Talk:116 (hip hop group)

---

Fair use rationale for Image:13L.jpg

Image:13L.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:116.jpg

Image:116.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:116 Clique C&S.jpg

Image:116 Clique C&S.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tour dates information

Since the seasons occur at different times for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, seasons should not be used to tell the relative dates of the tours.  When it is Summer in the Northern Hemisphere (which includes North America and Europe), it is Winter in the Southern Hemisphere (which includes Australia and much of South America).  Someone reading 'Summer' in New York, US may think of July and August, while someone reading the same thing in Sydney, Australia may think of something more like December and January.  In that way, seasons are relative.  I removed the seasons.

I am faced with a dilemma when attempting to include the specific dates at which each tour officially starts and ends.  One web site says a tour starts on 2 October, another says 1 October, and yet another says 15 August.  Not only that, but I am not sure if any of those sources are even reliable enough for a Wikipedia article.  Can anyone please help?  If you know of any reliable web sites with correct information about these tours, then please at least post the URLs here to be added to the article.

Thank you! Casdmo (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Distinguish template

The group 116 Clique should be distinguished from the group 196 Clique of a similar name. Per Template:Distinguish2#Distinguish 71.82.119.141 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The 196 Clique would need an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would. Is there a Wikipedia guideline or policy anywhere stating that the Template:Distinguish2 hatnote needs linkage to an article to be implemented? Contrary to your claim, I see an option for the text alone to be distinguished: See {{Template:Distinguish2|TEXT}} 71.82.119.141 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They need articles. There are no cases where it's for a subject without an article even though the documentation shows a case. I'll ask for clarification there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific about this: Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it state that the Template:Distinguish2 class of templates is to be used for redirects only? Where does Wikipedia policy state that this text hatnote: {{Template:Distinguish2|TEXT}} needs article linkage in order to distinguish the two apart from each other? I don't think it needs an article. Reason/clarification: I still see an option for the text alone to be distinguished: See {{Template:Distinguish2|TEXT}} 71.82.119.141 (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Side note: Please prove that there are "no cases" of a subject itself ever being distinguished using a hatnote on Wikipedia. I find that hard to believe. The documentation clearly shows evidence of the case. 71.82.119.141 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently discussing it at the template for clarification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I choose not to participate in that discussion. There is nothing wrong with the template per se. 71.82.119.141 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this article needs to distinguish. 196 Clique is a different name than 116 Clique, and doesn't have an article. If someone types "196 Clique" into the search bar, they won't get anything. The Distinguish template is meant for help in cases like Sunday's Child and Phil Keaggy and Sunday's Child, where you have two articles with essentially the same name (I use this case because I recently typed in "Sunday's Child" as a short-hand for the Phil Keaggy album, thinking it would redirect to that article, but I found that there was a different article titled just "Sunday's Child."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. As explicitly stated in Template talk:Distinguish, the template just serves to help people. The template has the purpose of stopping people from thinking that the information in the article concerns their sought topic, be it the other topic. This template is not destructive; it is supposed to be helpful to other users to distinguish the two apart from each other. Please do not claim the template is "unconstructive" (see my talk page edit history). Please see WP:HATNOTE#Distinguish for Wikipedia guidelines surrounding the {{Template:Distinguish2|TEXT}} hatnote. {{Template:Distinguish2|TEXT}} is listed there among all other Distinguish hatnotes, and should be usable here. Can either of you two provide a valid reason why not (or how adding this template used to help ppl distinguish 2 very similar names could be considered WP:Destructive editing)? Thanks 71.82.119.141 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is, how is this template helpful? As an editor brought up on the discussion page, "While there might be some hypothetical possibility where a non-article link might be warranted as IAR, in general, the purpose of hatnotes is to help readers locate other articles. A non-article hatnote would be subject to verifiability and I don't think anyone would want to see a footnote in a hatnote." Since the two groups in question, 116 Clique and 196 Clique have different names, albeit similar ones, I don't see confusion occurring that often. It's possible that someone could type in "116 Clique" when looking for 196 Clique, but they would very quickly realize that they are different groups. However, there isn't a 196 Clique article to direct them to, and from my web search, the group doesn't seem that notable and thus won't, in the near future at least, have an article. I could see putting in a note if the group was called 116 Clique, or 16 Clique, or something like that, but as is I don't see a strong enough case to go against established consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

71.82.119.141, did you try to search for this group on Wikipedia yourself and came across 116 Clique instead? Because that would strengthen your case. Concrete examples are much more solid than hypothetical ones.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think the Distinguish2|TEXT template is helpful in itself, there is another discussion going on over at Template talk:Distinguish. Please do not discuss it here. This is not a "hypothetical" case for this template to be used, nor should it concern you how I personally found the article. Their similar names confused me at first when I found it, so I added the template to distinguish the two similar names to help other readers distinguish between the two as well. 71.82.119.141 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is not over whether Distinguish template is helpful, but whether it should list subjects for which there are no article. The relevant guideline is WP:NOARTICLE which explicitly states "hatnotes are intended to help users navigate to another article they may have intended to find." The discussion on the template is entirely about the issue being discussed on this page. Thank for providing your personal example, as that helps determine if the guideline should be adapted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop citing Wikipedia policies where irrelevant. Clearly WP:NOARTICLE refers only to the usage of RED LINK hatnotes and has absolutely nothing to do with the Distinguish2|Text template being used to distinguish the text itself. Please see WP:HATNOTE#Distinguish for the relevant Wikipedia guidelines surrounding the {{Template:Distinguish2|TEXT}} hatnote. It is listed there among all other Distinguish hatnotes, and should be usable/helpful here to avoid any future confusion between the two. Thanks 71.82.119.141 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the guideline states that "hatnotes are intended to help users navigate to another article they may have intended to find." The reason that redlinks are mentioned is because those are links to articles that don't exist. The reason that it doesn't address unlinked articles is that it is not intended for those articles to be included, which is what the discussion that Walter started on the template talk page found. The editors there held out the possibility that there might be instances where it is best to ignore the rules and include a listing for which there is no article. However, those would require extraordinary circumstances, and neither I nor Walter are convinced that the circumstances in this case are extraordinary. The editors in the other discussion have not commented on this particular usage here, only in generalities, so I don't know their opinion on this particular case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Extraordinary or not; you admitted it yourself above, the two names are similar and they are not to be confused. 71.82.119.141 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 116 Clique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130414193659/https://reachrecords.com/blog/post/Unashamed-Tour-2012-Come-Alive to http://reachrecords.com/blog/post/Unashamed-Tour-2012-Come-Alive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The move was premature

They may have just renamed themselves "116" but they are best known as "116 Clique" and so I'm not sure we should be falling for their marketing. The same issue occurred with Family Force 5 and I'm sure it will happen with other groups. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They've been called 116 for several years now, this appears to be a permanent change.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This source predates my edit and confirms the change.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

But the question is still whether they are best known by that name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's the current name, and is used in more recent sources. That's the best assessment we've got.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

But they're not known by the name. They've made no releases using the name and what little press they've had is not enough to overwrite their accomplishments under their former name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Every song released by and tour done by the group since 2012 has been under the name 116 rather than 116 Clique. They are known by this name.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

But every charting work is under the name 116 Clique. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You keep moving the goal posts here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This claim also is untrue. "Come Alive" charted, "Now They Know" charted, "Light Work" charted, and "California Dreamin" charted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Not moving any goalposts. They have songs? That's it? The charting albums outsell the songs. We have plenty of bands that change their name over time. Eventually we will have to determine what they were best known as and not fall for the marketing. I'm not planning on making a move request at this point, but if they don't produce something major under this name, I will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any policy or guidelines that can support this? That specify how we are to respond to official band name changes? The closest I can find is WP:NAMECHANGES, and that doesn't at all specify to the precision that you are here (where albums are considered more important than singles). You ARE moving goalposts - you asked if there are sources documenting the change. There are. You asked for releases since then, and they've made them. You then mentioned charting, and they've charted since then, too (sometimes higher than the last album under the name 116 Clique charted). And then you say that it needs to be album charts. Well, I'll grant you that the latest album to chart, the Christmas album, is listed under the name 116 Clique. However, the actual album itself calls the group "116" (Apple and Amazon for reference; perhaps the physical release says "116 Clique", if you could demonstrate that it would go a long way). So do we go by the name Billboard used for the chart listing, or the artist name that people are going to see when they play the music? We can establish that the name "116 Clique" has been used in media since 2012, but that "116" is becoming more predominant and that this is the name that listeners to the group are going to be encountering when they hear new music from the group or see them on tour. If you have documentation that the group still calls itself 116 Clique while in concert, that also helps your argument.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No, only precident: Family Force Five are now FF5, but that move was reversed, Brooke Ligerwood, nope, other similar. Bands change their names all the time Rend Collective Experiment did so, but they achieve notability after the name change. The Quarymen had a similar experience. But when a band changes their name after they have found minimal notability, it's a grey area. Again, I won't do anything for now. We'll see where the new name takes them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Why you change it back it’s not right

Those members from 116 clique were only featured on the album but weren’t apart of 116 clique The only members are right now is Lecrae, Trip Lee, Tedashii, Andy Mineo, 1k Phew, Whatuprg, Wande and Hulvey. The past members who were apart of 116 clique is Dj official, Sho Baraka, Derek minor, Aha Gazelle, KB and Gawvi. Maze116 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page.

@Maze116: I reverted your series of unexplained edits by asking What happened to the other former members? None of the membership is sourced so it's not clear why you are adding or removing members. We should probably create a membership section and add individuals there, with references. A table might be appropriate where we list if an individual was a member or simply participated with the members. @3family6:, as a former editor, may also be interested in this topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Why you change it. It was right information and I know these guy personally for awhile now and Those members from 116 clique were only featured on the album but weren’t apart of 116 clique The only members are right now is Lecrae, Trip Lee, Tedashii, Andy Mineo, 1k Phew, Whatuprg, Wande and Hulvey. The past members who were apart of 116 clique is Dj official, Sho Baraka, Derek minor, Aha Gazelle, KB and Gawvi. I would recommend looking up your information again. Maze116 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish new information. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of stuff already published elsewhere. If you know something is true but it hasn't been published, then it's not meant to be in Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. While you may be acquainted with the members, you are not a reliable source. Even if you wrote a blog, this would be a self-published source and would be inadmissible as a source. We need reviews or album details in places like AllMusic.com. We need articles written about members.

What do you think of my suggestion of creating a members section and detailing details of involvement? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention, I would love to know more about this collective, but to be clear, it is not up to other editors to "do their research" as you wrote on my talk page. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The best way to do that is to supply reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)