User talk:Michig/Archive 22

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedys of music festivals

Hi Michig. Just to let you know, I mentioned one of your declined speedy deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EP

Is not my personal research, nor opinion, but simply informations taken from wikipedia and sources that are presend on wikipedia articles, Extended Play record is smoething different than short album called Mini-Album. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a moment

Hi ... if you have a moment, could you take a look at Charles Webster (musician)? It's heavily POV-ridden, but I don't want that to distract me from any real notability here, and I know you're a subject matter expert. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look and found coverage from Allmusic, XLR8R, and UNCUT. He appears to be notable, but the article certainly needs some work. I'll see what I can do later today. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit later than I had anticipated, but it looks a lot better now I think, and I don't think there's any doubt about notability. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost Frequency

I would appreciate if you could improve the article, lest I take it to AFD. Giant Snowman 09:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look later if I have time. You may be able to find sources yourself from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did and found nothing to indicate notability. Giant Snowman 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make U Bounce

I had always thought The Daily Star to be unreliable. Why did you revert my removal of it as a source?--Laun chba ller 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a national newspaper - why would it be an unreliable source for their opinion of a single? If it was being used to source some celebrity gossip or whatever I would agree. --Michig (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a tabloid, and they aren't very good at fact-checking.--Laun chba ller 17:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we need to take care on what we use them as sources for. We're just talking about a reviewer's opinion here. --Michig (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC) If you still disagree, feel free to take it out - it's hardly a crucial piece of content, but bear in mind that the article is thin on sourced information and may be more appropriately merged to an article on the album when it comes out if that doesn't change. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the article's DYK nomination here.--Laun chba ller 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a fan of DYK to be honest, but best of luck with it. I doubt that notabledance.com is reliable by the way - it seems to be a blog rather than a professional publication and is blocked as a risky site to visit by my security software. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

"I'll see what I can do"
Thank you, master editor of Caribbean music and its people, such as Visions of Dennis Brown, for adding infoboxes early, for dealing fairly with articles for deletion, offering help ("He appears to be notable, but the article certainly needs some work. I'll see what I can do ...") and referencing hundreds of BLPs, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Michig (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hello. Would you mind closing this discussion which I believe has come to its end. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - sorry for the delay in getting back to you - have been out for a few hours. I'm not sure what's needed here. There was a prod that was removed and a bit of discussion that seems to have come to an end - ordinary discussions on talk pages don't really get closed as RfCs do. Is there anything you need me to do? --Michig (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no delay; thanks for the reply. Sometimes discussions do get closed as I have seen examples; in this case it would help prevent anybody to try to hit one of the parties again, and -of course- unnecessarily. Never mind, though. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the unnameable

In 2009, you expanded the article on Dwarves, indicating that their eccentrically-naked member's real name is "Pete Vietnamcheque". A) Where did you get this information? B) Are you sure that's not just another ludicrous alias? DS (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in the edit, this came from Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography, and if you look again I didn't indicate that that is his real name, I just used 'aka' - I'm sure it is another ludicrous alias. --Michig (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Summer Rain

Thanks for finding sources. (I was not here for the last five years. :-) Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hooker RIP

Hi Michig, Can I bring your attention to Jake Hooker (musician). Just kicked the bucket, according to reports. I've done some clean up, but perhaps you could keep an eye on it, even flesh it out a bit, as I'm sure obits will appear. Question. If there are no other notable Jake Hookers is the (musician) disambig needed? Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and see if I can find further sources. There's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist also named Jake Hooker, so I think we'll need to keep the disambig. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There also appears to be another Jake Hooker musician. Allmusic has them conflated.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict, so please feel free to restore anything that got lost. More difficult than I expected to find sources. There are varying versions of his birth date, but I went with the most reliable-looking. I would like to see a better source for his death and some of the other details need to be sourced but I'll keep an eye out for obits. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you to have your way, at least for now. Essentially I had delinked 'actress/singer' and took divorce out of the 'life' section, since it is in 'family'. I have to admit a COI since I actually roadied for both Streak and Arrows! Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works, etc.

Hi Michig. What is your view on directories of works or recordings? Two questions.

Sometimes they seem to be a substantial bulk of material, or percentage of the article. Are all works of every composer, etc., that are reflected on his website or discogs, etc., being listed in the person's article the way to go, even if lengthy? I know that at some point they can qualify for their own article. But I also often see this in articles where the notability of the subject is slim in and of itself, though they qualify as notable.

And sometimes they lack cites -- my view is that if questioned (at minimum) cites are required (for each entry; a "the following is cited 'here' prior to all the entries does not work, as editors add new entries from time to time).

Would be interested in your thoughts.

Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally encyclopedic content if they are genuine releases (as opposed to Youtube videos, free download tracks from band websites, etc. - some editors insist on listing all of these as 'singles'). If someone is notable for being a recording artist, then the releases are a key part of the content. I think there's often an imbalance in content because the releases are more easily verified than other details about an artist. All entries should be verifiable - I don't think it's practical to have a citation for all releases (and it would look a bit of a mess), but if any additions can't be verified then I agree that it's reasonable to request a source. Having said that there are some artists for whom I wouldn't attempt to include all singles, because some (e.g. some Jamaican reggae artists) release dozens a year, the details are often sketchy re. when they were relesased, and it can be very difficult to compile a complete discography. It's generally easy to verify the details of most releases from record company websites, online shops (e.g. Amazon), magazines listing releases (e.g. Billboard, Music Week), Discography books, etc., or the releases themselves if you have them. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there any limit? What about (I'm sure I've seen these) record labels that want to list all of their recordings? Tx for your lengthy response. For my part I think anything (including recordings) that is questioned/removed under wp:v requires a wp:burden inline RS cite. I would have to check as to whether it should be independent (many just refer to their own website). And I would have think harder about wp:NOTADIRECTORY #4 and its application. Can I drop by from time to time if I need your seasoned view, to ask you about specifics? (none in mind at the moment). Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's tricky. There are some labels for example where there's so much interest (Motown, Creation, etc.) that listing every release is a good thing. There are other labels which may just be slightly over the bar for notability, where listing hundreds of releases would be inappropriate (in my view, but different editors will have different views on which labels are worth going into that much detail), but how you would cover that in a guideline I don't know. Yes, feel free to ask me to look at any specific cases. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced around -- an example, in the world of record labels, would be Enja Records. Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult one for me to comment on as jazz isn't one of my main areas of knowledge. It's possible that there's loads of coverage out there of the label, and that the article could be expanded so that the discography doesn't look so disproportionate. It's possibly one of the genres where print coverage far outweighs what can be found online. It may be similar to ECM Records where anything released on the label gets reviewed in jazz sources and where there's a large body of people who will buy anything that's released on the label - I don't know. To be honest I hadn't heard of the label before. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you may be interested

User_talk:J_1982#please_make_a_genuine_attempt_in_AfDs LibStar (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re charts

You might be interested in this discussion/proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Inclusion_of_Amazon.2C_Spotify.2C_iTunes.2C_Beatport_under_digital_charts prokaryotes (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michig, you recently stated in another discussion QUOTE 'This includes genre-specific charts' note appears to have been added to the guideline without first gaining consensus, so that argument's debatable. END, could you elaborate why the current guidelines appear to be debatable? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content of guidelines should (a) reflect consensus across the project and (b) be agreed on the talk page of the guideline before being added/changed. I couldn't find evidence that either of these applied before someone added that to the guideline. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betty White

Sir I request a protection on the above page. Ip users are reali vandalizing it. See this History[1]. I suggest immediate block of this Ip user 75.145.18.186 (talk · contribs) Wikicology (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism appears to have stopped now. I will be offline until this evening, so if it restarts please report this to WP:AIV. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cowell

Hi there,

Have we met?

Not sure why you are trying to delete me.

I have managed Asia & Ultravox, was partners with Simon Napier-Bell ( who is currently on the board of my company)

I am the CEO of a stock market listed company Papa Entertainment PLC

I was the MD of Rive Doite where I signed Katherine Jenkins, the company also wrote / produced Enrique, Cher, Kylie etc and was sold for 10 Million.

To be on the stock Exchange and the CEO everything you say or do is verified.

What is your problem with me.??

Kindest, Harry Cowell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.236.34 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen the AfD discussion then presumably you'll have seen why the article was up for deletion - it's explained clearly enough there I think. --Michig (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final Program

Dear Michig

On October 15th an album launch will take place in London. The band is Final Program, a Scottish Minimalist Electro band.

The album has been published in germany as a collectors item for those who recognise the importance of the Scottish electro movement in setting the direction of minimalist electro.

Tonight I added Final program to the list of bands on the relevant page AND submitted an article linked to that for review, but before the article could be reviewed you have deleted the listing. The reason there are not the references (yet) is because the article has not been reviewed (yet)

Do you really need to delete from the list immediately - is it not possible to actually allow the sources to be published in the reviewed article before you just "delete"

I am not trying to be difficult here - just to make a contribution.Mursillis (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to create an article before adding the subject to a list - see WP:WTAF. Even then the article would need to contain sufficient sources that demonstrate that the subject belongs on the list. I would recommend that you firstly wait until you have sufficient coverage available to write a properly sourced article and secondly to wait until the article exists before adding the subject to any lists. There would be no problem adding the band to that list once the article exists with sufficient sourcing. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]