Talk:Excelsior Recordings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Excelsiorrecordingslogo.jpg

Image:Excelsiorrecordingslogo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 06:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding artist list

There was never a good explanation for why all the redlinks were removed. I see that some fellow who looks like a label rep was adding a full discography, which I would argue is probably encyclopedic on its own, even if it is provided by management. But certainly a comprehensive list of artists is probably the most encyclopedic thing a label article can provide. I can hardly think of anything else worth including; most labels have very little to say prose-wise about their founding and operations unless they become cultural icons. Chubbles (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not completely right. It should be a list of notable artist. That means: artists with an own article conform WP:LISTPEOPLE. The Banner talk 19:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a stand-alone list article, and so the usefulness of this guideline is debatable here. Nevertheless, a better section to follow than that cited is WP:CSC. You are writing as if the list must fulfill criterion 1, but actually, it is closer to criterion 3; there is a finite, well-defined set of members of the category, which is musicians and bands which have released albums on this record label. This meets the stipulations: "a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." Once again, I submit that a list of all artists on the label is inherently encyclopedic, basic information that ought to be provided on the page for a record label. Chubbles (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROMO is also of interest. And regarding to WP:CSC: number one is valid here. The Banner talk 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROMO was worrisome insofar as the article may have been edited by someone who works for the label, and it probably has been, looking at the edit history. However, if a person with a conflict of interest adds encyclopedic information to an article, it's not at issue; only overtly promotional material is. The list of artists does not unduly promote the label; it is simple, factual, germane information and does not present a PROMO problem. As for CSC...a complete list of artists for this label would not "include hundreds of entries"; maybe you would have an argument there for, say, Capitol Records, but independent labels have rosters that are generally single- or double-digits in number. That would make criterion 3 much more appropriate here (and for the vast majority of independent record labels). Chubbles (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

But so far the article is completely unsourced. The same with the list of artists. The Banner talk 02:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sources in response to this, and have removed the tags you placed regarding notability (which is established both by the artist roster/label history as per WP:MUSIC and the new references), lack of sourcing (two major sources, one of which you could perhaps help expand with since I do not speak Dutch), and conflict of interest (since now, all of the prose content in the article is written by me, and I am not affiliated with the label). Chubbles (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

So then...if the main reason so much attention was visited upon this page was due to promotional and notability concerns, and now that I believe I have taken care of those concerns, are we agreed that the matter is settled? Chubbles (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that fact that you have put back in the list of non-notable artists was enough reason for me to restore the COI-tag. The Banner talk 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, there are three follow-up questions you'd need to answer for this action to make any sense and to (possibly) justify your continued unilateral removal of my additions:

• 1. I am asserting, and have previously asserted, that I have no conflict of interest. I'm not even Dutch; I have no connection to this label, aside from having purchased a couple albums from one of the bands on it. How would I demonstrate to you the veracity of this assertion?
• 2. How, specifically, does the prose text of the article need to be changed in order to fulfill the template's demand for a neutral point of view?
• 3. How does your suspicion of COI activity justify, once again, your removal of part of the artist list?

Chubbles (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

And why on earth do you template me for edit warring while there is no edit war going on? And why do you keep adding non-notable artists in conflict with WP:LISTPEOPLE? That is the whole case: do not add non-notable artists in a long list as they can and will be removed. The Banner talk 20:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I templated you for edit warring because you are engaged in edit warring. You have reverted me four times and had to be dragged to the talk page; you'll note that I made significant improvements to the page in response to your multitude of problems (for which you have not lifted a finger), and I waited some time for a response from you before assuming that your silence indicated assent. WP:LISTPEOPLE is a guideline for stand-alone lists. It is for articles which are "list of X". This is not a stand-alone article; it is an article about a record company, which includes within it a list of items directly relevant to the label (the artists whose music the label has released). The other guidelines we have previously discussed are more aptly applied to this article, and I have argued at length that they do not offer sufficient justification for you to continue acting as if you can simply assert that members of the list "can and will be removed" and expect no one to question you. Now, to the three questions I asked so I can understand why you've reverted me yet again... Chubbles (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, but when you start applying false warnings I am done. I have made loud and clear what is the problem and you plain refuse to accept that. The problem is nothing more than the lististing of non-notable artists. Perhaps you should try WP:WTAF. The Banner talk 11:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've been pinged for my thoughts. In general, if there is a redlink I don't think the person/band is notable enough for inclusion in such a list -- whether standalone or embedded in an article (the reasoning being the same in each case; it makes no sense of course to say "if it were a stand-alone list I would not include non-notable artists, but I'll just embed it in another article and flood it with redlinked non-notable artists). Furthermore, stand-alone lists are "articles composed of one or more embedded lists". Also, if uncited, it is reasonable for it to be deleted or tagged, per wp:v. As far as listing everything under the sun in such cases, we do have our leaning against turning wp into a directory. My thoughts. Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  It is a particularly cruel irony that The Banner has summoned one of the most ardent musical deletionists to explain himself, and someone whose overly exclusionary tendencies I have personally, repeatedly fought against in the past. But at least you, Epeefleche, offer more concrete reasoning. So, it's not unreasonable for you to propose that stand-alone lists and ancillary lists be treated the same, but I think there is good reason to do so. The guideline that The Banner has pointed to - WP:LISTPEOPLE - is designed for determining what the topic of a list will be, for an article that will be titled "list of...". However, there is a more general guideline for lists just above it on that page, at WP:CSC - which gives several possible rationales for selection criteria for any list. I believe this is a better guideline than WP:LISTPEOPLE for our specific list, since the list topic (the list of artists who have released material on the label) is not really at question. Earlier, before he tired of the debate, The Banner proposed that bullet 1 of WP:CSC was the proper guideline for determining what should be on the list, and I argued that bullet 3 was more appropriate. The example given - "a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses" - seems particularly germane here; this is not a list of hundreds of things, nowhere close to a directory, but rather a complete list of a couple dozen musical groups with clearly defined boundaries. Now, what I'm hearing is most objectionable from both of you is the color red, and while I think the presumptuousness behind that dislike is foolhardy (we are far, far from done writing new articles on Wikipedia), it is by now practically dogma, and I cannot pretend that I can fight against it. If I remove the redlinks from the article, can we be agreed that this matter is finally settled? And can we dispense with the COI tag, which is now completely obsolete with respect to this article? Chubbles (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  Do not tell me that you did not notice that I only removed the non-notable red-linked bands and left the rest of the article intact. The Banner talk 10:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  Very well, then. Redlinks begone; I have completed what I hope is a consensus edit. In truth, if you'd been clearer about the real sources of your consternation, we could have gotten to this point much earlier. Chubbles (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  You absolutely search the limit to promote these non-notable artists. To put to blame on me is nice but it just means that you blindly reverted my edits and did not look or read what I was saying with it. The present form is not what I like, but for the time being it will do. The Banner talk 07:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  I have maintained from the start that a full list of artists is informational and encyclopedic, not promotional; merely identifying them does essentially nothing to promote them commercially, and now that this is not a "redlink farm" anymore, I cannot follow why you would be so adamant about removing them. The invisible note you've added contradicts the current state of the article. Chubbles (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Start an edit war about it or accept the stalemate. The Banner talk 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  It is not appropriate for you to intimidate other editors with a warning statement that has no enforcement teeth. Chubbles (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Non-notable is non-notable. A red-linked entry and one that is not linked at all -- but that would be redlinked, were it linked -- are the same. My above position remains the same, even after reading the comments of Chubbles above. Comments which I must admit dismay me, as I have respect for Chubbles, and thought his ad hominem characterizations both incorrect and beneath him. In any event, my position is that the entries that do not have wp articles on the list should be deleted, for the reasons stated above. I don't see anyone agreeing with Chubbles on this point, and as I said do not think his position in line with how wp handles such entries. And, to be clear, I've probably agreed with Chubbles on a much higher percentage of discussions in the past than is the case with Banner .. which makes Chubbles' ad hominem comments even more surprising and disappointing. Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  Really, though, guys...how close are we to earning a place on WP:LAME, here? Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't edited the article, so I'm not sure why I would be considered part of a lame edit war. I've simply given my view. In response, you subjected me to ad hominem accusations. I've not participated in such characterizations in return. Nor have I received an apology. If there is anything lame going on here, I'm not sure what it has to do with my editing or my comments -- and don't understand why Chubbles' comment above is a response to my prior comment. If he is trying to cast aspersions on my view, I'm not sure that his aspersions are well-grounded. Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• All grandstanding aside (and let's not, any of us, pretend that we are not each grandstanding), I'm simply sick of arguing this point. I had larger aspirations (and concerns) regarding the result of this discussion, but by now, all I want is for this talkpage to stop showing up on my watchlist. If some scare-note nobody but me will ever read means I don't have to log in and see this argument every day, then I will be a happy man. Are we done, here? If we are not done here, then, by all means, continue to beat the dead horse until we are done here. Chubbles (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Promotional"

I am logging out for now, but I hope a discussion will begin before I am reverted again. I should be back to talk later today. Chubbles (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And no, in 2014 we did not agree that that this was not promo. Could you please stop editwarring? The Banner talk 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Editwarring applies to you, too. Shall we talk rather than revert? Chubbles (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)