Talk:Excelsior Recordings

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Promotional"

I am logging out for now, but I hope a discussion will begin before I am reverted again. I should be back to talk later today. Chubbles (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And no, in 2014 we did not agree that that this was not promo. Could you please stop editwarring? The Banner talk 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Editwarring applies to you, too. Shall we talk rather than revert? Chubbles (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

COI

One of the editors, the one who likes to add non-notable artist, clearly has a conflict of interest. So I have added COI-template to show this. The Banner talk 13:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please name the editor you believe to have a COI. What sort of connection do you propose this editor has to the label? Chubbles (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your innocence is funny. The Banner talk 21:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There were two editors involved recently, but I was pretty sure you meant me. I do not have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. Chubbles (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

But you still want every non-notable artist in the list... The Banner talk 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the list should be comprehensive, yes. Notability is not the relevant marker for inclusion. That has nothing to do with the COI accusation, which hopefully you are dropping. Chubbles (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that you reject WP:LISTPEOPLE. But the best option to get the article in the list is by writing articles about them. WP:WTAF and so on. The Banner talk 23:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a list article - it's an article whose content includes a list, which is part of the content of the article. Notability does not apply to content, and a complete list of signees is encyclopedic. Chubbles (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same argument you have used in 2014. So history is repeating. Why do you not write the articles? The Banner talk 01:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's...not my job to write every article about every notable musician? But even if they don't have articles, they still should be listed here. Chubbles (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-notable entities do not belong in this list. Contrary, I am not the only one who see that as promotion. Especially with your clear rfusal to fix the problem and you campaign since 2014 to get the non-notables in. The Banner talk 11:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no promotional element to merely listing signees - this isn't offering those bands any undue praise or exposure. It is simply matter-of-factly stating who is on the label, and a full list of the label's signees is fundamentally the most encyclopedic thing we can provide in a label's article. I am not running a "campaign", and this is not a "problem". Chubbles (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of non-notable signees. The Banner talk 13:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be degrading into "is too!", "is not!", "is too!", "is not!", etc. Chubbles (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The signees are what makes a record label (speaking in generalities), and can certainly help a reader understand a subject. The problem here is WP:V. Articles on notable artists will usually have a reference that notes what label(s) the artist signed with. That can't happen with a non-notable artist. The list of artists is readily accessible at the company's site [1], do you have any sense that this is complete? It's certainly long enough. Would it be possible to point to that list without acting as a promotional tool? I'm tired, not thinking or articulating clearly. How about we just keep Speed 78 because of the awesome name? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A full list of artists, including non-notable artists

For many years, a list of non-notable artists is restored in this article. Chubbles claims that a list of all artists, notable and non-notable, is valid. For some reason, he claims that WP:CSC does not apply here as - in his opinion - "notability does not apply to content".

To my opinion, that restoring the list time and time and time again, is reason to have a serious WP:COI and WP:SPAM. The Banner talk 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand this statement, so I will break it down sentence by sentence.

• "For many years, a list of non-notable artists is restored in this article." - A complete (or as-complete-as-can-be) list was part of this article for a long time, but it was only recently removed, and then restored by me, a few days ago.
• "Chubbles claims that a list of all artists, notable and non-notable, is valid." - Yes, I do.
• "For some reason, he claims that WP:CSC does not apply here as - in his opinion - "notability does not apply to content"." - No. I claim that WP:CSC does apply here; the list meets the criteria for inclusion as it is encyclopedic, bounded, and reasonable in length. Notability does not apply to content; this is not merely my opinion, but in fact is also a community guideline. See WP:NNC.
• "To my opinion, that restoring the list time and time and time again, is reason to have a serious WP:COI and WP:SPAM." I don't support the inclusion of spam and have no COI here; I plan to restore the lists at e.g. Displeased Records, DVS Records, and Music from Memory, as well, once this discussion is concluded, but I thought that reverting you several times over several pages would be disruptive (a restraint you have not shown here, since you have thrice removed the content, but I trust you are already familiar with WP:EDITWAR and are just ignoring it).

So, as I did in the edit summary, I maintain that a full list is encyclopedic, and that the selective removal is not justified. Artist lists on label pages are not inherently promotional; they are basic fact provision, and are ultimately the most encyclopedic pieces of information we can provide about a label. If we do nothing else in a label article, we should provide info about what musicians they publish. Chubbles (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have restrained myself, otherwise I would have removed the non-notables much more often. But do I see that you started following me around? The Banner talk 10:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of record labels on my watchlist. You haven't addressed the substance of my claims. Chubbles (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nor did you address my concerns. The Banner talk 10:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I did - I directly responded to your claim with support for my actions with Wikipedia guidelines. Notability is not the criterion for inclusion in a record label roster list! Your response was that I am a COI editor, which I am not, and that I am spamming, which I am not. These are ad-hominem claims. You seem to have followed up with a barrage of removals just now - just on my watchlist, Underground, Inc., Dancing Ferret, Darkest Labyrinth, Fateless Records, Invisible Records, Projekt Records, and Season of Mist. My concern is not only for this article, and these removals are not justified. Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I love it when somebody starts following me around as an excuse for their deeds. As if you have no real content-based arguments. The Banner talk 15:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please respond to the content of my claims. I have for many years restored artist lists on label pages as encyclopedic; this is not about you personally, and restoring the lists you've removed would be both supported by guideline and would be in keeping with my longstanding editing habits. Chubbles (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you following me around? The Banner talk 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sir, I am a routine editor on record label pages. I have hundreds of record labels on my watchlist, and all of the ones named in the 2nd list above are on my watchlist. The first 3 in the 1st list I found by looking at your last 50 edits, which is not following you around; editors do that all the time. I haven't yet looked to see if you did a mass removal of more pages than were on my watchlist yesterday, but I am claiming that none of them are helpful or encyclopedia-building based on the guidelines I cited above. Can we talk about Wikipedia's content guidelines, or are you going to continue to make personal attacks? Chubbles (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Something like: WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Point 1. And Wikipedia:NOTEVERYTHING. The Banner talk 15:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, now we have something to talk about. Neither of those guidelines apply to label artist lists. An artist listing on a record label page does not fall under any of the 5 categories in WP:NOTDIR; it is encyclopedic since it provides comprehensive information about a label's output. The only important thing that most (virtually all!) labels do is release sound from recording artists, and we do our readers a service when we provide them a full list (rather than an abbreviated one that is only useful for navigation - this is not a navbox, it is an artist roster). WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply here because the artist list is directly relevant to the label having an article in the first place. So if these are the reasons you're pinging off artist lists, they're not sufficient justification. Chubbles (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you reject this too, as you did with all other arguments.

In fact, the argument you give for this is - to my opinion - only in the commercial interest of the record label and thus advertising. The Banner talk 11:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not in the commercial interest of any defunct label, because their commercial interests have ceased - and we do not have a guideline stating that defunct label rosters should be handled any differently than active label rosters. As for currently-operating labels, it is no more in their commercial interest than any other encyclopedic fact presented on a label's encyclopedia page. Furthermore, you have only removed the names of bands without articles; the lists of bands with articles, by your rationale, would also be in the commercial interest of the label itself, and yet you leave them to stand. The reasoning here isn't checking out at all. Chubbles (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Talking about a reasoning that does not make sense... The Banner talk 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I've demonstrated to you that there is a case to be made for a full list, and that you're not justified in blanket reverting me over and over again. Please take me seriously. If you wish to have your way on these pages, you are going to have to talk it through. Please do not continue reverting me time and time again. Chubbles (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I take you serious personally, but your reasoning makes no sense. Why add non-notable artists? We are not a digital library. But as a compromise: could you add independent sources that an artist is signed up to a specific label? Or just write the article about the artist? The Banner talk 05:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

For example, the Radboud University Nijmegen has an embedded list of alumni. As you can see, limited to notable alumni. Why is the limitation valid for universities but not for record labels? The Banner talk 15:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the number of alumni is very large, and there is not an encyclopedic or navigational benefit to including a list of everyone who has graduated from a university. This is not true for an independent record label; a full accounting of the artists they release is at the heart of encyclopedic information provision. A list of alumni of a major degree-granting institution would fail WP:CSC, but for independent labels, CSC is satisfied; these are "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". Chubbles (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you deny this argument too. But at least, can you prove - with independent sources - that the unlinked or red links artist are indeed a member of that group? The Banner talk 22:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would this be necessary, except as something to annoy me in order to make a point? Musical artist label information is almost never controversial information; you wouldn't be challenging it because you have good-faith concerns that it is incorrect. I suspect this is merely a way to smuggle in your previous contention that the real problem here has nothing to do with sourcing, but with your belief that the artist lists on label pages are inherently promotional. Chubbles (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Aha, now are you coming with pointy comments to avoid doing something. But you are twisting my intentions here, I only limit the list to notable artist, while you want to add every artist, notable or non-notable, even without independent sourcing. The Banner talk 08:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

But that's the whole crux of the issue. If notability were the issue with this list (and, as I noted repeatedly, it is not), sourcing (independent or not) wouldn't solve the problem you claim to have identified. Why would you ask for it? (I most certainly do want to avoid doing something that satisfies you and is not useful to other editors, readers, or the encyclopedic project.) Chubbles (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think what you do is not in the best interest to other editors, readers, or the encyclopedic project. Because no matter what, you say no. Without any flexibility and - in my humble opinion - intention of solving this through discussion. You just want the longest unsourced list of notable and non-notable artists as possible. And you keep hammering on that, with shaky arguments. The Banner talk 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not want the longest list possible; I want a list that is exactly as long as the number of artists who released albums on the label, consistent with CSC. Chubbles (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But this is not a stand-alone list but an embedded list. The Banner talk 18:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The criteria are the same; WP:LISTPURP notes that lists may be for information rather than navigation (obviously), and the section links directly to the stand-alone list criteria. WP:EMBED redirects to above on the same page. Chubbles (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you have now decided to follow me around to push your private opinion. The Banner talk 17:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You're editing pages in the areas of record labels and Christian music, where I have edited copiously in the past. It's no surprise that you are popping up on my watchlist frequently. And I have no compunction about reverting your edits when they are serial and unconstructive. I am no more following you around than you are following me around, and I will note once more that my edits are backed by logic and guideline. Why would we treat embedded lists any differently than stand-alone lists (certainly, why would they be any more restrictive than stand-alone lists?) Chubbles (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would embedded list be less restrictive than stand-alone lists? You are adding non-notable artists, usually unsourced, making them less encyclopedic using a reasoning for stand-alone lists instead of a reasoning designed for embedded lists. The Banner talk 11:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But why would we even have a separate line of reasoning for embedded lists? The logics for inclusion in either type of list are going to be the same. Notability is not the issue; I note again, it does not apply to the content of articles, and following WP:CSC, it's not applicable to reasonably short, contained lists (the guidelines suggests less than 32k size, which applies to all but the major labels). The guideline states, "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list" - but that is demonstrably not the case on any of the articles you've shortened, and a full list of artists is informational and encyclopedically relevant to the label. Chubbles (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

And why not? Why do you resist sourcing entries? Why do you resist the removal on non-notable entries? Why do you use arguments for a stand alone list to fill an embedded list? That just makes no sense. The Banner talk 14:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I quite literally just answered why I resist the removal of non-notable entries in the last thing I said. (to repeat: "Notability is not the issue; I note again, it does not apply to the content of articles, and following WP:CSC, it's not applicable to reasonably short, contained lists (the guidelines suggests less than 32k size, which applies to all but the major labels). The guideline states, "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list" - but that is demonstrably not the case on any of the articles you've shortened, and a full list of artists is informational and encyclopedically relevant to the label.") I also quite literally just answered why I use arguments for a stand alone list to fill an embedded list in the last thing I said. (to repeat: "But why would we even have a separate line of reasoning for embedded lists? The logics for inclusion in either type of list are going to be the same.") The sourcing is unnecessary and cumbersome to readers, especially when the issue is not one of verifiability (your complaint, fundamentally, is not about sourcing, but rather about notability, and for the thousandth time, I point out that notability is not the deciding factor in what is included in a list). I have, repeatedly and directly, already answered all of the questions you just asked, more than once. Chubbles (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And your arguments still make no sense. Especially because you keep using arguments about stand alone list to defend your actions on embedded list. The Banner talk 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Your argument makes no sense" is disengaging from the argument, not offering a rationale. Do you see a reason for treating the embedded lists any differently? Chubbles (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And I have given my arguments for that many times already. The Banner talk 13:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait, when did you make the case that there is a reason to treat embedded lists differently than stand-alone lists, and what were the more stringent requirements you recommended based on guidelines? Chubbles (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you completely misunderstood this discussion. The Banner talk 09:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, really, I'm asking...I don't recall you addressing either issue. Chubbles (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This proves how bad you have read this discussion that you only now notice that there is a difference between stand-alone lists (the argument you uses) and embedded lists (what is the subject of this discussion). The Banner talk 18:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat for the third time: "But why would we even have a separate line of reasoning for embedded lists? The logics for inclusion in either type of list are going to be the same." Chubbles (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As it is not the same. The Banner talk 08:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the reasoning? Chubbles (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Read this thread please. The Banner talk 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't give a reasoning. You gave an example, of a university embedded list, and I pointed out that this is not comparable to a list of independent record label signees. The limiting of the university list to notables conforms to CSC, because of the (large) size of the list and the negligible informational value of total inclusion; a full list of label signees conforms to CSC because of the (small) size of the list and the substantial informational value of total inclusion. The list criteria in CSC is still the yardstick for inclusion in these cases, even though they are embedded. There is no policy or guideline support for treating embedded lists any differently (or at least, I have not found one, and you have not provided one.) Chubbles (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Do all artists need a separate citation?

It seems like only the artists featured on this page that don't have their own Wikipedia pages need citations added. Why not cite all artists signed to the label? I'm quite new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if this is a silly question. Nowhere Box (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion all non-notable artists (= artists without their own Wikipedia-article) can be removed. But I know that someone will object to this. He will use WP:CSC, third bullet: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. But he fails to verify it with independent sources. The Banner talk 18:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

He means me. Your question is not silly. The citation tags were added by the above editor, who has added them as a stalking-horse for his belief that non-notable artists should not be in label artist lists. I disagree, as artist lists are fundamentally encyclopedic to covering what record labels do. You're welcome to humor him if you like, but the tags are idiosyncrasies rather than requirements. Chubbles (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)