Talk:Crystal Antlers

something tells me most of the information on this is not completely accurate.....worked as "chimney sweeps for an eccentric boss"?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crystal Antlers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reference, a footnote, an external link

I don't know why this has spurred a needless edit war, but MOSNOTES confirms what I've been saying to you all along. The independent sources substantiating notability that you keep moving to "external links" are not merely external links, and as MOSNOTES explicitly states, general references are permitted, and editors may choose any style they like. You are free to change them into some other style of reference, but if you put them in an EL section, you make them seem like they don't count as references, which is potentially a problem for notability (and articles like this one get deleted all the time). Are we done here, or is there further confusion? Chubbles (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNOTES doesn't agree with you at all. It talks of "explanatory footnotes" which these links clearly are not as they explain nothing or "citation footnotes" which they also aren't because they connect to nothing. There is no evidence that they are "general references" either because they weren't used in the writing of the article. Here is an earlier stub version with the same links listed as "further reading". The article already meets WP:BAND so pretending links are references when they clearly aren't doesn't risk the article being deleted. You might want to think about being less condescending to people as well. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle, about the condescension. "Further reading", as you see, is a subheading under the "References" section in the old version you linked above - "further reading" being a casual synonym for a general reference. I used to spend more time putting up inline citation after inline citation of independent reviews to substantiate notability, but I came to find it was largely a pointless exercise, especially since many reviews talk generally about style in a way I don't think improves the articles - and yet, those reviews are crucial to staying AfD proceedings for band articles. They certainly were used in the writing of the article, and are most definitely inserted with the intention of serving as general references. I have not nearly the same level of confidence that you have about the likelihood that a consensus (especially ten, twenty years down the line) of editors will hold this to meet WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been condescending to you at all whereas you have questioned my intelligence throughout. There is no evidence that these were used to write the article and you just claiming it as a fact doesn't make it one. Inline citations are how articles are supposed to be referenced so it is never a waste of time to do things correctly. If you feel it is a waste of time to actually reference statements in articles then maybe editing Wikipedia isn't for you. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "there is no evidence that these were used to write the article"? I added these references when I started the article. See the first edit. (The Citizen Dick review is excluded, but it's probably serviceable in the same way.) You are welcome to turn these into inline citations if you believe it is how things are supposed to be referenced, but adding them to the EL list makes it look like a linkfarm (which editors often just delete) rather than a list of independent sources that demonstrate notability. I feel like we're talking past each other. Chubbles (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You used five references to write two sentences? The article was expanded without the use of those references and the current version doesn't give me any reason to believe those were used as references. If you claim you used them to write two sentences then please add them as inline citations for those sentences. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since actually improving articles is too time consuming for you I added the citations correctly. You don't need to waste anymore time talking to me nor I with you. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]