One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then surely we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the garage bands in the world.
Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes is perfectly fine as long as you limit your comparison to the proper aspects. Frankly, I think the uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that wasn't related to the thread I was making the comparison in.
On 10/23/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then surely we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the garage bands in the world.
Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes is perfectly fine as long as you limit your comparison to the proper aspects. Frankly, I think the uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that wasn't related to the thread I was making the comparison in.
Since they are so standard they can for a large part be bot mentained requireing minimal effort on the part of editors.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then surely we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the garage bands in the world.
Except that we actually have data that the subjects of the Rambot articles existed (censuses and the like). We have no way of verifying the existence of many garage bands.
I have two or three reasons for deleting things: violates [[WP:NOT]] (eg. dicdef, spam, advertisment), violates [[WP:NOR]] (eg. lacks references, terminal POV problems), or is a CSD. Lately I've tried to work out where "article makes no claim of notability" and "article is unverifiable" - I think NOR covers these, but there's probably some overlap with WP:NOT as well.
Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes is perfectly fine as long as you limit your comparison to the proper aspects. Frankly, I think the uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that wasn't related to the thread I was making the comparison in.
I don't. Uniformity in articles in a certain topic area is a Good Thing, because it lets readers (and editors) know what the article /should/ be like. We have the Manual of Style so that articles are presented in a logical manner; David Gerard has made much better arguments than I ever could about why we need a uniform and concise writing style.
I think the whole style, content and scope debate is best summed up as: articles in Wikipedia should be Sane, Safe and Consensual.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/22/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then
surely
we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the garage bands in the world.
Except that we actually have data that the subjects of the Rambot articles existed (censuses and the like). We have no way of verifying the existence of many garage bands.
I don't know why this agument keeps coming up because there's pretty much no one who's arguing that we should keep articles on unverifiable garage bands. The disagreement is over what to do with verifiable articles on garage bands.
I have two or three reasons for deleting things: violates [[WP:NOT]]
(eg. dicdef, spam, advertisment), violates [[WP:NOR]] (eg. lacks references, terminal POV problems), or is a CSD. Lately I've tried to work out where "article makes no claim of notability" and "article is unverifiable" - I think NOR covers these, but there's probably some overlap with WP:NOT as well.
Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes is perfectly fine as
long
as you limit your comparison to the proper aspects. Frankly, I think the uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that
wasn't
related to the thread I was making the comparison in.
I don't. Uniformity in articles in a certain topic area is a Good Thing, because it lets readers (and editors) know what the article /should/ be like. We have the Manual of Style so that articles are presented in a logical manner; David Gerard has made much better arguments than I ever could about why we need a uniform and concise writing style.
Take a look at the unedited Rambot articles then take a look at the ones which have been heavily edited. Now tell me which you think the articles *should* be like.
I think the whole style, content and scope debate is best summed up as:
articles in Wikipedia should be Sane, Safe and Consensual.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Anthony says there is a problem with verifiable garage bands as to what do with them. Garage bands in the sense that he presumably means the term are unsigned bands practising in garages and playing gigs at the local pub if thet're lucky are usually unverifiable. Third parties who provide verification such as the media and reference sources such as Allmusic.comhttp://Allmusic.comarent interested in writing anything about them at this stage.
It is when their career starts making progress that they become verifiable. They start touring, getting signed and making records which occasionally chart. It is at that stage that they become verifiable. It is also at this stage that they normally qualify for an article under WP:music.
Our music policy provides:
There are a lot of bands, singers and other musicianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicianand musical ensembles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_ensemble with articles in the Wikipedia (see category:Musicianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Musicians ).
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a *band*, *singer*, *rapper*, *orchestra*, *hip hop crew*, *dj* etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1. Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:music#Note 2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:music#Note 3. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) 4. Has been prominently featured in any major music mediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_magazines 5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirectsin place of articles on side projects, early bands and such 6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_hip_hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability . 7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award
By the time, verifiable information is available about an act, one or more of these criterion have usually been met.
Regards
Keith
On 10/23/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/22/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/22/05, Daniel P. B. Smith dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
One wouldn't be a problem, and neither would ten thousand. We've got thousands of articles on unremarkable cities, and I don't see a problem with that either. Anthony
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then
surely
we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the garage bands in the world.
Except that we actually have data that the subjects of the Rambot articles existed (censuses and the like). We have no way of verifying the existence of many garage bands.
I don't know why this agument keeps coming up because there's pretty much no one who's arguing that we should keep articles on unverifiable garage bands. The disagreement is over what to do with verifiable articles on garage bands.
I have two or three reasons for deleting things: violates [[WP:NOT]]
(eg. dicdef, spam, advertisment), violates [[WP:NOR]] (eg. lacks references, terminal POV problems), or is a CSD. Lately I've tried to work out where "article makes no claim of notability" and "article is unverifiable" - I think NOR covers these, but there's probably some overlap with WP:NOT as well.
Comparing Rambot articles to other topic classes is perfectly fine as
long
as you limit your comparison to the proper aspects. Frankly, I think
the
uniformity in style, content, and quality is a bad thing, but that
wasn't
related to the thread I was making the comparison in.
I don't. Uniformity in articles in a certain topic area is a Good Thing, because it lets readers (and editors) know what the article /should/ be like. We have the Manual of Style so that articles are presented in a logical manner; David Gerard has made much better arguments than I ever could about why we need a uniform and concise writing style.
Take a look at the unedited Rambot articles then take a look at the ones which have been heavily edited. Now tell me which you think the articles *should* be like.
I think the whole style, content and scope debate is best summed up as:
articles in Wikipedia should be Sane, Safe and Consensual.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/23/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony says there is a problem with verifiable garage bands as to what do with them. Garage bands in the sense that he presumably means the term are unsigned bands practising in garages and playing gigs at the local pub if thet're lucky are usually unverifiable. Third parties who provide verification such as the media and reference sources such as Allmusic.com http://Allmusic.comhttp://Allmusic.comarent interested in writing anything about them at this stage.
What about ASCAP? If their songs are listed with them, would you consider that information to be verifiable? How many individuals/bands do you think have songs registered with ASCAP but would fail that list of criteria you present?
I refer to ASCAP's guidelines which state " ASCAP members are individuals who make their living writing music. As a society of composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers, we know very well that there are many steps between creation and compensation; months, if not years, can pass between the creation of a song, its recording, its release, its performance, and the day when the revenues due to the writer actually arrive. A music creator is like a small business, and ASCAP exists to ensure that music creators are paid promptly when their works are performed publicly."
By the time that a songwriter earns revenue, the song has to be recorded, released, sold to the public and played on radio and television. By that stage, the performers would meet WP:music in any event.
I would accept ASCAP listing in voting on AfD articles about a performer. That performer is very likely to have achieved notability by that stage in any event but thanks for bringing the resource to my attention.
On 10/23/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/23/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony says there is a problem with verifiable garage bands as to what
do
with them. Garage bands in the sense that he presumably means the term
are
unsigned bands practising in garages and playing gigs at the local pub
if
thet're lucky are usually unverifiable. Third parties who provide verification such as the media and reference sources such as Allmusic.com http://Allmusic.com http://Allmusic.com<
http://Allmusic.com%3Earent interested in
writing anything about them at this stage.
What about ASCAP? If their songs are listed with them, would you consider that information to be verifiable? How many individuals/bands do you think have songs registered with ASCAP but would fail that list of criteria you present?
http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/23/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I refer to ASCAP's guidelines which state " ASCAP members are individuals who make their living writing music. As a society of composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers, we know very well that there are many steps between creation and compensation; months, if not years, can pass between the creation of a song, its recording, its release, its performance, and the day when the revenues due to the writer actually arrive. A music creator is like a small business, and ASCAP exists to ensure that music creators are paid promptly when their works are performed publicly."
By the time that a songwriter earns revenue, the song has to be recorded, released, sold to the public and played on radio and television. By that stage, the performers would meet WP:music in any event.
Really? I guess I misread the page. Let's take [[Tina Vero]], for instance ( http://www.tinavero.com/).
1) Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country
No.
2) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC#Note
No.
3) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)
No. She's released one album on an independent label (Handmade Muse) she created herself.
4) Has been prominently featured in any major music media.
No. Minor features in minor music media maybe, some articles in local college newspapers and the like, an article in the New York Times which wasn't really about her music, but no prominent features in any major music media.
5) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable
None of the musicians who have worked with her would pass wp:music.
6) Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
No.
7) Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award
Nope.
But has she received play on local radio stations? Yes. Is she in ASCAP? Yes. Has she released an album? Yes. Can a verifiable article be written about her? Yes.
I would accept ASCAP listing in voting on AfD articles about a performer.
That performer is very likely to have achieved notability by that stage in any event but thanks for bringing the resource to my attention.
Now you say very likely to have achieved notability. Which one is it? Does [[Tina Vero]] pass wp:music or not? Would you vote to keep or delete an article on her? Do I need to come up with more examples? She just happened to be the first one I checked, I'm sure I could find many more. The next one I checked was [[Andy & Denise]] (http://www.andyanddenise.com/). In ASCAP. Would they pass wp:music? I checked [[CC Railroad]] ( http://www.ccrailroad.com/), and they're not in ASCAP as far as I can tell, but they are in artistdirect. Would you consider them verifiable or not?
In any case, there's a huge gap between verifiability and [[WP:MUSIC]]. That's the gap I'm talking about, so your strawmen about unverifiable artists is irrelevant.
Anthony
Anthony,
I'd at least look seriously at doing so as she has some claims to notability. She apparently is working on her second album and has sung live with a notable artist namely Neil Finn of Crowded House and Split Enz fame. The New York Times article refers to this
In my view, she would be a borderline casein AfD. I would also argue that she is not a typical case of a garage band that appears on AfD who have not typically recorded an album or have much verifiable information.
I also note that no-one has yet written an article about her to my knowledge. There is certainly no article currently on Wikipedia.
Regards
Keith
On 10/24/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/23/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
I refer to ASCAP's guidelines which state " ASCAP members are
individuals
who make their living writing music. As a society of composers, songwriters, lyricists and music publishers, we know very well that there are many steps between creation and compensation; months, if not years, can pass
between
the creation of a song, its recording, its release, its performance, and the day when the revenues due to the writer actually arrive. A music creator is like a small business, and ASCAP exists to ensure that music creators
are
paid promptly when their works are performed publicly."
By the time that a songwriter earns revenue, the song has to be
recorded,
released, sold to the public and played on radio and television. By that stage, the performers would meet WP:music in any event.
Really? I guess I misread the page. Let's take [[Tina Vero]], for instance ( http://www.tinavero.com/).
- Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or
medium-sized country
No.
- Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour
in a large or medium-sized country*< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC#Note%3E
No.
- Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more
important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)
No. She's released one album on an independent label (Handmade Muse) she created herself.
- Has been prominently featured in any major music media.
No. Minor features in minor music media maybe, some articles in local college newspapers and the like, an article in the New York Times which wasn't really about her music, but no prominent features in any major music media.
- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a
band that is otherwise extremely notable
None of the musicians who have worked with her would pass wp:music.
- Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the
local scene of a city
No.
- Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music
Award
Nope.
But has she received play on local radio stations? Yes. Is she in ASCAP? Yes. Has she released an album? Yes. Can a verifiable article be written about her? Yes.
I would accept ASCAP listing in voting on AfD articles about a performer.
That performer is very likely to have achieved notability by that stage
in
any event but thanks for bringing the resource to my attention.
Now you say very likely to have achieved notability. Which one is it? Does [[Tina Vero]] pass wp:music or not? Would you vote to keep or delete an article on her? Do I need to come up with more examples? She just happened to be the first one I checked, I'm sure I could find many more. The next one I checked was [[Andy & Denise]] (http://www.andyanddenise.com/). In ASCAP. Would they pass wp:music? I checked [[CC Railroad]] ( http://www.ccrailroad.com/), and they're not in ASCAP as far as I can tell, but they are in artistdirect. Would you consider them verifiable or not?
In any case, there's a huge gap between verifiability and [[WP:MUSIC]]. That's the gap I'm talking about, so your strawmen about unverifiable artists is irrelevant.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not only are garage bands hard (often impossible) to verify, it's also the intent by which a lot of them are added. The creators are often band members seeking attention which they do not yet have.
We could harbor a tiny fraction of garage bands in the world, but that would set a horrible precedent attracting the ones we don't have as well.
At the end of the day, there's other venues for such bands to turn to.
--Mgm
On 10/23/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony,
I'd at least look seriously at doing so as she has some claims to notability. She apparently is working on her second album and has sung live with a notable artist namely Neil Finn of Crowded House and Split Enz fame. The New York Times article refers to this
In my view, she would be a borderline casein AfD. I would also argue that she is not a typical case of a garage band that appears on AfD who have not typically recorded an album or have much verifiable information.
I also note that no-one has yet written an article about her to my knowledge. There is certainly no article currently on Wikipedia.
If you keep in mind that WP:MUSIC is not a policy but a guideline and therefore feel free to ignore it, you just might find that WP:Verifiability does about equally well at keeping the trash out, but results in fewer incorrect deletions, in my opinion.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
From: Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org
If anything I think that only makes my point stronger. If we have the resources to maintain an article on virtually every U.S. city, then surely we have the resources to maintain an article on a tiny fraction of the garage bands in the world.
As long as you ignore the critical issue of verifiablity.
Jay.
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
The Rambot articles shouldn't be compared to other topic classes that contain articles on "non-notable" topics.
Taken as a group, the Rambot articles are _reasonably_ comprehensive (they include virtually every U. S. city, not just a minuscule percentage of them); uniform in style, content, and quality; and derive from good (though uncited) sources.
If these other topic classes had "non-notable" articles added in one comprehensive swoop by a bot, would that make them okay? Why is that different from adding the exact same articles piecemeal over a long period of time, if the end result is the same? Wikipedia's a work in progress, I don't think we should condemn or permit articles based on the current state of other articles in the same general subject area. The holes will eventually get filled in, and the rest of the articles in the "unfinished" topic class can be excluded from Version 1.0 until then if it's a problem having them around.