User talk:3family6

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:3family6.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

List of Christian metal

One source is more than sufficient, if even needed at all. The idea is that if you were to put "tomato" into "list of fruits", you'd visit the article tomato and the connection is verified there, so it's unnecessary to re-confirm something that's already verifiable in the target article, let alone have multiple sources. I think using one bland book, and citing it repeatedly though would deter refspamming. I don't think Indie Vision Music meets WP:RS, but has there been a discussion somewhere? Please see huge COI between a major contributor and that publication at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Metalworker14 Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I'm fine with it being reduced to one citation, and bands cited in the lead not needing one. The list is contentious, so there do need to be citations.

I was unaware of that COI, but I've used Indie Vision Music for years here. It meets the criteria for RS and it's listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christian_music/Sources--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say that if the only verification is entirely self-proclaimed... and work towards purging some of the bands through AfD or PROD as many are likely non-notable as well. Graywalls (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls Or you could, you know, use the sources that were on the list to rescue the articles. Come on, dude.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking verifiability wise. There are plenty that passes genre verification while not passing NALBUM. Graywalls (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls if they've made it onto the list, they're reliable. Respectfully, I've been working in this particular niche on this project since 2010. A lot of entries need rescuing, but there's plenty of sourcing for it (some of it now on Internet Archive, unfortunately, making it harder to access, but still).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up the refs, and I agree that some of the "newer" entries (added less than ≈8 years ago) might not be up to notability standards. I was a bit annoyed yesterday, because of long-term burnout from trying to hold up this subject area mostly alone now, I apologize for getting a bit snippy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls Over the years, this or that band will get removed (or added) by an editor, plus these are BLP statements that involve deeply personal beliefs. Those issues are why there's been long-standing consensus that every entry needs a citation proving the band is metal and is considered Christian.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Vision Music isn't mentioned in that COI--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not figured out a good way to add it there and link the two together without violating WP:OUTING. Although, the Metalworker14 and IVM COI should be fairly easy to figure out using Google and a bit of subject area knowledge. Also, I suspect WP:RS status, because I am not sure if authors' posts make it into public space similar to Forbes and HuffPo contributor articles or they go through editorial board with qualified editors comparable to say Vogue magazine. Can you explain their editorial process since you're vouching for them as reliable? Graywalls (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls will do, I believe it's been discussed somewhere, too 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I used IVM prior to Metalworker14, I believe, and I'm not affiliated with it, anyway, so it's not a COI for me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check on the WP:RS status on RS/N. I see the list in your question don't have many editor participation, as number of editors overseeing it. As a hypothetical example, f you ask Wiki Project Trains, they might say some rail fanning book on trains sold through Author House is reliable as fans consider that author an expert even if that said author's formal citation creds don't satisfy WP:EXPERTSPS Graywalls (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls there's long been a lack of active editors in this subject, which is also why I'm a bit annoyed that you would just delete articles rather than helping rescue them. Often it's just me now in this subject area and I don't have the time that I once did. I for one vet sources and there's been many I've rejected and removed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My process, which has been a long-standing process and how it's done at the RS noticeboard, is to check for editorial staff, if there's a print version, and see if other, already established RS either refers to or uses content from that source (thus demonstrating a reputation of trustworthiness) or otherwise discuss the source (for instance, very recently I added Angelic Warlord because, in addition to the multiple staff for the site, an academic journal article said it's an accurate source). I do try to get consensus from other editors, it's been increasingly difficult as I'm often the lone person doing it (and the more recent contributor Metalworker14 is apparently a COI and likely paid editor).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That user Metalworker14 was just blocked today after their undisclosed paid editing allegation was substantiated. Graywalls (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls thank you. I saw that. Also, while working on tidying the Christian metal list I saw an article (I can't remember which one, I'll find it again) which was created by them and had a COI notice from 2015! I think the now-blocked editor Walter Görlitz put it up. Why that didn't get escalated I have no idea. Metalworker14 might have very well been engaging in undisclosed paid editing for 10 years! Well, it's finally addressed, now. I guess the only thing for it is to clean up, salvage, and possibly, if need be, demolish what they've left after all

this.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All record labels that do not meet WP:NCORP should be deleted. As for bands, WP:NBAND 5&6 are rubbish in my opinion and I am currently challenging to have that removed. Graywalls (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I agree to both of those --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls ah, I agree about the COI. I figured out which individual you were referring to. That certainly would make that individual unreliable for anything regarding the bands they are part of. I wouldn't say that disqualifies the publication, or author (unless paid editing) just as HM and Doug Van Pelt are reliable, just not for Lust Control. Incidentally, the founder of IVM (different from the suspected Symphony of Heaven COI individual) writes for "HM" as well, which is one reason (in addition to the fact that there's a staff and it's not just one lone person) that I and others have long-presumed IVM being reliable (HM is Vogue for Christian metal).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how it works. If you and I were both auto enthusiasts who track race together and we buddy up with you being the writer and me being the editor, that's not sufficient to make our web zine as a WP:RS with editorial oversight and I feel that many of these music zines/magazines are of comparable setup and are only a notch above a one person blog and comparable to WP:FORBESCON. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls the connection I did above, with HM referencing IVM and sharing writers is how demonstrating the reputation of accuracy has been done. For at least a decade now. Volunteer staff are explicitly allowed, as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave IVM alone for the time being. I'll run it through RS/N when I have a moment, or you can if you'd like. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I'll run it. It'll be later as right now I'm on mobile and that'll be easier to do on PC --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See the discussion. Thanks for bringing this up, as I'm using IVM in an article draft and have used them countless times over the past 11+ years.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls I noticed that the individual in question no longer writes for IVM since they joined a particular band (which you have referenced elsewhere) 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls your HM discussion is precisely an example of why editors who frequent a subject matter are often the best people to ask regarding the source. Because they're actually familiar with the literature. For example, I have two separate books that I have purchased years ago primarily for editing Wikipedia, and both of them discuss HM and consider it a good source. And I've already mentioned the Christianity Today coverage previously. I've also seen recently an article in a Texas newspaper interviewing Van Pelt and it mentions the importance of his magazine and how many readers it had. That one specific editor on here had never heard of the magazine does not mean it's not reliable or not notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your giving these articles attention, Graywalls. I've been less active in that area for about a decade and especially the past several years. If there's sourcing issues, this database should confirm if there's independent print coverage for an artist prior to 2013/2014ish (which is when DantheCowMan sadly stopped editing, although most of the print sources ceased, in print or entirely, by then, anyway). It doesn't necessarily help with in-line citations, but it should confirm if an artist is notable or not. And I have Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, which is pretty exhaustive for anything 2001 and earlier. I'm trying to get to all the artists on the list myself, but between other Wikipedia projects I'm working on and offline life, it's slow going. Feel free to notify me if you see an article needing attention, and I can attempt to triage it. --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, thought you might like to know that I'm working on this list, trying to improve the listed articles, and so far I've also nominated a couple for deletion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lambgoat verdict, lineup changes, and Bleeding Through

The outcome of that discussion rings me some alarm bells - in the interim of working on Eternal Blue, I'm trying to save the last remaining music-related A-class article from GAR (it was grandfathered in). The thing is, Lambgoat is the last extant source on the web to reference the tons of lineup changes this band had in its early days. MusicMight used to cover it, but their founder has been deceased since 2010, well before I started editing, and the site has been permanently defunct - without archive - since before I started editing Wikipedia. Is this acceptable for lineup changes, or is this a foul of "information about living persons"? If this can't be used for lineup changed, this article is toast, full stop. mftp dan ^oops 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan MusicMight is on Internet Archive!

Band lineups are indeed BLP statements, but usually aren't controversial. I need to look into this article more.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the one the article was using, it would seem. The previous version of the article was using this.^[1] I have since removed it because it would appear to me there's no captures old enough to have kept it. mftp dan ^oops 18:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find an archive! It was tricky, but I tried filling in the slashes with where the band is from "/california/orange+county/bleeding+through" and that actually worked! And, thankfully, Sharpe-Young himself made the entry. Does it have the information that you need? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's insane! Do you know any other tricks I don't for archiving? All I know is what the bot does. I'll give the link a look now! mftp dan ^oops 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, what I did was click one of the artist pages archived on the page main and then just change the geographic info and band name that comprised part of the url. Luckily, that was the valid URL address.

That same content is also published in book form here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help, this is invaluable! Though it irks me to find that much of the original text here was taken from the book verbatim. Copyright, yikes. Glad I gave it a facelift already, but I might have more to examine. mftp dan ^oops 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same author! Garry Sharpe-Young ran the Rockdetector/Music Might website, and subsequently published the content in his books. The site (now archived) largely is a more accessible version of the book contents (as the book contents mostly came from the websites).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should clarify. Before I started giving Bleeding Through attention, its early days were mostly composed of what I now recognize as word-for-word plagiarization of Sharpe-Young material from New Wave of American Heavy Metal, though it was played off as original because that book wasn't cited at all. mftp dan ^oops 19:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan oh, gotcha!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bad Boys (album).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bad Boys (album).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Busseron Township, Indiana has been nominated for merging

Category:People from Busseron Township, Indiana has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

Les Jours and East View Press join the library
Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP requests

Hi 3family6, just wanted to let you know that I had some additional requests on the ASCAP article in case you were interested in taking a look since you had reviewed an earlier request of mine. Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

From the editors: Looking back, looking forward

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024

In the media: Will you be targeted?

Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last

Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia

Opinion: Reflections one score hence

News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free

Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next

Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia

In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?

Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics

Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mxdwn

Just a heads up, once my FAC finishes, I'm going to be taking this to the album discussion board to hopefully be listed. I anticipate you'll be in favor? (By no means is this canvassing, just based off observation and figured you'd actually like to know.) mftp dan ^oops 17:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I actually was going to propose that all of the sources discussed in that FAR be added, as they've now been vetted by multiple editors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying not to canvass here, but perhaps you could participate in the source discussions I started then, too ;) 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if I don't get beat to the punch for once, I'd be happy to. I just don't wanna sound like a parrot. mftp dan ^oops 18:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there's been no takers.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for hard work so far in getting the album style guide promoted to the MOS. I've been thinking about trying to do the same thing for years now, but never found the energy. Please keep up the good work — it will make editing album stuff so much easier once it's achieved! Popcornfud (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, every so often I'll head to that page and be surprised that it's only an essay, because of how much it's referred to. I'm hoping that it will be very helpful to make it a guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Just letting you know, your signature is hard to read when using dark mode. That's all, thanks. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 11:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle & Fade Thank you. I'll work on it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christian death metal

On 6 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christian death metal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Christian death metal has been called the least likely musical development at the close of the 20th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christian death metal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Christian death metal), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians

News and notes: Let's talk!

Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon

In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk

Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City

Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed

Traffic report: A wild drive

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP wording update

Hi 3family6, I made another request of the ASCAP article that may be of interest to you given your past assistance with some requests. This one regards a ringtone lawsuit. The sourcing currently used is primary, and I have suggested updated wording that uses third party sources that I think is a big improvement and also partly addresses the primary sources tag on the article. If this isn't of interest, I totally understand, and appreciate all of your other reviews. Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and get to this, but you might want to reach out to someone else as well.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I'll also ask around elsewhere. Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Hey there! I kind of feel like the MOS discussion is starting to run out of gas and that we're losing people (which has always been par for the course with these things at WP, in my experience), so I'm wondering if you and I should just go ahead with your initial idea of editing your draft page. We can just plug in all the stuff we've come up with, see if we like the way it looks and then go ahead and amend the MOS again. Things can always be reverted or tweaked, anyway. If we want more eyeballs on it before amending, we could just post a link to your draft page over at WT:MOSALBUM, or maybe even do an RFC, although I've never done one before. Let me know what you think. I'm excited about the prospect of finally getting this codified as actual WP procedure.—The Keymaster (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Keymaster yeah, that's probably for the best. I was hoping we could hammer out the last couple things, and then I was going to go ahead and do that.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 10:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6 Of course as soon as I said that, ModernDayTrilobite came back. Heh. On the other hand, it does look like our discussion there is winding down and we're pretty much all arriving on the same page. I do wonder where Popcornfud has gone, though, as I think they had some interesting thoughts to consider. From the looks of it, Fud had recently gone through a lengthy back and forth with an editor who took umbrage at their removal of an exhaustive deluxe edition track listing. That's exactly the kind of worst case scenario I'm afraid of running into if the language is too vague. It's a tough tightrope to walk, I guess.—The Keymaster (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS discussion

Just so you know, I see you, but that's a lot of time investment to go over all that that I don't have at the moment. Are you able to simply summarize what's being proposed or direct me somewhere that can? I'm getting anxiety just looking at the size of that monster, I'd for sure be info-overloaded and lose the plot. mftp dan ^oops 19:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan the specific thing I tagged you in was regarding sources for album credits. Specifically, there seems to be a general consensus, between that discussion and some current or recent ones on the albums project talk page, that independent reliable sources are most preferred, followed by liner notes. Barring those, there's different levels of support for using affiliates such as Apple Music, Amazon, Tidal, and Spotify. And a fairly consensus that Allmusic is to be avoided, as a general rule at least.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if Allmusic's review mentions a credit? I'm sure other independents still clearly win, but where would it stand otherwise? Has that been brought up yet? mftp dan ^oops 19:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan oh, in a prose review, that's sourced an author and that's fine. Unless we know it's inaccurate. Ths is more regarding credits listings.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds good to me, broadly construed. I'd have to look into the digital platform arguments more before I make anything official. mftp dan ^oops 19:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan a couple editors responded that they would actually prefer liner notes, as they think those would be the most accurate.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]