So, you're citing the use as props in "comedy movies" as a legit reason to keep this dubious section in the article? This may have been something in comedies before World War II, at best. Again, ANYTHING can be unsafe if not done properly. I'm confused at how this exception gets made. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Chubbles! I noticed you've edited a topic related to Jimmy Edgar somewhat recently, and was hoping to collect viewpoints on an aesthetic issue. If you had a minute to contribute to the discussion/vote on the infobox photo, that would be very helpful. Earflaps (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sleeping Giant (band) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It's not faulty reasoning. Go to the talk page and ask there. I was under the same impression as you until several editors there pointed out that the WP:MUSICBIO criteria are an assumption that WP:GNG may be met as a result of those criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Metalworker14. Thank you for helping with keep Twelve Gauge Valentine up and for helping defend Society's Finest. Metalworker14 (talk) 9:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you create all four of the album articles? And integrate the sources that I already made on those pages, but expand on them in the album articles.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG is a great reason we don't list all the artists signed to a record label. Imagine doing that for Sony - highly inappropriate. Beyond that, the WP:BURDEN is on the person that adds or restores material to provide reliable third-party sources to back up material added. As listed, it was also a copyvio. The Dissident Aggressor 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles,

I'd really appreciate if you stop taking down information, and instead go ahead and try and see what you can verify and what you can't. There is information you keep cutting out of the article, that have references online. Find those interviews if it bothers you so much, but don't get rid of what was a lot of work done by several people so that fans of Mississippi Heat can enjoy learning about the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhba (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles,

Thanks for the message. I understand your concern. That said, instead of starting fresh, let's work to add links and references together to what's on the page until it reaches a point that everyones comfortable with. I understand the changes were transformative, and need more references, but I think it would be to everyone's benefit to work on the new encyclopedia page (feel free to add a message at the top saying the page need references; I'm a little new to some of the technical aspects of editing a page). The point of this page isn't to make it Lacocque's own page, but the last version was lacking in detail that can be found all across the web, in articles and interviews by professional journalists. Cheers, Jeffhba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:3080:1F00:8561:B55B:C5FB:866E (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I must mention though, is that the parts about Lacocque's life are actually well documented in multiple articles online. So could you please bring some of that back? Otherwise, I will. Still, I don't feel it's right to flat out delete that part. Please, let's reference the copy using links online instead of cutting it out completely. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:3080:1F00:8561:B55B:C5FB:866E (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is verifiable online. So let's add links and references, this time. I understand your concerns, but I think this is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:3080:1F00:8561:B55B:C5FB:866E (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me till the end of the day...or feel free to find them on your own. Just google part of the quote or all of it, with a boolean search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:3080:1F00:8561:B55B:C5FB:866E (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than reverting to the previous version of the Mississippi Heat Wikipedia? If you need to cut, that's fine, but please prune, do not revert to the old version, because there is some information in there (and links) that can be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhba (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But any links that can be maintained objectively, I would like if you could keep. There were a few inaccuracies with the older version, and I don't want to have those come back in the process. Again, I'd like to be as constructive as possible about this process rather than get into a feud of reverting edits entirely.

Thanks, and sorry for any misunderstandings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhba (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plesase do not add redlinks to subjects who are extrenely unlikely to ever have an art5icle here, as they will not pass notability requirements - this goes for obscure actors. If you are planning to write an article on Gerald Oliver Smith, write the article first and then link him. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Write the article firs, then link the guy; (2) MOS is a guideline not a policy, it is not mandatory (3) WP:Edit warring, however is policy, so please follow it and stop edit warring; (4) Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of it, but users are allowed to delete anything they wish from their talk page, except unblock requests, and other editors are not allowed to restore the deleted material. Please do not do so again. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Since you worked on the Frank Vignola, I thought you might be interested in working on the draft for his bass-playing bandmate, Jon Burr. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! bd2412 T 20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Moved to Jon Burr. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles. The respectful revert, I do appreciate that. I haven't gone through all the sources, but it appears (from this source for example) that this is a 4chan campaign to hurt the reputation of the band's lead singer. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Easycore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easycore (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. slakr^\ talk / 10:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not add redlinks to subjects who are extremely unlikely to ever have an article here, as they will not pass notability requirements" - this goes for obscure bands. If you are planning to write an article on "Poet and the One man band", write the article first and then link them. Now you can stop reverting and edit warring me everyday or two. Theres your guide to redlinks. As per what the other editor told you. Above. At "When you're in Love (Film)" CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny Every time you read an article on Wikipedia, remember that the only reason it exists is because someone gave enough of a damn about what you care about to put it there.

I'm probably gonna use that in other places if it's okay with you Xenohs (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same link exists in the infobox at the top of the page where it doesn't use the template which is about to be deleted. Feel free to sort out the page to your own preferences. I don't care to re-do the work. Bazj (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable album.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dreamers of the Ghetto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Eeekster (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Strange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Strange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What other verifiable sources are needed when it comes straight from the band? This was already known within the community, but was never publicly discussed by the band, until now. It's an undeniable statement, "Nick stole money and quit the band.". What more do you need for this to be posted?

The article John Robichaux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page appeared to be a hoax in WP:HOAX, yet this page still exists. No quality sources found in Google nor are there quality sources in this article. Nominated at least once.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chubbles. Please stop editing the BC Camplight page. Both the citations you are citing regarding his drug use were retracted. Google the retractions. The statements you keep writing in are false, libelous, and are currently keeping Brian from obtaining his Visa. Please cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.253.204 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no retractions on the linked pages, which are high-quality, reliable sources. I don't believe that customs officers decide whether or not to issue visas based on Wikipedia pages, and even if they do, your wishes for his travel plans (whoever you are, 73.33.253.204) is not what determines the content of articles. Please continue any further debate on the article talk page. Further reversions of sourced materials without discussion will be reported at WP:EDITWAR. Chubbles (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Jim Chappell. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer}} (Not watching this page)[reply]

The article Raicore has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Failure to meet WP music notability guidelines. Lack of any sources or references, and information given on the stated subject is insufficient to constitute a Wiki page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lady Flash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable group of backing singers. WP:NOTINHERIT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Karst (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about a redirect happening again. I will take care of the merge, no matter what happens next. If it is redirected by mistake I will undo it. I just won't be able to do the merge right now. I caught your revert in my watchlist. So the merge will happen soon. In fact, I will make a note of it here, after it is accomplished. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Vic Juris entry, I removed the link to Grove Jazz Online under References because there's nowhere in the text that indicates where it was used as a reference. Someone might have used that source as a reference, but if they did, they have to document the specific part with a citation.

It could be used as an external link.
–Vmavanti (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think I'll move it. Having just bought Eagle and LeBlanc's Blues: A Regional Experience, which is an excellent source for birth and death date details, etc. (though not infallible), I realise that I'm editing a lot of articles that you created or have edited in the past. So, if you have any concerns or questions about my edits, don't hesitate to let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glasseater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasseater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odeon Pope edit Why not put chart positions in the body text rather than tacked onto the discography? If it's an important position like No. 1, it can be mentioned there. It should be "No.1", not "#1", according to MOS. If it's not number one, I wonder whether it is worth mentioning at all. The edit you restored says "U.S. Jazz #24". That lacks a source and a citation. What chart? What magazine? When? I don't know why it is worth mentioning that an album reached No. 24 on a jazz chart.
–Vmavanti (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions in order: Because chart positions are discographical information; in general, this is information which makes the most sense to add to lists of albums, rather than having it be buried in prose text. The No.1/#1 thing does not concern me; I prefer the pound sign, Wikipedia does not - I leave it for other people to clean that up. Chart positions are relevant even if not number-one for at least two reasons: they are still information users are likely to be interested in (it's one measure to help users gauge relative popularity of artists, albums, and songs, though of course misleading if taken in isolation), and they help establish notability for WP:MUSIC, which is very relevant for marginal jazz musicians. Anyone who reaches any rung of any national chart meets WP:MUSIC's criterion. The chart is the U.S. jazz chart - it's run by Billboard. This is rarely confusing nowadays, since Billboard has more or less had a monopoly on US chart data for decades now, but I can add that to the position for clarification. Typically, charting happens at or near a week's first release, so it's not really necessary for a second date to be added in addition to the year of release of the album. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some of the same objections here that I do in the post below this one, so I would apply comments here, too. With some differences.

I don't think it's a good idea to assume that every reader knows that a chart position automatically defaults to Billboard. Other charts exist all over the world from other sources. Sometimes I see people mentioning itunes position, which I think is worthless. I find chart positions to be fairly unimportant, and when I read them, it looks like the writer is pleading for others to like their favorite musician as much as the writer does. I find that piling up of chart positions makes for tedious reading and unnecessary repetition. Once a reader understands the general idea that "this musician has been on the charts", that point need not be repeated five or ten times by listing specifics.

One lesson here is that it's probably a bad idea to write about a subject about which you have strong feelings and attachments.

I still think if a chart position has to be mentioned at all it should go in the body of the article. If the matter of deletion comes up, then chart position can help in the argument over notability.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To have so many music and pop culture entries is itself odd. To compound the weirdness by endless accretion of trivialities within these entries, of importance to a tiny number of people, weakens Wikipedia overall.
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is fairly reasonable to assume that a chart position defaults to Billboard if the chart is identified as a US chart. Billboard, for decades, has been the authoritative US sales and airplay chart. Now, to make things totally clear, I probably should have added a hyperlink to Billboard magazine, or to the page for the chart itself. But there's no confusion over what world chart is mentioned when the country of origin was stated. iTunes charts are listed on WP:BADCHARTS and should be removed unless there is some particularly good reason to do so (e.g., in the case of media coverage of an iTunes hit that does not otherwise chart - and I agree with you that, in this case, it should be in prose in the body of the article, not in a discographical chart). If you find chart positions to be unimportant, please understand that some of our readership does not share your view, and that unless there is a general consensus to remove specifics of chart placement (as was done, to my eternal chagrin, to baseball statistics - a move that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock for understanding the sport), they remain a germanely encyclopedic inclusion.

If you are spending all of this time editing jazz discographies and are not much interested in the music, I commend you on your commitment to disinterested objectivity. Once upon a time, I spent quite a bit of time shoring up articles for screamo and metalcore bands I do not like and do not listen to...because the work needed to be done.

Nothing about this is weird, to be honest. Encyclopedias of popular culture are commonplace now; we have broadened the scope of what we think of as worthy of enduring record, but not our commitment to explaining it reliably and in detail.

One other thing - I have not restored the Pope chart position because of linkrot. If you look at the first edit of the page, you will see that the chart position was sourced to Allmusic. Allmusic no longer hosts Billboard charts (their contract with Billboard must have expired or something). Billboard does not host jazz charts on its website. I went to the Wayback Machine, and there is no cached version of the Allmusic URL. I even pulled up the relevant chart date from my university's database of Billboard charts, and the jazz chart was not published that week. So this is actually an interesting example of how, sometimes, there can be less knowledge on the Internet as time goes by; there used to be a way to publicly access Billboard's database of jazz charts, and now there is no way to do so. Chubbles (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart information on Wikipedia may be a thing of the past, unless someone uses the print version of Billboard. I don't recall saying I didn't care for the music, though of course I've edited all kinds of music that didn't suit my tastes.
–Vmavanti (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say print references are better, but the truth is, the site is so unstable, people remove everything all the time. But yes, I am increasingly turning to my paper copies of Joel Whitburn's books when I need chapter and verse for chart positions. Chubbles (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Should every album include in the Discography section the other musicians who worked on the album? How many? Could that information, if important, be placed somewhere in the body text instead? What determines which musicians are included? Are you taking into account the impact of screen clutter, blue links, infodumps on readability? If a discography is sourced, sidemen often don't appear on the discography page but on a separate page. It would be false to add sidemen to a page with a citation that points to a page which does not list those sidemen. There would have to be multiple citations for multiple pages.
–Vmavanti (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions in order: Well, yes, unless someone creates album pages for each album. How much detail we provide about a musician's releases varies from musician to musician and from release to release, but especially for jazz, knowing who played with whom on a record is important background information to any listening session, as I'm sure you know. So any major session players on an album are worth recording here; I wish this we had this level of detail on every jazz musician's page. Where should it be placed? Well, you could transfer it all to the body of the text if you were going to fill out the biography with album-by-album sections, as is done e.g. for major pop musicians, but since detailed biographical portraits haven't yet been done for many marginally-notable jazz musicians, I think it makes more sense for that to be simply integrated into the discography. If the visual clutter of it is irksome, there are many ways of organizing discographies; perhaps a table format, with a column for sidemen, would be a worthwhile upgrade. I'm sorry to say I don't follow your argument about citations and sidemen - you may need to explain it a different way for me to understand. Chubbles (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Say there's a discography on Wikipedia. I use AllMusic's Discography page for that musician as a source. AllMusic's disocgraphy list includes the name of the album, the date, and the label, but not the sidemen. Therefore it would be wrong to include the sidemen on a Wikipedia page which cites that AllMusic page as a source. I can put a citation at the end of a Wikipedia discography which points me to AllMusic's discography for that musician. But it doesn't point me to the sidemen. That would require going to each album on the AllMusic list, assuming it has a link and has been reviewed by AllMusic. Or you would go to the credits page for each album. Either way, if you want to include sideman, you have to have a citation for each line, each album, each set of sidemen, not the whole list of albums, because sidemen aren't listed on AllMusic's Discography page. They're listed in each album review or in the credits for each album. Those pages, not the discography page, would have to be cited as the source. You could wind up with fifteen albums and fifteen citations.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of album pages, though that's a good point. I was thinking it would be better to mention sidemen in the body of the article, under the Biography or Career section or whatnot, instead of in the discography. Mentioning sidemen, whether in the body of the entry or in the discography, isn't something I do much, but others do it quite a bit. There are problems with that.

I'm talking specifically about sidemen listed in the Wikipedia discography on the main entry page (not a separate discography page), directly to the right of the album title, usually three or four names or more. If the album has a page, that solves the problem. You wouldn't need to list the sidemen next to the album in the discography. You would click on the album link, go the album page, and read who were the personnel.

I'm conscious of how often, in all kinds of entries, information is tacked on, as though someone with an iphone was having lunch while reading Wikipedia and tapped in some triviality. Drive-by edits. Entries already suffer from discontinuity due to so much cutting and pasting. If discographies are sourced, there might be less of that. It's important that the entry for a jazz musician, including the discography, follow the same rules and standards as the rest of Wikipedia. When one page looks sloppy, it reflects poorly overall on Wikipedia. There's a lot of laziness and sloppiness in the jazz entries, the music entries, movies, and so on, despite their large number. Or maybe because of it. Many people who enter this information don't feel obligated to do it correctly. It's a waste of time for editors to put so much time on these piddly things when there's other more important work to do.

More to the point, I don't like seeing sidemen next to an album. Quickly and easily the discography gets cluttered and hard to read because of the grocery list of musicians, blue links, red links. There is nearly always repetition of names, and thus even more red links and blue links. AllMusic does discographies pretty well, I think, by keeping the extraneous information under a Credits section. The sidemen are not as important as the leader's solo discography, hence the name sidemen. I don't consider that information as vital as the album's name. Information about sidemen be found elsewhere on the web. Not that that should matter. A casual glance at "What Wikipedia Is Not" is always instructive for me. Too many Wikipedia entries are an endless, indiscriminate piling on.

So you have all these problems: citations, screen clutter, repetition and redundancy, inconsistency with other discographies, thoughtless drive-by edits, and so on.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, everything you mention here that's unpalatable seems to be fixable with a table. One row for each album, with a column for sidemen. It'd solve the clutter problem and the layout issues simultaneously, and makes for easy anchoring of citations if you wish to add referencing. I'd also have no objection to all of this information being farmed out to a separate discography page (or to individual album articles, though for a musician as marginal as Simon, you may encounter resistance from deletionists if you can't find half a dozen album reviews to demonstrate individual notability of each album). Chubbles (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. I know what a table is. And I can understand why you feel sidemen ought to be listed. But where's the citation for the sidemen? For each album's sidemen. The citation that exists now refers only to the page that contains album title, year, and label. So the album, year, and label are verified. Where did the sidemen information come from? How did the editor know which sidemen appeared on each album?
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other matter is that sidemen need only be linked once. I don't mean you in particular, I mean editors in general tend to overlink whenever something appears. I spent a of time reading about linking and overlinking and I'm mindful of how overlinking weakens Wikipedia. It's an interesting subject, how to make links more useful. You've probably read these parts, not just the documentation but the essays and tutorials, so I won't hunt for them. I found them quite instructive. Editors, particularly in music entries, often link subjects that are not as important in the body text, such as "New York City" or "musician", but then they will neglect the record label or the names of other musicians. On second thought, I found some tips that I'll put in another section on your Talk Page so that others can read it.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we don't need to condescend to each other here; I know you know what a table is, and you know I know how to link. I just didn't understand why you didn't make the table, instead of nuking all the content. If you would like to add citations for each release, you're welcome to, but this doesn't strike me as terribly urgent work. It's not really contentious or controversial information that is likely to be inaccurate, misleading, or anywhere close to a serious BLP violation. The best source for who played on an album (at least, until that album makes its way into a vetted paper discography based on musicological research of the master sessions) is the liner notes of the vinyl or CD; in lieu of that, a database like AMG can also provide the information, but, as I demonstrated with the chart position, the Internet is unstable (and Wikipedia is volatile) enough that I don't expect such databases to be permanent referencing solutions. But you are more than welcome to add them if you like.

Linking of items in tables or lists can sometimes be frustrating if your suggestion is followed to the letter. An example is the table at Muse Records; if I am halfway down the list and I want more information about e.g. Don Patterson, I have to go up and down until I can find the relevant hyperlink. That's not user-friendly at all. I wish people always linked record label names! You should know I'm right behind you on that one - I do that virtually one hundred percent of the time. There were a few editors who used to meticulously link words like "musician", "recording", or "single (music)", and what you're seeing there is probably a legacy of this effort; again, curating of wikilinking is something I leave mostly to other editors to perfect, as I believe my energies are better spent with other aspects of the project. Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be condescending. You mentioned that you didn't get my point, so I was trying to clarify. To your question about why I deleted the content rather than make a table, I had several reasons. I found the content relatively unimportant, unsourced clutter. How a page looks is important, esp. in the internet. Whether a piece of information is sourced, any piece of information, is important. The documentation tells me Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things this is a small point. Or is it? It's possible to have discographical information challenged. More importantly, there's the habit I mentioned before of drive-by edits. Wherever people are, as long as they have internet access, they feel free to tack on any piece of information that pops into their head, no matter what the subject of the entry. That ought to be discouraged. When information is sourced, that habit is discouraged. When it's not sourced, it's encouraged. A person looks at a sentence in Wikipedia, sees the footnote number, and thinks "Well, maybe I shouldn't tack on my two cents which just popped into my head, if things are being done in a serious, documented way." Or to that effect. As opposed to the destructive: "I remember Charlie Parker played on that album, so I'll just tack his name onto this line, right next to the album." It's well intentioned. They think they are being helpful. But they're not. Suppose the same approach were taken in a more serious entry or a more serious piece of information. You would probably be against it. Yes, I know, it's not the most important information in the world. Well, it is and it isn't, right? In a certain sense all the information is important.

I know that you know what you're doing, and I'm not trying to be difficult. But if we can eliminate a degree of thoughtless, drive-editing, then to me it's worth a try.

Generally, I dislike tables because I think they're are an eyesore—on discographies. On some national statistic or whatnot, that's different. Discographies are not that important. That information can be found elsewhere, and there's little need to be absolutely thorough. Nearly all Wikipedia discographies are partial discographies, too, though they aren't titled that way every time. I'm OK with that because Wikipedia is a constant work in progress.

If it sounds like I'm contradicting myself about the value of information, consider this. The less information there is, the less there has to be sourced. And if editors can agree on this approach I've described, that means less time spent having to explain to newbies and others why something is done. Frequently someone will say to me "But on this page it's done differently" and I have to explain a lot about how Wikipedia works.

Please keep in mind my point about reducing thoughtless or incorrect or unsourced edits. To me, the addition of sidemen on the same line as each album does more harm than good, whether it's in a table or not. Whether I personally find that information interesting is a different subject from whether it is good for Wikipedia and its millions of readers. But I do think that as much information as possible in an entry, any entry, ought to be sourced, and that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Better to have less information which is sourced than a lot of information which is unsourced. And on Wikipedia, esp. on music entries, there's a lot of unsourced information.

Yeah, ultimately this comes down to a difference in Wikipedia philosophies. I think if we were serious about stopping the kind of drive-by editing and proliferation of unsourced content you're talking about, we would discourage anonymous, instant-display editing. But Wikipedia's contribution model specifically encourages that sort of behavior. You're fighting the design of the site itself - you're fighting what makes it unique (and frustrating), and what distinguishes it from other encyclopedias (such as WP:NOTPAPER, which informs a lot of my attempts to include relevant information - and relevant articles - that others view as excessive or superfluous). There is no way to definitively anchor sourcing of material on the site - that sort of metadata structure hasn't been invented yet. Even if you exhaustively source everything, it's all for naught if your source forgets to pay his GoDaddy bill, and it's all for naught if some twelve-year-old comes along and inserts the word "not" at the beginning of the sentence or moves the reference to the next sentence (both of which I have seen happen here!). If you want to see more things sourced, I absolutely encourage you to go and source them - even if it's boilerplate, everyday information. The site is happy to have your contributions. It's just not what I will spend most of my energies doing as well. Happy editing! Chubbles (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this helpful: User:Tony1/Build your linking skills. And this (all of this is a quote, though I don't have the link offhand. I'll try to find it.)

Link tip. OK, here's the deal with popular culture articles: they typically need to link to the many items that refer to musical output (songs, tracks, albums), other musicians, and bands.

It is therefore of great importance that common terms not be linked unless absolutely necessary, to avoid diluting these many valuable links. Unfortunately, articles on popular culture tend to indulge in the significant overlinking of trivial terms (I've seen "roses", "suicide", "divorce" and "high school" recently, which detracted from the useful links).

In popular culture articles, generally don't link these items:

American/US/U.S.; British/English/UK; Canada/Canadian; Ireland/Irish; Australia(n); New Zealand(er); France, Germany, Italy, Europe, China, India, Asia, etc. New York (City); Los Angeles; London

actor/actress; comedian; singer(-songwriter); writer/author; film producer; record producer; television producer (and specify which, please); entrepreneur; businessman; guitar; bass guitar (don't abbreviate to "bass"); synthesizer; keyboard; drum (kit); percussion

film; cinema; television; radio; CD; DVD; documentary; theater/re née (woman's surname before marriage); stage name; autobiography; divorce; libel; cancer; heart attack (or other common diseases) game show; talk show; host dates, decades, centuries heroin; drug addiction; alcoholism; rape; homosexual
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put this information here for whomever might be interested, not as a way of chastising Chubbles. He knows what's he doing.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ed Wynne (saxophonist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus ^(talk) 17:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that discogs.com is a site run by contributors and therefore can not be a reliable source.
–Vmavanti (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for the side musicians on the Marvin Stamm page?
–Vmavanti (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about splitting off the notable musicians section from the swing music page? I've never done that before. I've never created a page before. It's a long list and it looks completely unsourced.
–Vmavanti (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind hearing your reasons for creating red links, in general and specifically on the Bill DeArango entry. My approach is something like the following.

From the WP documentation I recall the obvious point that not every piece of information that exists needs to be in Wikipedia. For music entries, this translates to: not every musician, album, or song needs a Wikipedia entry. Most of the red links I see appear to be requests from people who believe there is a magic fairy who will make all their red-link requests come true. Actually, writing an entry, even a bad one, takes a lot of time, as you know. That's good, in a way, because I don't like to see hastily created entries, and there are too many of those. Most of the red links I see, and which I de-link, are for lesser known, less significant musicians, albums, and songs that don't need to be created yet, if at all. Meanwhile, the more important entries go untouched or slightly tweaked. There are too many people changing commas and too few doing the harder work of writing worthwhile entries. I respect quality over quantity. Many of the music entries aren't very good.

These reasons explain my habit of de-linking red links. I rarely create red links, and when I do it's because I'm about to create the page, something which is rare and which has only recently begun. I would like to discourage the creation of red links, for reasons suggested above, and because they are unpleasant to see on the screen. Let's work on what needs to be done, first, then worry later about adding more entries. That's a guideline I try to follow, though of course there are exceptions, and of course keeping in mind that we are dealing with a degree of subjectivity because the subject is music.
– Vmavanti (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Paul Humphrey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not assert the importance or notability of the subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JayCodec (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted two of my changes to redirects because "the content wasn't merged anywhere, it would make much more sense to merge into the artist page or a discography page rather than remove entirely". That's not the case. None of the content is referenced so. per WP:V, it should simply be deleted. I am nominating both of those recordings for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The White Ox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Redirect was contested so I suggest a complete deletion unless there is evidence that there are a lot of page views.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The White Ox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Contested redirect and PROD. Fails notability, either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Redirect was contested so I suggest a complete deletion unless there is evidence that there are a lot of page views.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The White Ox is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Ox until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cake or Death (Cake or Death album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, no evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You typed REDIERCT instead of REDIRECT xD, i fixed it. --DashyGames (contribs) 01:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I unlink someone, then you revert it and turn it back to a red link, you say, "these are needed articles". I'm familiar with the major, minor, and sub-minor figures in jazz. Are you suggesting to me that there is a huge demand for an article about Rikiya Higashihara? Needed in what sense? Even if you could establish notability for these obscure names, common sense can tell you who is more important or more likely to be read if an entry existed. So when you say "demand", what do you mean? What do mean by "needed"? Is it your intention to have an entry about every person who has ever picked up an instrument? Why add one more red link or one more stub when there's so much more to do, more pressing matters? Where's the common sense?
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Alex^TW 01:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your soul! :-) After all these years Benny Aronov gets his own article. For more than ten years, you've been doing great work, filling in all those gaps with new articles. You've certainly adhered consistently to your specialty. In my opinion, these articles are well worth having. In this case, though Aronov is obviously not a stellar name, his piano work as jazz accompanist does have a certain notability. I first became aware of him on June Christy recordings over 30 (!) years ago. I can only add, keep up the great work, and I'm glad this article gave me an excuse to thank you after all this time. (I think we may have interacted briefly before, many years ago.) Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles, you cannot get an answer to such a question. Justices do not explain why they recuse themselves. The two principal reasons are (1) case was argued before they were on Court to hear oral argument; (2) they have a personal relationship (were counsel for a party, wife is arguing case, they own stock in a party) that makes it inappropriate for them the adjudicate case. Please remove your WHY? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Bell/AT&T was the respondent and they probably owned stock. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mandi Perkins#COI edits part III, a post by someone claiming that Mandi is their client. — Gestrid (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You *really* don't like them, do you. :)

As an additional humorous note, go to Golden Key's page, then, members and chapters and "how to join" from that drop down. Scroll down to India, and select "Download our India brochure". In the Brochure (left side of page 2), it says "How can you tell if an Honor Society is legitimate? Make sure that it is registered with the Association of Collegiate Honor Societies (ACHS). Check www.achsnatl.org" . Looks like we agree with GK on something.

Also, I see that you have *lots* of information from the CHE article, do you have access to the entire article? (and you need to withdraw the AFD, not sure how to do that off the top of my head. :(Naraht (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The withdrawl procedure is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_.28nominator_withdrawal.29 , but I'm not sure on the AFD gurus doing it for you. :) The article talks about attempting to join the ACHS in 1984 and 1997 and resigning in 2013, I'll try to find out when they were successful in joining the ACHS. (And the ACHS has taken some small, young groups. Epsilon Pi Phi was founded in 2006 and has 13 chapters.Naraht (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbies.

I see that the catalog for Cuneiform Records has been removed by you. Not sure if you're aware, but there has been a long and protracted "discussion" about the need for this catalog, since the information provided is reference material and is not easily available on Cuneiform's own website. I see that you have a history of unilaterally removing information that you feel is inappropriate or unnecessary. Perhaps next time you consider putting this up for discussion rather than taking it upon yourself? Incidentally, there are DOZENS of other record labels (ECM, Obscure, etc.) which have catalogs posted, so it might also be nice to follow Wikipedia protocol.Rcarlberg (talk)

Okay, how does one deal with a particularly obstinate and self-important editor like Jytdog?Rcarlberg (talk)

Hello. This page has been tagged for speedy deletion under the a7 criteria.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Best, -- — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me on anything involving this. I'm glad you've started things on the talk page. Regardless of the information added, it is completely unreferenced.Naraht (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point when there is so much other work to do. My intent is to improve Wikipedia. What's yours? I've run across several articles today that you started about extremely minor jazz figures. You understand that these articles are more a burden than a benefit unless you are going to put more work into them. They're on the thinnest ice of notability, candidates for deletion almost from the beginning. It looks like you're trying to create articles for every name in the New Grove Dictionary. Why? Please give me a sensible, mature reason. There are too many trivial jazz articles already, not to mention half-assed articles in other forms of music and pop culture. You're creating unnecessary work for the rest of us. You know what whack-a-mole is.
–Vmavanti (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jolly Roger Records at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burnt Toast Vinyl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt Toast Vinyl until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]