Talk:Leo Records
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leo Records article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Spamming
[edit]Chubbles is again spamming non-notable artists. Incorrectly claiming that WP:CSC and WP:NCC allow it.
But according to WP:CSC:
- Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Not true here, as some artists are not notable as in having no article on ENWP.
- Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. Not true, as some artists are indeed notable
- Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. No true, as there are no independent sources to confirm that they are verifiable member of this group. Not even related sources are given.
And according to WP:NCC/"Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" the content is subject to the common selection criteria, that are failed as stated above.
Contrary, adding non-notable artists sounds more like advertising.
I don't know how many time we have had discussion before, but Chubbles keeps ignoring the argument in a big WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT move. And starts editwarring over it.The Banner talk 19:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to finally be talking guidelines this time 'round. You note that bullet 3 of CSC permits a complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. You counter with "No true, as there are no independent sources to confirm that they are verifiable member of this group. Not even related sources are given.". This isn't so. The threshold is WP:V - verifiability, not independent sourcing, and the list is composed of publication data - a list of people who published works with the label (that is, issued albums with them). There's no need for independent sourcing for publication data (and the bluelinked artists were not removed, even though those are also not independently verified in the way the commentator asks, and so I suspect verifiability is not really the concern here); published works are reliable sources for themselves, and it seems quite silly to put in a raft of citations to the CDs published by the label (the better way to handle that, in my opinion, would be to flesh out a label discography). Since the artists a label works with is encyclopedic information, NNC certainly does apply here, and I have no advertising interest in this label.
- I tire of endlessly debating this, and also of being accused of editwarring after being swiftly reverted, twice, and very clumsily (did you notice you restored promotional content elsewhere in the article??). So I will enter in a compromise edit removing the unlinked names; this is so trivial a thing to argue about ad infinitum that I will leave it to another, more committed editor to make the list comprehensive. Chubbles (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is no surprise that you are denying this, as usual. The Banner talk 09:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't restore the allegedly non-notable artists, and you still reverted me - reinserting promotional material. You can't just revert me without good reason; that is the definition of WP:EDITWAR. I will restore the previous revision, which satisfies your (not-based-in-policy) demand for removal of unlinked artists. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is no surprise that you are denying this, as usual. The Banner talk 09:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:ONUS applies. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is not possible to achieve consensus with someone who simply reverts you. Chubbles (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is not easy to achieve consensus with someone who plain ignores all arguments, guidelines and policies. The Banner talk 12:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- You can continue with the personal assaults, or you can listen to me. I am, of course, familiar with WTAF, but interlanguage links are the classic example of redlinks that we generally keep because the topics are notable - we just don't have an English-language article yet. The whole point of ILLs is that they are generators of editor interest and therefore article creation. This is consistent with WP:REDLINK, which isn't somehow trumped by WTAF. This whole discussion is weirdly hostile to the whole idea of WP:NOTDONE, and we certainly have more articles in jazz to write. I'll say it for the hundredth time: this is not promotional editing. Chubbles (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ow, arguments are now personal attacks? That sounds really convincing. Why are you so scared of mentioning only notable artists, defined as having an own article on ENWP, in the listings? That is an often used common selection criterium but you are fighting it everywhere. The Banner talk 15:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Notable" does not mean "has an article on ENWP". Those things are not synonymous, by design. Notability is a concept; having an article or not is a factual status. The issue is not whether I am scared (whatever that means) or whether this is a common selection criterion; it is one of many common selection criteria, and the question is whether it applies here, in this particular context. Interwiki-linked entries are a reasonable indication of notability such that removing them over concerns about promotion is way, way overblown, and again, WP:REDLINK exists for a reason. We are not done with the encyclopedia, and we should be encouraging our volunteers by pointing out the need for these articles. Chubbles (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just write the articles. But having an own article is a valid way to determine notability and is used in many articles as a selection criterium. The Banner talk 13:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- WP:VOLUNTEER. And it is one selection criterion, not the only one. I can keep repeating myself ad nauseam, but it's exasperating. Certainly, the current list is not even exhaustive when it comes to notable artists on the label (let alone comprehensive, of course), and so I will tag it as such, but I am abandoning this attempt at compromise as a waste of time (in addition to being a betrayal of principle). Chubbles (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is better then listing non-notable artists. The Banner talk 06:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- WP:VOLUNTEER. And it is one selection criterion, not the only one. I can keep repeating myself ad nauseam, but it's exasperating. Certainly, the current list is not even exhaustive when it comes to notable artists on the label (let alone comprehensive, of course), and so I will tag it as such, but I am abandoning this attempt at compromise as a waste of time (in addition to being a betrayal of principle). Chubbles (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just write the articles. But having an own article is a valid way to determine notability and is used in many articles as a selection criterium. The Banner talk 13:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Notable" does not mean "has an article on ENWP". Those things are not synonymous, by design. Notability is a concept; having an article or not is a factual status. The issue is not whether I am scared (whatever that means) or whether this is a common selection criterion; it is one of many common selection criteria, and the question is whether it applies here, in this particular context. Interwiki-linked entries are a reasonable indication of notability such that removing them over concerns about promotion is way, way overblown, and again, WP:REDLINK exists for a reason. We are not done with the encyclopedia, and we should be encouraging our volunteers by pointing out the need for these articles. Chubbles (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ow, arguments are now personal attacks? That sounds really convincing. Why are you so scared of mentioning only notable artists, defined as having an own article on ENWP, in the listings? That is an often used common selection criterium but you are fighting it everywhere. The Banner talk 15:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- You can continue with the personal assaults, or you can listen to me. I am, of course, familiar with WTAF, but interlanguage links are the classic example of redlinks that we generally keep because the topics are notable - we just don't have an English-language article yet. The whole point of ILLs is that they are generators of editor interest and therefore article creation. This is consistent with WP:REDLINK, which isn't somehow trumped by WTAF. This whole discussion is weirdly hostile to the whole idea of WP:NOTDONE, and we certainly have more articles in jazz to write. I'll say it for the hundredth time: this is not promotional editing. Chubbles (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is not easy to achieve consensus with someone who plain ignores all arguments, guidelines and policies. The Banner talk 12:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)