Talk:12-12-12: The Concert for Sandy Relief

Styling of name

it seems the concert is using various stylings. in some instances "12-12-12" is used. yet in logo (in use in the article's infobox, it is styled "12.12.12". seems article should be consistent throughout (with any necessarily explanation on different stylings).--96.232.126.27 (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

From the about page from the official web site [1]:

“12-12-12”, a fundraising concert to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy, will take place on December 12 at Madison Square Garden.

So I think we should follow that example. Dhaluza (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Axed the 'notable quotes' part

I think this is useless it serves only as a comedic and celebrity roll call of people who commented on things. It is not adding anything to the article and infact detracts from it. It looks unprofessional and tacky. Keep it in prose if you must and limit it to a paragraph, not half a page long of snarky out of context remarks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

These are quotes that were cited in secondary sources and are included to provide context to the event that is the subject of the article. The references are cited, so you can see how/why they were used in reliable sources in reference to the subject. Dhaluza (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why it is required. It adds nothing to the article and does not generate any context. The entire article may be up for deletion if this stuff is allowed to dominate and poison it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't delete articles because we don't like them. There are specific criteria for deletion, but the subject of this article clearly does not meet them. Dhaluza (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You really want to try and say that a week from now? Those quotes are terrible and detrimental in nature. So much of this is fluff just because it is a 'current event', axe the junk and report the encyclopedic value of it. Who cares WHAT channels it ran on, you don't need all forty of them either. List the major ones, point to the source and carry on. You also don't need the song list and who played what either. Its pushing the encyclopedic value to the limits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which comment you were replying to, but assuming that you indented properly, yes, this current event is a historical event that meets the criteria of WP:N, so it will be relevant a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, and so on.... Dhaluza (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yours, the event itself may be notable, but are the quotes notable? Not really, and some of them were insulting and irrelevant to the concert. I much rather add sources to the article and clean up some of the verbatim copying that is going on. I added one from TIME while you were making this reply. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to sectiions within an article (see: WP:N). You may not like the quotes, but they were used in reliable secondary sources, so this carries more weight than editors personal tastes. You actually removed sources with the the blanket deletion of the section containing the quotes. Dhaluza (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I still have those sources, as well as you do. And I'm improving the article all the same now. I'm not here to wreck it, but I am not a novice at editing either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Setlist citation

Since the citation is also being actively updated, please move it down with each set list edition, thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is still a current event

Can't we wait until the concert is over before we start deciding what should and should not be deleted? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, its not going to change how certain things will be received now and within a week from now. Certain things need cleaning up already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if that is true, it causes edit conflicts which are frustrating when trying to document the ongoing current event. The documentation process should take priority over the cleanup process, which is not time-based. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've not had any problems and I've added some content and done a little fixing here and there. The argument that add things (even flawed things) is silly as adding or removing content could cause an edit conflict. Why not snip the problems in the bud so focus on better attribution and prose comes first? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you have been lucky. I've been editing this article for the past five hours, and I've had numerous edit conflicts. I don't quite understand what you're getting at in your second sentence (words missing?), but I think adding information as it happens should take priority over the pruning and attributing, which can happen later. That way it's at least in the page history. Adding notices and other Wikipedia style things can wait, IMO. Which is to say nothing about adding actual references. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"I think adding information as it happens should take priority over the pruning and attributing, which can happen later." - I disagree. There is no urgency in adding material. If the article remained entirely blank until a few hours after the concert ended there would be no loss at all. Wikipedia is not a news source, it is an encyclopedia. The length of time it takes to post information is not relevant at all. But accuracy is important and not posting material that is inappropriate is also important. So if there are edit conflicts, just stop adding information. It's not like there aren't a dozen or more other people out there trying to add the same information anyway. 99.192.51.23 (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your assessment. Its better to do it right then make a mountain out of mud. Resting the article firmly in good prose, form and not jumbling it up with a mix mash of every cable outlet which ran it is a good example of relevance. If the events over, do you REALLY care about what channels ran it. No, but if you wish to look, we have a source for that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's over now, so this conversation is now superfluous. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ION TV

WHY DID ION TV CUT THE CONCERT SHORT TO SHOW THE WWE AGAIN? THAT WAS NOT COOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.166.25 (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Dhaluza (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and please stop adding this to WWE Main Event. That is also not cool, especially three days later. We get it. You're annoyed. Contact ION, not Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DID THEY SHOW PAUL?

I DIDN'T SEE PAUL. DID PAUL SING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.166.25 (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC) of course he did! check the articleHg3300 (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Channels/Stations Airing

I think this article needs to have a list of radio channels, TV channels, and online services streaming the concert. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

why? it already aired.Hg3300 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)