User talk:80m6an

Hello, 80m6an, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

80m6an, good luck, and have fun. – Zppix (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yoiking with the Winged Ones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yoiking with the Winged Ones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoiking with the Winged Ones until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoiking with the Winged Ones

Yes, I appreciate your reaction there, it looks as if somebody piled the article-problem templates on a bit thick, to the point where the main issue was obscured. The important policy is WP:NALBUM - Wikipedia needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or evidence of a chart position or major award, for any album article, and it looks like Yoiking doesn't yet have that, which is perhaps to be expected for an album that's not due out until 2016.

If you add {{db-author}} to the top of the article, that signifies that you, "the author of the only substantial content", want the article taken down. Looking at the history I don't think anyone else has worked on it beyond minor copyediting and problem-flagging, so that should be okay.

You're welcome to come back in January and try it again, if there's been some press coverage or awards for the album. If you want to maintain a draft copy of the article on Wikipedia, you can do so at Draft:Yoiking with the Winged Ones, which would be good for six months or so. --McGeddon (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of the page about Yoiking with the Winged Ones

my talk page

Tx so much for the response.

Well in case the problem is lack of another source mentioning the recording, then the record has actually been mentioned in the one and only newspaper in Sami - Avvir. The URL is: http://avvir.no/kultuvra-oddasat/2015/10/dasa-cahka-fiinna-stuora-govva.

The question then is how I can communicate that fact.

80m6an (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You can add it as a reference the article and/or mention it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoiking with the Winged Ones. But note that as with all other Wikipedia articles, WP:NALBUM requires sources plural - we'll need a second one as well. --McGeddon (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the respons. Sorry for being such a newbie in these procedures.

The record was also a topic in a radio portrait of Ánde Somby that was aired 29/10/2015 url: https://radio.nrk.no/serie/duorastatmagasiidna/SAPP43004415/29-10-2015.

I made a place for mentions in the Mass Media. Would you mind having a look if that placement works?

80m6an (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I see that you have visited the article, and reiterated the notabillity tag. It is ot easy to understand what the issue is now.

I have now given two external sources the paper Ávvir and NRK Sámi Radio. a) Are the paper Ávvir and NRK Sámi Radio not 'secondary', 'multiple' or 'reliable' sources? b) It is stated in the tag that I need to provide more sources about the topic. I have now provided 40 references mainly from scientific texts. It is almost one reference pr sentence. What is the protocol? Should I have multiple references for each sentence, so that we have 80 references? Should there be 120? Should there be more than that? In that case how many?

80m6an (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the main issue right now: we need to work out whether an article about the album belongs in Wikipedia at all yet, or whether we should wait until next year when it's had some reviews and other coverage. Other editors will be happy to help out with the article once that's been established.

The template is asking you to find "reliable, secondary sources about the topic" - which means "the topic of the article". Sources for facts about crows or metaphors (which predate the Yoiking album by years and in no way mention it) are not about the topic, so don't help to establish notability.

WP:NALBUM is the checklist we're working against. The Ávvir and NRK Sámi Radio sources are secondary, multiple and probably reliable, but WP:NALBUM requires that the sources be "non-trivial" (they have to go into enough depth that we'd still have a useful article if we only drew from those sources), and they shouldn't just be interviews "where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording". I don't know if they meet those because I don't speak the language the sources are written in. There's been some discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoiking with the Winged Ones if you've not seen it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarification needed"

I've flagged the sentence because "he is almost on the border of the human voice" doesn't make much sense to me as an English speaker - I assume it's something along the lines of "he almost sounds like a bird or musical instrument rather than a human singer", but could also mean "he sounds terrible, barely even human". I can't read the untranslated article and wouldn't want to make a guess. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoiking reviews

Appreciate you keeping the article up to date, but just to note that per WP:ALBUMSEL the "External links" section shouldn't include individual reviews - the guideline says to "instead, add prose describing the reviews to a "Reception" section and link the reviews in citations". It's more useful to the reader if we summarise what reviews have said - the article already does that a little, and would benefit from a full "Reception" section for it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]