cavetown. Looking at total pageviews since 2015, Cavetown (musician) has 97%, Cavetown, Maryland has 2.2%, Cavetown, Virginia has 0.4%, and Cavetown Lough has 0.3%. And that's being generous to the other articles; looking only at the two years since the musician article was created, it accounts for over 99% of page views, with fairly consistent traffic averaging around a thousand per day. By usage, the primary topic is overwhelmingly the musician, and there is no indication that any of the other minor place names have any claim to any significant degree of greater enduring notability. I don't find WP:RECENTISM to be a compelling argument against. How many years should we wait until we decide it's time to start directing readers to the article that 99% are looking for? Certainly no more than two, I'd say.--Trystan (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. A musician who has charted and signed with a major label is clearly the primary topic over a census-designated place with 1400 people, an unincorporated community so insignificant that I can't even find how big it is or how many people live there, and a small lake with 4 or so houses on it. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my earlier comments. It is obvious that the musician is the primary topic; a user searching "Cavetown" is almost certainly looking for the musician. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bandcamp releases

Is there a reason the Bandcamp releases are separate from the rest of his discography at the bottom of the page? "Gd Vibes", "Everything is Made of Clouds", and "Everything is Made of Stars" specifically. - ChainSmoker82 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC) (Edit: 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC))

Name

Cavetowns name now is Robbie and not robin so I believe we should fix that for him. 66.129.195.238 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason it hasn't been changed is because Robbie is often a nickname for Robin. Without a source that says it isn't that, it isn't something that can be changed at the moment. ChainSmoker82 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

His legal name appears to be "Robin" as listed under 'officers' of Cave Music Limited (Companies House, 2022). Felpsey (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns

Hey can we alternate between he/him and they/them or at the very least use they/them if consistency is so important to provide a modicum of respect because I don’t think many people use they/them at all to refer to Cavetown 76.19.121.43 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Has Cavetown said they prefer they/them over he/him, or that usage should be mixed? Typically, listing two sets of pronouns suggests the person is similarly fine with either one. Typically I default to whichever is listed first, which on Cavetown’s Instagram profile is “he”. Politanvm ^talk 02:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Last time I checked people tend to want them mixed and language such as either or any are used otherwise

source one of those people 76.19.121.43 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses one set of pronouns for biography pages in order to prevent confusion in writing. Blubewwy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The tweet quoted in the article's references says "i mostly go by he/him but am also comfortable with they/them". I think the article should use the one he indicates he usually uses.--Trystan (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

cavetown offline

Now that a lot of Cavetown's old Bandcamp music has been put on Spotify/streaming on the "cavetown offline" page, should they be added to a seperate section? Nowhere Box (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)