This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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
A full list of artists is encyclopedic. Label rosters are not generally controversial and are in the main trivially easy to verify; if there's a specific concern that a listed artist may not be signed to the label, please by all means bring this up, but cases requiring independent RS sourcing (as opposed to simply verifying on the label website or from published recordings) are rare. Chubbles (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." 2603:7000:2143:8500:2C05:FB19:D683:6C9E (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but people who willy-nilly remove tons of things without any legitimate reason to suspect them are not really here to build an encyclopedia. There's no need to cite that the sky is blue, and what bands are signed to what label is typically that kind of information; albums are published works, and there's no need to cite-stuff an article with a footnote to each of those published albums. No one needs or wants that kind of citation practice. So...is there some legitimate reason why we would think one or more of the bands listed is in error? If so, I certainly would take it seriously, but in the absence of that, torpedoing the whole list sounds awful WP:POINTy. Chubbles (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that following policy is best for the project. From what I can see, much more damage is done by people adding material that is not cited to RSs, than by people following policy and removing material that is not supported by RSs. Which is "willy nilly"? Policy places the burden on the person restoring challenged material. I don't see any murkiness here. wp:burden really sets forth a clear wp policy. I'm pointing to policy. HTBAE is an essay. and what bands are signed to what labels is certainly not a "sky is blue" data point. There's really no reason to retain uncited material if, as you perhaps suggest, the only reason there is no ref is that people are too lazy to put in refs here - while they are required elsewhere throughout the project. Seriously - for players on sports teams, we require refs. But you think bands supposedly on labels don't require refs? I see enough BS people added to lists of people that I think that it dangerous. As well as contrary to wp policy. 2603:7000:2143:8500:2952:FE42:A26B:87D1 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A released album is a published work, but it'd be silly to put in a raft of citations to each individual album (ultimately, the better use of that effort, in my view, would be the creation of a full discography table). Those are links that no one needs and no one would use; they would be there only to satisfy the pique of a single editor demanding WP:LAWYERly adherence to the letter of the law. Honestly, I think there are lots of list articles that are being ludicrously and unnecessarily over-footnoted these days, because people are taking that position way too seriously for material that is not subject to any serious question over verification. (For instance, when I see actor filmographies with hundreds of citations to independent news articles for each of their film roles, I want to claw my eyes out - the actor is credited in the movie! The movie is a published work! No one was questioning this! But I can't control what people want to waste their time on.) Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you refuse to heed wp:burden. That's clear wp policy. Not an essay. Not lawyerly. We have people all over the project adding names to lists that don't belong. Upon challenge and removal, it is incumbent on you - as the editor restoring it - to provide an RS link. You refuse to. What's that about? Are you now going to do the same with lists of people in other areas - not just musicians, but members of teams, and residents of cities, and alumni of schools? Are you going to have wikipedia's voice say it's true that a band of BLPs is represented by label x -- without you supplying an RS ref when you restore it? We are not just two people discussing individual ideas as to what would be a good wp policy. We have a wp policy. It is clear. It is the result of wp editors reaching a consensus. I do think it would be appropriate for you to follow wp:burden - especially (though not only) where singers and bands - collections of living people (often) - are involved. I see nothing in what you have said that excuses not following the very clear wp:blp. And I think actually that there is harm to the project in allowing people to lie without a proper ref and add names that are not supportable/supported to lists like these. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E821:D9AC:482D:8D9D (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which entry is a lie? (i.e., an intentional untruth added by an unscrupulous editor) If there is reason to believe one or more of the entries was added fallaciously, I certainly will investigate. Chubbles (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An untruth - added by an unscrupulous editor such as the many who seek to self promote who edit at the project, or by an ignorant editor - hurts the project. If it has been removed, the burden is on you not to restore it, if it lacks an RS ref, without supplying an RS ref. This isn't my view. It is wp policy. As you can see. In wp:burden. It protects the project from becoming the repository of untruths. Otherwise, we are a magnet for untruths. Which we see at all sorts of lists. Our protection is wp:burden. We don't depend on all-knowing subject matter experts "knowing" that band x or singer y was in fact recorded by label z. We look for RSs. For verifability. It is the same issue here and with sports teams and high schools and people from Zagreb. There is no special rule for pages often read by editor A, B, or C, that exempts it from that rule. 2603:7000:2143:8500:3154:F18A:66C0:5CA0 (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have we...met before? This approach to the subject matter sounds uncomfortably familiar to someone who used to spend a very great deal of time in lame edit wars with me. Chubbles (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
