Talk:Veridia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 14 January 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move per discussion; Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, MOS:ALLCAPS.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
VERIDIA → Veridia – WP:MOSTM. I get that this band REALLY WANTS TO BE IN CAPS, fine, but not in the title when Billboard, ESPN and all other independent WP:RS don't stylize it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom's clear guideline-based rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and its preferred stylization can be indicated in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support The stylization does not trump the way it is actually named. Scientific Alan 2(What have I said?)(What have I done?) 08:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Suggestion for Edits
Can we look into getting an updated picture of the band including new concert photos? If everyone approves I can work on getting pictures that conform to the rules of pictures being non-copyrighted. --MJC8104 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- As long as they don't violate copyright, commons would be happy to have new, better photos. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
New Section Suggestion
Can we add a new section for officially released Music Videos? Not looking to upload Videos into the commons just add the video names, descriptions and sourced links to the videos. --MJC8104 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- With sources, yes. You could do it like Flyleaf discography#Music videos or Red discography#Music videos, or just omit the direct column if not known. Alternately, just link the video itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Notable works
Can you explain further why the Summer Sessions vol 1 page was removed? I understand it wasn't a paid release and didn't chart but it is still a body of work released by the band. Is it due to sites not listing it under the band's discography? Thanks for your response. --MJC8104 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Just to make a small correction: it wasn't removed, it was turned into a WP:REDIRECT. Nothing has been lost: it's all in the history.
- The reason was that its was not notable. It does not meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. If all that sites did was list it in a discography, it would not meet notability criteria. It should have 1) received significant coverage 2) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject (GNG). The NALBUM criteria presumes that this will happen if their criteria are met. Item 1 there is a reiteration of GNG; 2 is charting; 3 is sales; 4 is major awards; 5 and 7 are recognition in another media; and 6 is radio rotation. In short WP:NOTCATALOG states that not everything in the universe that exists or has existed merits an article and WP:NOTINHERITED states that just because the band is notable, not everything they produce is automatically notable. A good example of this is Twenty One Pilots. Because their first and second major studio releases performed well the re-released their earlier self-released works. The first made a bit better impact than the second. As a result that first album has an article but the second does not. Seems like that's the case with this EP. If you were just getting started on the article, you could resurrect it and continue working on it (with using all caps for the band name!) and without linking to it. You can always abandon it or restore it to the redirect. The key knowing that it meets notability criteria before starting on it, but feel free to keep researching. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Walter. This helps and clarifies it for me especially with the example of Twenty One Pilots. I was done working on the page, but will continue to look for other sources. I'll leave the page in history until I find better resources. Thanks again.--MJC8104 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Consider asking the band?
Taking a look at the edit history seems that some people think VERIDIA is not a "Christian rock" band and rather is "alternative". I've heard this myself. Has anyone actually considered conducting a tiny interview with them, even if you just ask them one question: "Do you fit the Christian Rock label?" Wouldn't one of them saying that suffice for an encyclopedic article? "Adding Source back in and removing the term Christian. Regardless of what the band wants this is the truth no matter what other labels are put on them." That's a little odd that an encyclopedia would disregard primary sources. They literally say it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
--Zeke Marffy (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course they are, and there are multiple sources to support that they are. They may want to be something else, but they are what reliable sources say they are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but you’re saying Wikipedia respects users’ opinions rather than primary sources? I don’t think encyclopedias are supposed to do that and I’m very confused by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the experts on the subject are more trustworthy than bands trying to promote themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- “the experts on the subject are more trustworthy than bands”. I really, truly am not understanding this. The band is a primary source. They’ve done plenty of interviews that not once mention “Christian” and very often mention “alternative”. I can list all of these sources on an edit. There are so many it may even be overkill. The “experts” are a secondary source. And… Why do we consider them experts? Also not sure about that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't understand this. A music review is not trying to sell the band. The band's goal is to sell themselves. The interviews are not secondary sources: the band is the subject and they're speaking for themselves. If the band said they're not people, they're lasagne, would we add that? The band are trying to sell a product: themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- This thread is getting long, haha. So are you saying that interviews are out of the question as sources because they’re too biased, so we must must go with music reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia says that WP:PRIMARY sources should be used "with care". If they were discussing why they wrote a song or about an event, they'd be fine to use. Writers on music should be relied upon to establish a band's genre though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't find much on there that answers this: What makes a secondary source "reliable"? I guess if we could find many reliable secondary sources that make a claim, then we can list that claim. (Even though that's not how encyclopedias work, but that's besides the point.) So what exactly is that "reliable" threshold? Where can I get details on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- An article should cover the life of a subject. Even if they successfully convince music reviewers that they are no longer "Christian" or that whatever their deal is with wanting to shed the label, we have source that place them in the camp now and it will be in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still not totally sold on that, but that's OK for now. Does what an artist's genre on Spotify say count? Or is that a "no" too because it's editable by them? Surely Spotify wouldn't allow genres that lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I’ll let you answer the question by applying the rule-of-thumb used on the music project (and at WP:RSN): 1) does the source have a recognized editorial oversight process, 2) is there an identifiable author, 3) does the author have credentials to make the claims they're making?
- AllMusic is a recognized expert source in the field of music, but all band and album articles have a "genre cloud" to the side. That cloud is generated by some algorithm, not a human, so it is not considered usable, but anything in the prose sections of a bio or review is usable.
- Amazon.com album listings have genres, but again, not added by a human via a review. Occasionally, they have a review, but the reviewers credentials have to be vetted before using.
- Sputnikmusic has both staff and fan reviews. You have to be careful to find and use only the staff reviews.
- The list goes on, but that gives you an idea of how reliable sources are determined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still not totally sold on that, but that's OK for now. Does what an artist's genre on Spotify say count? Or is that a "no" too because it's editable by them? Surely Spotify wouldn't allow genres that lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- An article should cover the life of a subject. Even if they successfully convince music reviewers that they are no longer "Christian" or that whatever their deal is with wanting to shed the label, we have source that place them in the camp now and it will be in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't find much on there that answers this: What makes a secondary source "reliable"? I guess if we could find many reliable secondary sources that make a claim, then we can list that claim. (Even though that's not how encyclopedias work, but that's besides the point.) So what exactly is that "reliable" threshold? Where can I get details on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia says that WP:PRIMARY sources should be used "with care". If they were discussing why they wrote a song or about an event, they'd be fine to use. Writers on music should be relied upon to establish a band's genre though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- This thread is getting long, haha. So are you saying that interviews are out of the question as sources because they’re too biased, so we must must go with music reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't understand this. A music review is not trying to sell the band. The band's goal is to sell themselves. The interviews are not secondary sources: the band is the subject and they're speaking for themselves. If the band said they're not people, they're lasagne, would we add that? The band are trying to sell a product: themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- “the experts on the subject are more trustworthy than bands”. I really, truly am not understanding this. The band is a primary source. They’ve done plenty of interviews that not once mention “Christian” and very often mention “alternative”. I can list all of these sources on an edit. There are so many it may even be overkill. The “experts” are a secondary source. And… Why do we consider them experts? Also not sure about that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the experts on the subject are more trustworthy than bands trying to promote themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but you’re saying Wikipedia respects users’ opinions rather than primary sources? I don’t think encyclopedias are supposed to do that and I’m very confused by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Article move
The band is not just stylized in all caps; it's their name. Take a look at any service, including iTunes. Does this not suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:CAPS and other guidelines are clear: it does not matter. We use correct casing. Stylizing is not used. Check out Korn and other bands that use forms of their name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also, consensus above in the Requested move 14 January 2016 section is clear. Create a new one before you try that trick again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, that does make sense, and I’ve seen the article. What about bands like MGMT though? Isn’t that stylized in all caps and the page should just be called “Mgmt”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- if you want to talk about moving MGMT, read talk:MGMT#Requested move 5 March 2019 first. In short, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, there's a discussion for everything. Thank you for the clarification there that there is in fact a talk about it but it seems that article names are arbitrarily decided by the most frequent editor. EDIT: Just how I feel there; that's fine if other people don't think that. Just a little worrisome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- if you want to talk about moving MGMT, read talk:MGMT#Requested move 5 March 2019 first. In short, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, that does make sense, and I’ve seen the article. What about bands like MGMT though? Isn’t that stylized in all caps and the page should just be called “Mgmt”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmarffy (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also, consensus above in the Requested move 14 January 2016 section is clear. Create a new one before you try that trick again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
