Jump to content

Talk:Knife Party

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

Piledriver Single

[edit]

In my humble opinion the Singles section should include Piledriver song (Knife Party & Steve Aoki - Piledriver). But I'm not sure if it fits there. So please check me and add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiusz.olszewski (talk • contribs) 12:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Knife Party is releasing an EP soon and I will be maintaining this page with discographies and new things as soon as there is a source for them. It is no longer a part of pendulum, it is a separate group containing pendulum members and therefore deserves a page. — JacobKay (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC) turles r awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.209.122 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this is the only information about Knife Party at this current moment in time. They've just got off the ground and deserve a Wikipedia page for the future, as they will have more information their fans would like to see on here.

Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.131 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <I believe that Knife Party are, or soon will be a very important band in the electronic music scene. If we have pages for albums that are soon to be released then we cant complain about this page. — 87.114.14.177 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because although the group may not qualify as musicians such as of yet, it still shows what they specialise in, what they plan to release, and how they made their first appearance, it will be a page which fans can use in the future for information. — Colin969 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

hello global

Clarification

[edit]

I would be much obliged if someone more aware of Wikipedia's inner workings could explain what was deleted and why? I'd be willing to help put the page back together and such, but I'm not a very experienced editor by any means. Thanks in advance! Kinzarr (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio quick look

[edit]

I did take a peek after I protected the page. The history section was indeed cut and paste from the management page. That management page does indeed have a copyright mark at the bottom. That material could be released as donated text, but the tone was clearly promotional so would need to be adjusted. The discography and singles should likely be fine to restore, since that is basic factual information. However, I was having a hard time establishing the claim about 100% No Modern Talking charting at 21 on Billboard's New Electronic Albums (what Allmusic said) because I could only view up to 19 or so. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.jhooakley.com/artists/knife-party. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Knife Party

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Knife Party's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "US-albums":

  • From Zedd (musician): "Zedd – Chart History: Billboard 200". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved 31 August 2013.
  • From Skrillex discography: "Skrillex – Chart History: Billboard 200". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved February 8, 2013.

Reference named "US-Dance-albums":

Reference named "SWE":

Reference named "NZ":

Reference named "SWI":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased tracks / VIP tracks section

[edit]

@Idensai:@Bgwhite:@Launchballer: While I am aware that discussions of this have taken place on Idensai's talk page I think it would be best to settle the discussion here instead considering the focus is on this article and opinions of other editors would be best here. Both User:Launchballer and User:Bgwhite are correct and I agree with them, the information in the table is completely referenced by primary sources and not secondary sources. The article itself has already got issues due to it being referenced to the members Twitter accounts, Facebook and other social media outlets which are all primary, for it to be reliable it must be secondary such as news posts and magazine articles and so on of which this section was not, so until you can gain a reliable source('s) to back up this information please refrain from adding it back, the last thing we want is an edit war and having to block users from editing as a result. SilentDan297 talk 23:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So firstly, what exactly constitutes a "news article"? What about music blogs? Are they valid? And what makes them more reliable than what is said directly from the artists themselves. And by that theory, direct tweets from artists aren't a valid source but a news article that has "reposted" the tweet is? How does that work exactly, cause Wikipedia's methods seem backwards in this case. Idensai (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Tweet is a primary source. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability as it is not an independent source. See WP:NALBUMS.
A Tweet and a reposted tweet are the same thing. But best to use the direct tweet.
Depends on the blog. If it is Joe Blow writing a blog then no, they are not reliable. If it is a reporter for a news organization or a person from a major music site and the blog is on the company's site, then it is the same as any other news publication (web, print). Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't conform to that, artists don't give official statements anymore, the way things are documented has changed and the media has changed since social media is the new/quickest/easiest way of artists exchanging information to their fans and the press. Most news sites don't cover the smaller artists and a lot of what they say would usually have gone unnoticed but posts on Facebook and Twitter have made it easier to keep track of them such as new songs and collaborations. I think you're reading too much into the rules of Wikipedia that were written before most of the social media sites were even around leaving them outdated. Nearly all of the World's news programmes and media channels have their own pages on these social networking sites, use footage captured and uploaded to YouTube as evidence and even highlight tweets by people that they didn't manage to get an interview with. If someone says something about someone with nothing to back it up then there's no reason to believe what they are saying is true. But if you give evidence that documents and supports their claim (text, video or audio) then that is a VALID source of information and proof that it is true. Apart from the three of you, no-one else seems to care that unreleased material is covered while others praise it and find it's a good source of information. Everything I've ever posted has been given a referenced source IE official Twitter account tweets from artists, YouTube video taken live from a gig (dated), news articles with interviews ETC. I think you should leave edits to the people who are most passionate about the artists and their music instead of acting as back seat moderators of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idensai (talk • contribs) 11:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentDan297: Idensai, we have rules, just like the real world. You do not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability as they come from the artist. If we allowed primary sources, I could tweet, put up a Facebook page and I would be notable. In order to be notable, other people have to be talking about the artist or music. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest or a place to promote an artist. We are here to be neutral. We write about the facts that come from reliable, independent sources. A source coming from the artist is neither independent or reliable. Right now I'm in the middle of deletion proceedings on a musician. They claim on Twitter and Facebook that they have had top 20 songs. This is a completely lie as no evidence in any of the top charts that they exist.
Also, one of the rules is when we start talking, we leave the article alone. I have reverted the article. Any further reverts will result in a block. Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely the difference between primary and secondary sources. But the only reason that the social network posts from the artists gain weight is because of how successful and popular the artists already are. Your point about some musician claiming they have top 20 songs is irrelevant as Knife Party's article already states thoroughly of their popularity with secondary references already on the page, the unreleased section is simply an extension of their discography that gives clarity to tracks that have been scrapped or are yet to be released. It's got nothing to do with promoting them it's simply for referencing and keeping track.
And I continued to edit the article as neither of the three of you had taken to time to respond to me after nearly an entire day, where in that time new Knife Party songs were premiered at their Tomorrowland 2014 set which I then updated to the section. Idensai (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Knife Party said that they charted in every country world wide then would you believe them? A primary source can say anything it wants to but it doesn't mean that it's true, that is why we use reliable secondary sources to back up their statements. Also please see WP:DISCOGSTYLE for what should actually be here, as you can see under "Content" and "Article-wide" it clearly states at point three that only official releases should be listed here and the table tracks you have added here are all unofficially released, they are just demos and remixes that the artist may or may not have even created since they are not distributed by their label. If you keep reverting this I'm afraid you will have to be reported for causing edit wars and possibly block you from editing. SilentDan297 talk 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also to back up my comment further, it even states here that it should not contain "Leaked material" or "Unreleased material unless notable enough to include" so unless these tracks chart or become notable by other means like any other notable song article then they should not be mentioned on the discography page. SilentDan297 talk 11:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's virtually no rational argument for not including an artist's verified unreleased work on a discography page. A discography is a catalog of all of an artists music that has been made public. Whatever "rule" there is against unreleased content in the discography section is easily ignored, as many artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna and many others have entire pages dedicated to cataloging their unreleased material. If this is acceptable for artists with a large amount of unreleased music, why cant artists with less unreleased music have it listed in their discography. All of the content in said pages are verified either through the artist's publisher or through interviews with the artist themselves. The importance lies with the fact that said work is verified to be the artist's original work, not that it was verified with a secondary source. Even so, Wikipedia rules states that it does not employ "hard-and-fast" rules and that all policies and guidelines should be applied using reason and common sense. Furthermore, if the community of page editors can agree that an exception to a rule or guideline is the most rational course of action in terms of providing a catalog of unreleased content for a particular artist, then there should be no debate as to what is an acceptable form of verification other than what I outlined earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzywuzzy (talk • contribs) 13:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a discography by Wikipedia standards is a list article featuring all of the official and notable releases of that particular artist. Please read my previous comment carefully and also read the guidelines for discographies. (WP:DISCOGSTYLE) As I said previously this list contains nothing but unofficial and non-notable songs that the artist seems to not care about. Also neither Michael Jackson or Madonna have a list of unreleased songs, they have singles, promotional singles and other released songs, all of which where released officially through their record labels so your examples don't make much sense. Wikipedia is not supposed to list every song released especially unofficially and non-notable songs, they are more trivial than they are official and Wikipedia does not include trivial information. SilentDan297 talk 13:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm officially giving up on this discussion and probably my faith in the Wikipedia community after this. I will proceed to remove all unreleased content from the following pages: Alvin Risk, Anamanaguchi, Dillon Francis, Dog Blood, Flume (musician), Jake Stanczak discography, Jon Gooch, KOAN Sound, Knife Party, Pendulum discography, Skrillex discography. Idensai (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we are cool

[edit]

it is awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.209.122 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC) @142.22.209.122: Please don't discuss unrelated topics here. If you continue, one of these is advised rather than Wikipedia:[reply]

You can find me in the WP:TEAHOUSE, OmegaBuddy13find me here 21:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Yes... we do.... Here's one to "Bonfire": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-IWRmpefzE OmegaBuddy13find me here 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Knife Party. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knife_Party&oldid=1208004283"