Talk:HitRecord

Use of lead as template (for inclusion into summary style section of principal) Comment

@Lady Lotus: You reverted an "invisible" change to this article. Please explain your objection, and how you think it would be better handled. Reversions should always have an explanation either in the change summary, or in the talk page.

Some background:

The Joseph Gordon-Levitt article has a section for hitRECord. That section is done summary-style, with a {{Main}} reference referring to this article. Other than that, the section is empty. Usually, summary-style sections should include a brief description of the subject.

The lead section of the HitRecord article is a very good summary that would fulfill that need well. It could just be copied, but then it would have to be resynchronized regularly. Another way to handle it is to actually have the lead text transcluded (as if it was a template) into the JGL article. However, to do that, the HitRecord article needs some very small technical changes, invisible when reading the HitRecord article, to tell the server to include the lead section and nothing else. This is a normal use in Wikipedia, and can be found in other articles.

You removed the markup tags, without giving a reason, and did not update the JGL article, so it still transcluded this article into the section. Without the markup limiting the inclusion, it caused the entire HitRecord article to be included into JGL#hitRECord, which broke the JGL article. A day later, another editor "fixed" this by removing the transclusion, so the section is back to being empty. -Dovid (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll be honest, I've never seen that used before so I had no idea what I did but now I do, carry on! :) Lady Lotus (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dovid, you made some major changes without finding consensus first. You didn't discuss it here, on the Joseph Gordon-Levitt talk page, or even on the WP:TRANS talk page (a big no-no). There is no reason to have the exact same paragraph of the lead of an article transcluded as a section on a bio article -- for many reasons. They are two different things that should be written differently. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: I don't understand your position, please explain it more clearly. There was no notable change to content, only technical changes, which are non-controversial. The original changes were done several years ago, and the conversation you are responding to is also several years old. Recent changes set the article back to the same state technical stae, again, without changing content. Why do you say that I made a major non-consensus change to the article? As far as the JGL article, summary-style is one of the standard WP methods of contructing an article, and so is the method of selective transclusion. A summary-style section should have a "main article" reference in the section head, followed by a summary of that article, or the portions of it relevant to the other article. There is nothing wrong with that summarized section content being the same as the lede of the article it references, so long as the content makes sense in that context. That is entirely true here for the bulk of the HitRecord introduction. Dovid (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dovid, first, I was thinking that date of the previous discussion was November 2015 (instead of 2013), but that really doesn't matter (also, assuming you wrote the hidden note on JGL at that same time, that's a pretty long time to have a misspelled word: "Translucion"). Still, the reasons not to do it outweigh the reasons to - use a lead paragraph of an article in a section on another article. It's fine to use a "main" template - though it is unnecessary if there's a wikilink in the paragraph. But, (1) The HitRecord lead has two words in bold. Words in the text of the main body should not be bolded (MOS:BOLD). (2) The reason we have wikilinks is so the reader can go to the main article and read it there. The section should be written in the context of the bio, not just a "copy" of what's on another page. Like Lady Lotus, I had never seen that done before (and between the 2 of us, we have seen several hundreds of articles), and you haven't given any examples. Nevertheless, I think it's not appropriate and doesn't make sense to use it this way. (Btw, your "ping" didn't work. Did mine work for you?) --Musdan77 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, since there's been no more reply from you, I guess I will make the appropriate edit on the Gordon-Levitt article. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Propose category

That is seven articles about HitRecord. 24.211.179.19 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with recent article edits

A stream of edits was done to this article. I'm particularly concerned with a few paragraphs in the lede which are unsourced, confusing, and interrupt the flow of the lede. Some of the material is of low importance to the article, and does belong in the lede at all, even if it does meet standards.

Here are the sentences containing the edits:

HitRecord is ranked at #100,000 in Alexa Internet's top 100,000 web sites and has been part of Amazon Web Services since the summer of 2011.[2][3] Its forums are powered by phpBB and its videos byFlowplayer. Go Daddy is due to shut it down on June 20, 2015, six months before Nickelodeon's web site domain shuts down. They started becoming more active in 2007 after the release of The Lookout and their sign-up for YouTube in 2006.

1. The first sentence (re: Alexa top 100k list) is mostly original and relevant, but was outdated. The edit to place it as the last entry of the list is unsourced - probably WP:RS because it was pulled directly from Alexa. IT has now fallen off the 100k chart, so the edit should be removed, and replaced with some language saying it was in the top 100k from ___ to ___. The end of the sentence, about use of AWS, is probably not lede material.

1. The second sentence (phpBB, Flowayplayer) is also unsourced, and consists of trivialities. It should be removed. If sourced, it should move further down in the article.
2. The third sentence (shutdown) breaks the flow, as it moves forward to 2015 before the next sentence brings us back to 2006 and 2007. Further, it is unsourced and if true would be key information, which makes its sourcing more important. It is also confusingly worded - are the two halves of the sentence related, and if so how? Is there some background fact tying them together? I suspect this is just ifnormation about the date they renew, since I can't find any info about Nickeloedon shutting down (likely to make news) nor HitRecord.

Because of this series of issues, I would like to revert the questionable series of edits. If they can be improved, then certainly they can be restored. Dovid (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Introduction section (updated with new statistics): HITRECORD (often stylized as hitRECord) is an online production company that makes art collaboratively with over 500,000 artists of all kinds. Under the direction of founder Joseph Gordon-Levitt, artists of many disciplines (writers, filmmakers, musicians, photographers, etc) collaborate on various productions on hitrecord.org (SOURCE: http://www.geekwire.com/2017/actor-joseph-gordon-levitts-3-problems-internet-fix/). The profit earned from HITRECORD productions is split between the company and the community of contributing artists; since its launch in 2010, HITRECORD has paid out over $2,000,000 to their collaborators (SOURCE: https://www.hitrecord.org/help).

HITRECORD has published books, released records, gone on tour across North America, screened short films at Sundance and TIFF, and launched international campaigns with global brands. HITRECORD notably has released 3 volumes of "The Tiny Book of Tiny Stories" with publisher HarperCollins (SOURCE: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/12/interview-joseph-gordon-levitt-on-the-tiny-book-of-tiny-stories.html).

HITRECORD also created a reimagining of the traditional variety show format, "Hit Record on TV with Joseph Gordon-Levitt." The recently released second season of the show is now streaming on Netflix, joining the first season, which won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Interactive Media (SOURCE: http://deadline.com/2015/03/pivot-unveils-new-original-series-sets-season-premiere-dates-for-four-series-1201391363/).

Mdmaley1 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your proposed changes. Unfortunately, I must decline your suggestions. Bits and pieces of this draft appear to be copied or closely paraphrased from various press releases written by HITRECORD; for example, this one from PRNewswire. Wikipedia is an open-source project: we are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which permits our readers to reuse our text for whatever purpose they desire. As a result, copyrighted text for which we lack permission to reuse is incompatible with our free license, and cannot be included in our articles except under extremely limited circumstances as detailed in the Non-free content policy. If you or your organization holds the copyright to your proposed text and is willing to release it under a free license, it is possible to grant Wikipedia permission for reuse by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Since this draft has the additional problem of having a promotional tone, it must be rewritten. I'd like to see a better source for the profit statistic than HITRECORD's own website. Best, Altamel (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Still Active?

This article makes it look as though HitRecord was active from 2010-2013, and hasn't done anything noteworthy then. Surely that isn't the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfryer99 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Anthology confusing wording

Anthology section includes "It features contributions of 471 collaborators is what and is the very first anthology of HitRecord's work." I think the "is what" part makes the sentence confusing, but wondering if "is what" indicates some important wording has been deleted (apologies, but i am too busy to search through the edits myself). --EarthFurst (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)