Talk:UNFD

RfC: Is the Discography section necessary?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to retain the information. AlbinoFerret 19:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to have an unsourced list of every release under the label's name as well as the list of artists? Flat Out (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (retain or delete)

I don't necessarily mind the list (the article's not particularly large at this time), but a source should be provided. DonIago (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain -- I don't think the list does any harm. It is solely providing more information. However, I am in agreement with the above user, a source should be provided. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain In general, discographies are useful to collectors, and it is of (highly focused, perhaps) encyclopedic interest. Generally they are non-controversial, so there is no reason to remove it. However, sources are always superior, and any information that is suspected to be incorrect that does not have a source should be removed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain it I also have to agree that it is a good idea to keep it, as I like to note in all such RFCs that the bot calls me for, more information is better than less when the information is relevant, and when it has suitable references and citations. Wikipedia guidelines are guidelines, they're not hard-set in stone, and when someone is researching something and utilizing Wikipedia, I always feel it is better to present more information rather than less. Damotclese (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UNFD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110408152523/http://www.themusicnetwork.com:80/music-features/industry/2011/01/31/the-hot-seat-jaddan-comerford-unfd-director to http://www.themusicnetwork.com/music-features/industry/2011/01/31/the-hot-seat-jaddan-comerford-unfd-director/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]