Jump to content

Talk:Schaliach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability and reliable sources tags

[edit]

@Graywalls, as you have challenged the notability of the article and the reliability of the sources, please discuss here.

The website of Matt Morrow I can understand being viewed as questionable, but he's a subject expert as I explained here. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bloggy sources that are borderline fanzine and sources like Amazon. With the way these sources are used to justify dropping big names in a way like "has been compared to A, B, C..." suggests notability masking Graywalls (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls the comparisons were sonic comparisons, and that's commonplace in reviews and band articles for discussion of the band's style. The Amazon source is for a release by the artist, it's not meant for notability but to verify that the song was released. Look at how sources are used. The Phantom Tollbooth was a long-running website of good reputation with an established staff and editorial team.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to notability, CMnexus lists several additional reliable sources. I do not have access to those archives, but they do exist.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources issue should be resolved, as I switched to primary sources (digital listing via Apple Music for the one compilation, and I added info about the same song being on the 2005 re-release of Sonrise supported by the album liner notes themselves).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, Chronicles of Chaos is listed at WP:A/S as a reliable source. Additionally, if it's one specific source, and it's not used throughout the article, you can tag that specific source with an inline tag, you don't need to slap it on the whole article. But in this case, not even that is warranted since it is listed as a reliable source. If you don't think it is reliable, then have that conversation at the WikiProject Albums talk page or RSN. But right now that consensus overrides your personal consensus here on this obscure article page.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened up a fresh discussion for why the site is listed.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoC and due weight

[edit]

Per WP:PSTS, primary sourced contents should be minimal. I've also just reviewed WP:RSPRIMARY. @3family6:, you commented CoC is reliable. Is this based on one of those lists where you're the sole or the main curator? I'm seeing nothing other than a persuasive essay you have written and a comment from one commentator saying "I agree". So, hardly a confirmed WP:RS, but probably WP:QS. Sourcing to interviews conducted by some amateurs create problems, because the interviewers directs the flow of conversation and affects the contents in the interview. If the interviewee is allowed to go on and on and on and on and on about what they wish to express and we use that, it causes excessive voice to be given to the interview subject, which then would be like citing the interviewed subject's own blog. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls the statements by Börud are primary. The interviewer's description of the band as doom metal is secondary. And a citation of the band as that when it's not controversial is not undue. As to the source, it's explicitly noted by another RS as reliable. It's notably reliable. But the reliability of that specific source should be discussed there, per WP:CONLEVEL.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a reliably published by a publishing house confirming something as straight forward as genre, we don't stack up sources. If two reliable books disagrees on genre and they're both reliable, then we say that sources disagree and include both versions. What exactly was the point to have multiple sources for something that's not even disputed in the first place? Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I agree. I reverted my reversion.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6:, I'd rather not have the same round of conversation again, so I am speaking generally. Graywalls (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding citations? Yes, WP:OVERCITE exists. My reversion here was a mistake, as I misread the reason for why you removed those citations.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]