Talk:Displeased Records

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Record Labels

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Artist list[edit]

Banner has removed non-linked artists several times, claiming they are unsourced, but is also placing a note and header restricting the list to notable artists. The linked artists are also unsourced, so it's unclear why they would be permitted to stay. The reason, as he's explained elsewhere, is that sourcing isn't really the issue; notability is, and sourcing is being used as a stalking-horse for the dispute between restricting the article according to bullet 1 of WP:CSC or expanding it to the full artist list according to bullet 3 of WP:CSC.

So I've edited the article to demonstrate why sourcing a list like this with footnotes is fundamentally silly. To ask for a source for an artist list is to as for proof that a band is signed to a label. That is proven with an album released on the label, which is a published work. A discography is just like a bibliography; a bibliographical citation proves that an author has published with a particular publishing house, and in the same way, a discographical citation proves that a musical artist has released on a record label. But it's not useful to anyone to put in discographical footnotes for each artist like I have just done with the first five entries on this list; it would be much more valuable to put in a full table discography (would you ask for sourcing for that, too? It would be like asking for the sources to a bibliography in a book!). There's not actually any controversy or dispute over the facts of the case here, which is why asking for rigorous sourcing isn't honest editing here.

So I'd like to respectfully request that it stopped being asked of me, a volunteer, by a single editor on this page. If there is a genuine concern over unclear or legitimately disputed information on the page, then asking for sourcing makes sense. It does not in this case. Chubbles (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet 1 is not applicable, as not every artist is notable in this list

Bullet 2 is not applicable, as some artists in this list are notable

Bullet 3 is not applicable, as that states "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". Alas, the list misses independent sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is applicable

WP:NOTCATALOG is also applicable.

It is a pity that you are not able to accept the often used criterium to only mention notable items. The Banner talk 00:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly a case of a short, complete list of verifiable entries. There are not hundreds of bands signed to this label; the only labels where that becomes an issue are the majors. There are a handful of bands on the label - a couple dozen. Good to know that my extended discussion of sourcing and verification was completely ignored. Chubbles (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you only have a pointy remark in return. But you can always add independent' sources. That will make the list more reliable and verifiable. The Banner talk 09:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources are not required to prove that something exists. The thing itself proves that it exists. Your standard is not logical; it's overapplying RS to the point where it no longer makes sense. Chubbles (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sounds as if those independent sources do not exist, hence your objection. And no, WP:V and WP:RS are not illogical, they are the foundation of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 09:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to exist to prove the point, and they don't need to be placed in the article to substantiate the claims. No one is doubting the existence of a published piece of media here to the point where we would need independent sources to prove its existence. Chubbles (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why your continued resistance against a reliable list of notable artists? You make it sound like you are just unable to provide those sources. The Banner talk 09:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is not a requirement. I do not need to resist a "reliable list of notable artists"; I can merely provide the list as it is not prohibited to do so. Chubbles (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not have the independent sources. Thank you. And please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels#Artist lists in articles again where there was no support for your stance. The Banner talk 17:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? For one thing, I was a major contributor to that conversation, and for another, if you see no support for my stance, you'll need to be the one doing the re-reading. Chubbles (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is no surprise that you are in denial. But I see Greywalls, Masem, JoelleJay and Jalen Folf disagreeing with you and only some lukewarm support from QuietHere. The Banner talk 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've grown tired of the personal attacks in this conversation, which makes me disinclined to continue it. Chubbles (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having no answer to my arguments means that my arguments are personal attacks???? The Banner talk 16:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I also tire of the willful misreading of my arguments, which further disinclines me. Chubbles (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]