Talk:Panchiko

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hoax article

The backstory to this band and album are an obvious hoax. There's no evidence they ever existed before 2016, and just because some major websites got duped into promoting the fabrication doesn't prove or legitimize it. The article needs to be deleted, or completely rewritten with a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:7104:6800:A85F:624B:EBF9:4FC0 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:8801:7104:6800:A85F:624B:EBF9:4FC0: I think this is a legitimate concern. For what it's worth, on a personal level, I don't care about the album's backstory being a hoax or not - it's still good music. I believe that although there is no evidence they ever existed before 2016 besides the band's own admission and the date on the EP, there is also no concrete evidence to the contrary - really, from what I've found on the Internet regarding theories on the band being a hoax, it's not really covered in anything beyond blogs and social media. It is very possible that some EP recorded by high school kids could be lost to the sands of time in a random charity shop. Even if it is a hoax, the information is accepted by pretty much all sources, and going against these with no real evidence would constitute OR to me - from my understanding of the way Wikipedia policy works, if all the secondary sources corroborate something as true, it's not anyone's business to go against these sources with their own theories. Wikipedia is based on sources, not one's own opinion, and if the sources show something to be true, it is true to Wikipedia. The backstory might not be proved or legitimized, but there's really nothing better, is there? If better sources than blogs and Reddit posts ever pick up on the backstory being a hoax, then it will be changed. Roniius^{talk to me} 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very late to this, but... While I can understand reasoned skepticism, we've compiled plenty of information that lends towards the authenticity of this band's history. For the sake of their anonymity, we have chosen not to reveal their personal information.

However, everything we've seen and know about has been documented, and can be easily cross referenced if needed. Since 2020 there has been a large number of trolls seeking to delegitimize and slander discussion on the band, often on 4chan. Therefore I suggest taking their claims with a grain of salt, as the proof far outweighs conspiracy theory. I have yet to see anything brought forth that can prove otherwise.

- Toad 🐸, worked on the original search Toadguy64 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you have a conflict of interest, dont edit this page Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Band's Privacy & This Page

I noticed that the last edit added the last names of two of the band members to the page. Is this considered a violation of privacy? As far as I know, the band in question has gone to great lengths to keep their names and personal details anonymous, so this raises the question, is this acceptable since this is a wiki page, or should these details be removed? I don't want to promote bias towards or against anyone and I don't know enough about Wikipedia's policy here to comment, so hopefully someone more equipped with knowledge on this can help me out here.

- Toad 🐸 Toadguy64 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy and Owain's full names are listed in the credits of the 'Live in Nottingham' YouTube videos. (Source). Andy, Owain and Shaun's full names have also been published in the latest Guardian article which they were interviewed for, so it seems they have changed their stance on it now. (Source). In addition, Andy publicly revealed his connection to the We Show Up on Radar project back in December 2021 in an interview for The Indie Scene. (Source). Profoundemonium (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information Overload

For a band that doesn't have a long-spanning career, I find that there is a lot of bloat-information. For average viewers who want to read more about something, it's unnecessarily specific. This is especially apparent when including information such as the exact chapter and page the D>E>A>T>H>M>E>T>A>L cover takes its art from, as well as naming the inspiration and samples used for each song. It should be considered that the article be shortened to not be over-specific. Gamefreak924 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I previously replied in slight disagreement, but upon rereading the article, I agree that it could be more concise. I went ahead and removed some bloaty/trivial/overly specific information that I was responsible for adding. Everything that remains seems relevant/significant to the history of the band, but even so, I suppose more info could be shed. But I hope my recent changes/deletions made the article a bit more readable. Whole Life in Pink (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty Timeline?

A user removed the timeline I made for the band members for being "faulty". Indeed, it looked like the markup code was turning up errors, however, when I initially created the timeline, it looked good on the page for the duration of a week, before something broke? I wonder what went wrong and why it couldn't be fixed. I don't know much about making timelines in Wikipedia. But I think a timeline would really benefit this article. And if anyone else thinks so too, you can find my original wikitext timeline in the article's edit history. Whole Life in Pink (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the band timeline, that got removed for being faulty. I think it was faulty because I included line data regarding their upcoming album, which hasn't been released yet so there was nowhere for the line to fall, which confused Mother Wikipedia. Which was strange because I think the band timeline remained up in a normal state for like a week before breaking?? It's confusing... but if the timeline breaks again, feel free to remove it from the article. Whole Life in Pink (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stylisation regarding titles

I was wondering if the way the title is formatted (D>E>A>T>H>M>E>T>A>L) should be changed to simply Deathmetal as several videos and tracks in streaming services seem to also use the latter format. Same thing happens with R>O>B>O>T>S>R>E>P>R>I>S>E. Timeless Days (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Cultures

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2024 and 28 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miavilke (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gslesz.

— Assignment last updated by RoccNRoll (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]