Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt

Discography Question

In the Discography section is the reference for Camille and Kennerly at SoundCloud needed or should it be removed as there is an external link to their SoundCloud account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamstone (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the SoundCloud links should be removed because to me it seems that there are too many links, and there is an external link to their SoundCloud account anyway, as you said; however, in my opinion, the SoundCloud reference should be kept in the Discography section. Dontreader (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I think what you did is fine. It looks better that way, in my opinion. Besides, the links next to the tracks (although they may seem excessive), are the only reliable sources. Good job! Dontreader (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You did a very clever job! The discography chart looks much better this way, without the numerous references, using three instead at the bottom of the chart. Thanks for the great work! I never could have done that! Dontreader (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Camille and Kennerly Kitt References Section

Hi Dontreader,

Thanks for your positive comments, makes it Worthwhile.

I have also added a sub-group in the reference section called Discography References. With so many references, I think more sub-groups would help the Article, just need to decide on the best names for the sub-groups.

What do you think? more sub-groups or should I remove the sub-group Discography References.

Hope your keeping well, any way of to bed now, need some sleep.

Regards, Rob Robcamstone (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Rob! Please give me a moment to think. I would like to mention a couple of things. Both the Discography References and the External links show their SoundCloud page, so I suppose that should be corrected. Also, the internal iTunes link to the Wikipedia page for iTunes might be the wrong one. I think it should be the iTunes Store. Notice that at the beginning of that article, it says, "This article is about the application. For the online media service, see iTunes Store." I'll come back with more thoughts in a while. Thanks again for improving the page! Dontreader (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would eliminate the Discography subgroup of references and add their CDBaby and iTunes pages as external links under the official SoundCloud account. That would be great, if that's okay with you. Any patroller would figure out that some of the external links are like sources. Dontreader (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob! Thanks again for the great work! This looks fantastic! You really know some excellent tricks as well, which I hope to learn some day! Have a very nice weekend! Dontreader (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

References Question?

This article has so many references per/paragraph that I find they distract from the main text. Is there a better way of displaying them so that the reference Numbers e.g. [1][2] [3], don't distract?

Here is one alternative User:Robcamstone/sandbox5 what do other readers/editors thing?

Robcamstone (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I totally see your point, and I agree that it is a problem. However, I think we should keep the standard format seen in other Wikipedia pages for referencing. What I believe can be done is to reduce the number of references. For example, I used three references when I inserted their performance for fashion designer Jean Paul Gaultier; instead, perhaps I could use the one reference that has their names mentioned, and eliminate the references that mention the Harp Twins and have pictures, but without their proper names. Similarly, I would only keep the National Geographic reference to the US edition since everyone knows that National Geographic has the same material in many other versions. That would help. Finally, although in a way it's nice, I really don't think that we must provide a reference for every single thing they have done. For example, their videos can be found in the external YouTube link, so after the list of songs they have performed I would keep the most notable references and delete the lesser ones. Maybe keep three references in a row, but not more. Where is says that their music has been featured in worldwide mainstream media, again, I would keep the most notable links, the ones that people know the most (definitely keep CBS News, Nintendo Life, and maybe one more). I honestly doubt very much that Wikipedia patrollers are going to demand that every single piece of information in a list be referenced. If that were to happen, we can put the links back in, but I really don't think it will happen. Bottom line: in my opinion, keep the current format and just take out some references to make the article more pleasing to the eyes. I would say three consecutive references at the most, per line/paragraph.

It might be a while before others give you some feedback. I saw this because my account is set in such a way that I immediately see when the page has been changed. I will be glad to make these changes since you have done so much recently. If you don't like something that I do, tell me in the talk page. Please let me know if you are okay with this. Perhaps give other contributors a day to respond before any decisions are made. Thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

References Question? Reply

Hi Dontreader,

Thanks for your quick response to my question, I like your suggestions, and am okay with you making the edits.

It's kind of you to ask me as you don't have to. You or anybody else for that matter are entitled to make edits and changes to the article.

We all want the same thing and that is to make the article as accurate, interesting and readable as possible.

Regards, Rob

Robcamstone (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob! Please let me wait until tomorrow to make the edits since maybe somebody else will show up in the meantime with suggestions. Yes, Camille and Kennerly deserve only the best, including the best Wikipedia page we can make about them! Thanks again, and have a nice Sunday! Dontreader (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed template for proposed that this article be deleted

I have removed template for proposed that this article be deleted because according to notability guidelines, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.

This article provides a large number of references and external links to prove notability and no attempt has been made by any editors to misrepresent links to create notability. All links are to valid sources.

If you read the comments on this talk page you will see the concerns the individual editors have had about proving notability.

Constitutive advice and help would be more valid then an attempt to delete an article.

A list of the claimed miss represented references should have been posted here so that editors could check and amend/fix any miss representations, if they exist.

Robcamstone (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Camille and Kennerly's last name

Their legal last name is Kitt. It's not a stage name. That's all you need to know. Here are some photographic examples:

http://instagram.com/p/UC87auD26e/

http://instagram.com/p/Rs47Zwj2-n/

Dontreader (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

They really tell us nothing about wether its a legal last name or a stage name. And it doesn't really matter. Independent reliable sources mostly use Kitt over Diebold so this Wikipedia article should mostly use Kitt. Unless there is clear third party coverage about which is what, don't say either way. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Metal Hammer interview

Commented out future event for Metal Hammer interview as no reliable source currently available see What Wikipedia is not.

I hope that once the event has taken place the comment tags <!-- and --> can be removed and the event can become part of the article. Robcamstone (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob, the June issue of the Metal Hammer magazine with the feature that I mentioned has been available in stores for several days now. I waited until this happened. Even though the month says June, Metal Hammer simply releases their issues over a month early, and it's like when the 2014 versions of cars are released in late 2013. I know three people who have bought the magazine. The Twins appear on page 11, as I specified. I did not make a mistake, even though I understand why you thought I did. Here are a couple of links to confirm it (first, from the Twins themselves on their official Facebook page):

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151893899709129&set=a.268336809128.181214.264726799128&type=1&theater

That's a color photocopy of the physical article in the magazine. Also, from the official Facebook page of Metal Hammer:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151556701754764&set=a.140675129763.107900.16915489763&type=1&theater

That's the cover of the June issue, released on April 30. As I said, I know three people who have actually bought it, and one of them is John Broadway (a fan of the Twins), whose comment you can see, which reads, "I've just bought the June issue and the best article of all is on page 11 Tell me if you agree!" Another person joined my Harp Twins fan group on Facebook after reading about them in the June edition of the magazine. Anyway, the event is not a future event. Please reinsert it in the article. Many thanks, Rob, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I'm sorry you haven't been around these past few hours. Since I don't know when you'll be back, I reinserted the Metal Hammer feature. I'm dealing with serious mental fatigue issues, so I didn't want to completely forget that you took it out. Rest assured that the June issue has been printed and distributed, and is owned by a close friend of mine. Thanks in advance for understanding, and have a nice day. Dontreader (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

References section format

Thanks for your interest and help, but please consult with the main contributors to this page before changing the format of the references section. The format that we have been using all this time is easier for me to deal with, and I think it has a more pleasant appearance; besides, there was nothing wrong with it. Since the formatting style has to be consistent, your changes would force me to adopt that new style while editing in the future, which I do not want to do. I am confident that Robcamstone feels the same way, as would the creator of the page. You can contact Rob on his talk page, and I encourage you to create your own talk page for better communication. I hope you understand, and again, thanks for your interest in the page. Dontreader (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

1. My thanks to Dontreader for Reverting the edit of IP editor. I to like the continuity of format. while the edit may have been consistent with Wikipedia formatting rules. It was less then pleasing on the eye and made the reference section appeared cluttered.
2. Sadly there is no obligation on any editor to consult before making edits, even major ones, but as a matter of good faith it would be nice if editors making major changes suggested them first. When I previously considered reformatting the reference section. I posted an example in one of my sandboxes and a debate took place on the format and it was decided to go with the current format as my design was not consistent with other Wikipedia articles.
3. Sadly good faith is talked about a lot, but seldom used. Robcamstone (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit by the ip was a good edit. It should not have been reverted. It improved what was a fairly useless references section. "CUSP special guest performers" by itself tells us nothing. What is "Trib local". The references are meant to provide information, not be formatted to make it easier for you personally to deal with. Wikipedia is meant to have encylopedia articles that inform readers, it's not here to provide you with your own little playground. The references are meant to be usefull without having to click on each one. Who wrote it, when, who published it. The changes by the ip using Reflinks were a step in the right direction. The refs were still flawed but a clear improvement.

Noone needs to consult you or Rob before trying to make improvements to your precious little shrine. You don't own the page. Wikipedia is not here for you to fawn over your favourite subject, it's not meant to be formatted for your personal viewing pleasure. It's not a matter of good faith to beg permission to make changes. The changes made were fairly minor and did not need to be debated.

Sadly those that talk about good faith the most seem to forget it also applies to them. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref: the reference section of the article

The reference section of the article Camille and Kennerly Kitt has became an edit war and therefore needs third-party intervention.

1. I have undone the last edit as, I think Dontreader should have made a requested for comments and avoided the edit war. Editor Duffbeerforme should have read and responded to the information on the talk page for this article.
2. If Duffbeerforme had left the reasoning behind he's edited this war could have been avoided.
3. Why is it that good faith is expected by new editors, but seldom shown by old hands.

Wikipedia's Five Pillars:
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
Wikipedia is free content
Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner
Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Duffbeerforme has failed to interact at all with the main editors of this article and is trying to enforce rules that pillar 5 states are not set in stone. The main editors have debated this and agreed on a format that works for them and therefore it is not unreasonable to expect any change to be explained on the talk page. I personal don't mind which format is used, but having had a debate with Dontreader, this was the format that was agreed upon. Robcamstone (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Folks, I am sure that you all means well ... but please will you all take some time to read WP:CITE, which sets out in detail what sort of info is appropriate in references. Then go take a look at the styles of referencing used in Wikipedia's highest quality content, the featured articles.

You will see that references aim to provide as much releant detail as possible, to allow readers to track down and verify the that the sources do indeed support what has been written in the article. URls can change, wenpages can be rewritten, and whole websites can disappear, so a link to a website is not enough. More info is needed, such as when the page was accessed (so that it can be checked in the Internbet archie), what its title was, who wrote it, and so on.

I have checked the 2 versions which have been the subject of the edit war, and both of them are inadequate: they both place too much reliance on URLs. In the version preferred by Dontreader, there is almost no info in each ref other than the URL. That's a recipe for linkrot, and it is clearly inadequate. See Wikipedia:Bare URLs for an explanation of why.

In the version preferred by by Robcamstone and by Duffbeerforme, there is more information such as access dates, which is very valuable. However, most refs still omit other important detail.

Take for example the Chicago Tribune article, formatted by Duffbeerforme and Robcamstone as: Camille and Kennerly at Chicago Tribune.

The URl doesn't need to be linked twice. The author's name should be included, and so should the page title and the publication date.

There are different ways of displaying those details, but the easiest way to achieve consistency is to use on of the variants of {{cite}}, in this case {{cite news}}. That reference would be formatted as:

{{cite news |title=Design, creativity on display at Cusp Conference |first=Melissa |last=Harris |url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-29/business/ct-biz-0929-confidential-cusp-20110930_1_yves-behar-design-firm-insulin-injections |newspaper=[[Chicago Tribune]] |date=September 29, 2011 |accessdate=September 16, 2013}}

.. which would display as:

Harris, Melissa (September 29, 2011). "Design, creativity on display at Cusp Conference". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 16, 2013.

Rather than edit-warring, why not work together to bring all the refs up to that standard? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Two minor points. The changing of referencing formatting was applied by an ip editor using Reflinks which is is a tool that automatically or semi-automatically adds information to references using data present in the web page. By itself it doesn't do everything but it does help. The Chicago Tribune article double linking was in the version preferred by Dontreader and was not introduced in the disputed changes. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• While you're taking the time to look at Cite you should also look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You and Dontreader liking something does not override the wider community. Then look at the bit you left of the third pillar. "that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute". Why did you leave that bit off? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme, all we were asking for was for you or anyone to propose major changes to the article on the talk page first, precisely to reach consensus. That's exactly what your local consensus link recommends: "As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." Instead, you chose to ignore us.Dontreader (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That quote is for policies and guidelines not for articles. Apples and oranges. The changes weren't major and did not need to be proposed. Changes were needed. Consensus already exist regarding useful referencing.duffbeerforme (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on

Come on Editors the debate is over time to move on
Which is why I removed the "requested comments" tag, your time would be better spent working on the article.
Nobody wins in point scoring and the article suffers. Robcamstone (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added "requested comments" tag back because never party is moving on and we need to conform what are legitimate edits and what if any are vandalism. I will not be adding anything new to this article until this matter is resolved. Robcamstone (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I certainly agree, but now he has wiped out the only reliable sources that exist for the Discography section, which you so heavily have contributed to, and which is now in danger because there are no references. Please tell me what you think. Dontreader (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember that you lost the debate when you wanted this page to be deleted. You are lucky I gave you so much time back then. Not any more. Dontreader (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for blessing me with your time. Now please stop using Wikipedia to promote commercial interests. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Those links were inserted there to prove that the discography section is true. Then I took out the links but reinserted just the names of the sites where a user can verify that the information is true, to reach a compromise. The point was never to promote commercial interests. The Harp Twins have over ten million total YouTube views of their videos, and they promote sales there. The Wikipedia traffic to this page is insignificant in comparison to that. If you were genuinely interested in contributing to this article you would suggest other links or ways to support the discography section, but your contributions history shows that you simply find pleasure in trying to get as many articles deleted as possible, which you spent a lot of time doing with this one as well, but you failed. I wonder how many articles you have created from scratch. My guess is none. Anyway, it's because of people like you that I will not donate to Wikipedia again. As I said, you offered no alternatives to support the discography section. You tried in vain to have this article removed, and now you are back to try to destroy it in other ways. Dontreader (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not any more lasted a long time. I came back to improve it not destroy it, so much for all your bleating about good faith. But i guess you don't want anyone else touching your shrine. If you are wondering about how many articles someone has started you can follow the articles created link found under their contributions. Instead of guessing zero you could have seen that it’s 293. Let’s see how many you’ve started, hmm, zero. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How am I supposed to assume that you are acting in good faith? When you took down links that were merely meant to support information provided in the Discography section, you edit description was "Wikipedia is not a directory of download links." That's not civil or constructive; you are stating that we don't know what Wikipedia is about, which is offensive. Then, when I tried to reach a compromise with you, by taking out the links, your next edit description was "Wikipedia is not a directory of download sites". Look at the contrast between your hostile style and Bgwhite's edit description: "IMDb can't be used as a ref as it is unreliable using AWB (9492)". That's a RESPECTFUL way to make an edit. And what solution did you offer after your two edits? NOTHING. You could have said here on the talk page that iTunes links can be used next to the track titles to corroborate the information provided in the discography table. That's what Bgwhite told me to do on his talk page, so I will do that. Then we shall see if you are truly here to help, or if you will revert that edit suggested by a Wikipedian who has 8 years of experience and has the title of Master Editor III. Dontreader (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing bad content is constructive and there's nothing offensive about the edit description. It's not hostile compared to Bgwhite's. Stop playing the victim. So you went venue shopping to try get the answer you wanted, packing lies and defamation and got some bad advise. Good for you. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet on Lindsey Stirling's page, in the discography section Lindsey Stirling#Discography you don't have a problem with this? It says, "Singles and EPs The following list of official music singles is available at the official independent record label website.", followed by this link: http://lindseystirling.mybigcommerce.com/music-singles-1/ Therefore, her page is promoting sales. Please explain the difference with the iTunes site or links you took out, so that I can learn. Dontreader (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme, I'm pasting here my latest reply written in the WP:RSN forum. And here is the iTunes link again, for comparison: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/game-of-thrones-single/id551895996

Lesser Cartographies, I'm very grateful for the impressive research. You have been very helpful, and I won't ask you to keep on addressing my points because I don't want to abuse anyone's generosity, but taking an even closer look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Sources, I think it's important to stress a couple of things:

1. When you quoted "the artist's or label's website" as allowable for discographic information, that certainly explains why the Lindsey Stirling website is fine, but that quote is under the category of "Useful resources", so it does not claim that those are the ONLY acceptable sources.

2. Furthermore, on that same page, I see that I can invoke Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Ignore all rules because "if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals." The reasonable justification, in my opinion, is that both Lindsey Stirling's link and the iTunes link that I showed as an example serve the exact same purpose, which is to support the claims made in the discography section. I certainly hope consensus can be reached on this matter because I'm tired of my edits being systematically reverted by duffbeerforme, who takes advantage of the fact that there is a lack of consensus. Thanks again for the kind help. Dontreader (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader, you came to my talk page to ask for advice. It would help a lot if you paid more attention to what I and others have pointed out to you.

1. Leave the other article aside for now. If it needs fixing, discuss it on its talk page. This discussion is about this article.
2. You are still displaying severe WP:OWNership issues. Please stop this. Editors do not need to consult you before making changes in accordance with established policy and guidelines.
3. There was nothing uncivil about an edit summary which says "Wikipedia is not a directory of download links". That sort of language is part of the policy at WP:LINKFARM.

Please, start paying some attention to policies and guidelines. You are on the edge of getting some formal warnings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And stop trying to make it about me. Cut out the personal attacks and lies. I was not very militant about trying to have the page deleted. I have not systematically reverted you. Why are you claiming I will automatically revert you? Why are you saying I'm not impartial (when you clearly are not), how is that relevant? Why have you complained about me to all those other editors? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I replied at the WP:RS discussion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes on the discography

I commented on the discussion of iTunes as a reliable source at WP:RS. As part of that discussion, dontreader asked me to drop by here and give a recommendation.

If I understand correctly, the duo does only covers, doesn't tour, and doesn't have a recording contract. They do sell music online and they make lots of youtube videos, as well as giving lots of hired-in performances.

Wikipedia has several articles on cover bands, and all of them have discographies that are sourced to a greater or lesser extent. All of the one I looked at, though, had recording contracts, so most of the material would have a potential source even if it hadn't been tracked down yet.

In this case, we have to rely on the duo's website; as per the wikipedia discography project, that's an allowable source for this (non-controversial) information.

So I'm going to recommend keeping the discography and citing it here.

• http://www.harptwins.com/MusicVideos.html

I'll leave the actual citing to someone who has more bandwidth than I do, at it looks like they put every video they've ever made on the same page....

As I don't see a reliable source that describes the instrumentation, it's probably best if that was left out of the discography (which appears to be common practice elsewhere).

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Lesser Cartographies, for your time and research. Yes, they have only released covers (on YouTube and for sale), but they have arranged their own compositions, which they often play wherever they are hired to perform, together with mostly covers, and they hope to release their own compositions at some point. Anyway, they are independent artists on purpose (I don't remember the exact reasons), so that's why they don't have a recording contract; they want freedom, among other reasons.

I think you are saying that the discography section should not specify which type of harp duet each track is (acoustic or electric), correct? If so, since Robcamstone designed the table, I'll let him make the changes, if that's what you meant (just making sure). Also, please, I don't understand exactly why the bandwidth is a problem on their videos page, or where to put their videos page link. As an external link? But again, maybe it's because I'm half asleep, but I don't understand this part: "I'll leave the actual citing to someone who has more bandwidth than I do, at it looks like they put every video they've ever made on the same page...." Please rephrase that, if you don't mind. I don't see a problem with citing a link no matter how massive the information may be on the actual page. Pardon my ignorance. And I just don't know where to place the link, as I said. Thank you very much for your help. Dontreader (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the instrumentation and added the link. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fan site

This looks very much like a fan site. Every little mention from the web thrown in. Detailing minor things. Does every little private party or release party performance belong in an encyclopedia? Every tv, blog or newspaper appearence mentioned? Especcialy since most of the sourcing is primary. The article also cherry picks quotes. Quotes chosen seem designed to promote. Article also suffers from Citation overkill. eg 5,6,7 [1] being used repeatedly to verify the same thing, even when they don't verify the text they follow. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all true, but I think it's a natural reaction to an article just coming out of AfD and being shepherded by a new-ish editor. (In a different universe, bands are only notable after their third negative review, but since we're in this universe....) I'll try to make a pass through in the next 24 hours and get the cites into a standard format and then see what's duplicative. Would you prefer that I propose changes here first or are you (and others) ok with WP:BRD? I don't have a preference. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO just do it. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Still in progress. Hope to pick this up tomorrow. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pausing... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Done for tonight. Article size (in bytes) has dropped by a third. To the person or persons (I don't know who it was and don't care to know) who invested a significant amount of time adding every mention of the group that they could find: consider this a learning experience. Go read the U2 article and then look up a couple dozen of the references. That's the quality we're aiming for. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A note on effective writing

To restate what duffbeerforme said above, exhaustive lists of coverage are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. Readers make the assumption that we've selected the best cites; the presence of lots of very short, press-release-based articles tells the reader that this is the best we can do (and the subject of the article isn't that notable). If an article is just a couple of paragraphs long, don't include it unless it's the only support we have for a necessary fact. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

CBS news contributor and more

Describing Johnson as a CBS News contributor is another example of the bias turning this page into a fan site. Johnson was blogging on The Feed. Write the plain and simple truth. The Feed blogger. Editorialising by finding out what else he does and putting that in to puff up his importance is the sort of thing that goes on in fan sites and is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Huffington Post is not as obviously a blog so saying she blogged is not redundant and provides the reader with more information than just said. Changing it to praised is editorialising, bringing in your personal reading of the post. Grammar and stuff is not my strong point but I think credited is the wrong word. Called, described, both better. It appears my changes were reverted not because they were wrong or misleading but because I made them and someone else owns this shrine. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme, the bias is all yours. You were calling this page a compendium of blogs even in March when you fought fervently to have this page deleted. Back then you also cited different Wikipedia rules to claim that the page should be deleted, but your arguments were flawed and the article was kept. Still today you come up with flawed arguments; for example, despite your claim, Bailey Johnson does indeed write for CBS News.

Question #1: Is that a fact, yes or no? If it's a fact, then Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. Even The Feed Blog is part of the CBS News website, but anyway, Johnson does not only write for The Feed Blog. Take a look again at the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-57392577-10391705/beautiful-harp-cover-of-the-cranberries-zombie/

The URL does not show The Feed Blog in any way, shape or form; instead, it says www.cbsnews.com. Now, that in itself is not proof that this is a CBS News article, but it certainly is an article, and the CBS News logo is at the top of the page, and you can see next to the video that it says "Most Popular on CBS News", plus at the very beginning of the article it says (CBS); furthermore, the CBS News logo appears again at the bottom of the page. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate categorically that this article is not a CBS News article. You might be obsessed with calling it a blog, but even if that's the case, it is still an article according to any dictionary definition, and it is a CBS News article. Back to question #1, does Bailey Johnson write for CBS News? Yes or no?

Secondly, your bias was blatantly exposed again when you capriciously decided to change the verb to "blogged" in the Huffington Post reference. You are obsessed with trying to make this article look like a collection of blogs, inserting that word even in the most irrational places. Can't a person "express", "write", "claim" or "state" something in the Huffington Post? Question #2: Does a reader receive more information (as you claimed) or benefit in any way from seeing the word "blogged" where you put it, as opposed to other alternatives? Yes or no?

You said that I was editorializing by using the word "praised", and you added that I was "bringing in [my] personal reading of the post." Therefore, here is question #3: Can you prove beyond any trace of doubt that Mallike did not "praise" their version of the Game of Thrones theme when she wrote: "Yes, there have been other attempts to cover Ramin Djawadi's haunting tune before, but this one is now the only one."? Yes or no?

Finally, I did not revert your edits. Your claim that I own this article and that I don't allow others to change it is getting old. What did I do to the recent edit (or to ANY edits) made by Crowdsalesmed, Bollywooddancer, or to the many edits made by Robcamstone (whom you recently retired from Wikipedia after targeting two of his articles for deletion)? Nothing at all. Answer those three questions, please, and thanks for using the talk page. Dontreader (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader, unless you turn it down several notches you'll be running the risk of getting blocked (see WP:CIVIL). We don't put up with language like "your bias was blatantly exposed again". I'm reverting back to duffbeerforme's version, as that version more accurately characterizes the sources. To the CBS/Feed issue: when Dan Savage writes an op-ed piece for the New York Times (as he has done on multiple occasions), we don't characterize him as a "New York Times contributor", even if we're citing that article. Bailey is know as a blogger, so Duff's attribution is correct. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And you think that calling my work "another example of the bias turning this page into a fan site" is civil and assuming good faith? Or to say that I "own" this "shrine"? Quite frankly, Lesser Cartographies, for the very first time you have truly disappointed me. Dontreader (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing at one remove

As per several discussions elsewhere, Duffbeerforme and Dontreader will be making editing suggestions and comments either on their own talk page, my talk page or Bgwhite's talk page, but not on each other's talk pages and not here. I will acknowledge discussion regarding edits once I have seen them. I will be not be acknowledging comments about editors. Specific suggestions will be moved here and reformatted. I'll then indicate whether or not I think the edit should be made and propose the specific diff. Depending on how controversial I think the change will be, I'll allow time for responses before making the change. Changes can be reverted, so don't think anything is permanent just because it went live.

I'm not going to identify who made which suggestion. You can probably figure it out, but I'd prefer you refer to, for example, "Suggestion #7". (Update: Not all suggestions/questions on this list are from Duff and Don.)

• Do not make comments regarding the motivations, competence, good faith or lack thereof of another editor.

1 Restore cites to [2], [3], and other TV appearances.

 Done No. The first is at 41-second montage of videos with the announcer talking over it. The second is a 30-second clip of more of the same. I was under the impression that these were either interviews or performances for that TV station. Thanks to Duff for prompting me to take a second look.

Just to be clear: a televised interview or performance given for a particular TV station would be appropriate for this article. These links are PR and are not appropriate to cite. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

2 Remove reference to book launch.

 Done Per consensus, removing "The Kitt twins performed ... Los Angeles" and three citations used only in those sentences.

Note, these may be added back as a part of a list of performances.

3 Remove references to private parties.

Proposing to remove citations "conference" (dead link), "chicagotrib" (passing reference) and "cusp". The "cusp" citation is detailed and well-written, but given the source I'd say it was generated from a press release. Also remove "The Harp Twins performed ... Chicago." This will leave two sentences uncited; I expect other citations can be found to cover those.

Update: This may be added to a list of performances.

No opinion yet on the Gaultier private party.

Update: This may be added to a list of performances.

 Done See #4.

4 Remove references to performances at political events.

Update: This may be added to a list of performances.

 Done These simply don't fit. There don't appear to be enough performances to flesh out a list, and the reliable sources are so sparse that allowing these into the text dominates the article. The group isn't known for its performances—which is why we have so few reliable sources speaking to the performances. Removing them doesn't hurt the article and doesn't endanger notability.

5 Verify "for" is supported by the political event citation.

 Done No change. If the text had read "performed for" that would have been problematic; "performed ... at a dinner for" ... "and at events for" is reasonable. There might still be a problem with finding a WP:RS for this, but WP:PUFF isn't an issue. (Now moot.)

6 Remove mention of commercial due to lack of WP:RS.

Unlikely to keep this unless much better citations come in.

 Done Insufficient citations.

7 Verify use of blogs is appropriate for sources.

 Question: Please list the citations you'd like me to verify. I could probably pick out most of them, but I'd rather not guess.

In progress.

8 Verify the quote used here represents the sense of the article.

 Done No change. There are 101 words in the article and we've quoted 21 of them here. The quoted sentence adequately summarizes the author's point of view.

9 User "blogger" to describe HuffPost authors to avoid confusion.

 Question: Do reliable sources describe the author as a blogger or as a writer?

 Done For all I can tell, Bailey Johnson is a pseudonym for a collection of writers. The material appeared at the CBS Feed blog, the author writes, that's all in the text now.

10 Verify "11 million views" exists in cited source, replace source or remove text if not sourceable.

11 Find good source for "particularly significant worldwide media attention", take into account WP:PEACOCK.

 Done Removed as it was just poor writing.

12 Do sources justify occupations? ("Harpists, Actresses, Performers, Arrangers, Composers")

 Done "Performers" is redundant, "Composers" is not what they're known for and we have no WP:RS that discuss this (as opposed to just mentioning it).

13 Do sources justify use of "release" to describe covers?

 Done Yes.

14 Is a listing of covers appropriate?

 Done Yes.

15 Use Bear McCreary's tweet as a source.

 Done No. Using marginal sources makes the article look marginal.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Added 12-14. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Will resume tomorrow. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: Added 15.

• My thoughts:

1. Support
2. Support
3. Support
4. Oppose
5. More details required
6. Support
7. Blogs may be used for factual information as a primary source if other reliable sources confirm notability.
8. Seems fine to me
9. Oppose
10. Sure, but verification may be done with primary source.
11. Oppose the phrase as it doesn't seem to offer anything to improve the article.

Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• My votes/opinions:

1. Support
2. -
3. Oppose – Cusp Conference is an annual conference having featured many notable speakers and musical artists, and is not a party.
4. Oppose
5. -
6. Oppose
7. I believe they can be used
8. -
9. Oppose
10. Source is their official YouTube channel (CamilleandKennerly) – views are verified by YouTube
11. I believe DonTreader included many initial references including TV appearances – references would need to be re-added, though since they were later deleted by another editor.
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes, especially when the artist is currently primarily a cover artist.

Thanks! Crowdsalesmed (talk) 25 October 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like a pretty solid article. I mentioned to Duff a while back that the musical notability guidelines should require at least one negative review; we now have one very slightly negative mention in a doctoral dissertation. The remaining citations actually have something to say. The largest problem at the moment is what to do with the list of films; I'm guessing the majority have no citations at all. Although we're not done yet, comments are welcome on your respective talk pages. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for additional information

I would like to get a better sense of how this article compares to other similar articles. I'm going to be reviewing the articles listed here and focusing on articles about groups who do not yet have a recording contract. (I understand the Kitts also compose their own songs, but like these groups they're known for their covers). My sense is these groups tend to be from several years ago; I'd be interested to take a look at articles on groups newer than these.

I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFF; both positive and negative examples are welcome. Two or three articles are fine, a dozen is too many. If you think of any, leave them on your talk page (editors not involved in the current dispute may leave them here). Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications

The subject of the article is notable. It's understandable that after a brush with WP:AFD a new user will try, in good faith, to keep adding citations (and resist deleting them) in hopes of preventing another trip. These new citations usually weaken the article. The best description of this I know of is WP:BOMBARD: "Adding additional references is good when each source has a lot of information of its own."

Not all suggestions/questions on this list are from Duff and Don.

Editors are invited to read the article on the Principle of charity.

• Do not make comments regarding the motivations, competence, good faith or lack thereof of another editor.

Path forward

First, let me give a precise definition of the problem we're trying to solve. It doesn't have a name, so I'm going to call it the CV problem. Taking an example from the sciences: if you are Francis Collins and your resume is 41 pages long, then you have plenty of highlights with which to fill up an short CV. If you're a new graduate student, you still need to fill those one or two pages despite having only limited accomplishments. There is a temptation to toss in everything you've ever done (classes you've taken, class projects, hobbies, etc). If not handled carefully, that material can make the person look ridiculous.

Similarly, if we were working on the U2 article, we'd we selecting from a wealth of well-documented highlights. Here, the understandable inclination is to include every source that mentions the Kitts, even if it is only a passing reference. This approach does a disservice to the topic (see WP:FANCRUFT). As a general rule, both CVs and articles should not be stretched to the point where it appears the author is padding the work with trivia.

All that being said, however, there is a place in wikipedia for well-sourced, relevant trivia. The videos and performances of this group are relevant to an encyclopedia article, and there's very little in the way of policy for keeping out relevant, sourced information.

Here's how we're going to resolve this problem.

1. The text of the article will summarize the handful of impeccable sources we have, probably taking up one to three paragraphs. "A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics." (WP:ARTICLE, emphasis added)

2. Material covering videos, live performances and television appearances may appear in dedicated lists and will be presented from a WP:NEUTRAL point of view.

I'll wait a day or two before continuing to edit to allow for comment, then collect additional suggestions and implement them (or not) based on the above framework. Feedback is welcome, particularly feedback informed by policy. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're done for now

Thanks to everyone who participated. I've left the article with a couple of citation needed tags as a hint to future contributors. It would probably be best of Duffbeerforme and Dontreader continued to avoid editing here, but further suggestions for edits are welcome at my talk page. Well done, all! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Single Releases?

Were the selections listed under "Single Releases" really released as singles, or just videos that the Kitts posted online? GoingBatty (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Dontreader, do you know? Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite Yes, I replied to GoingBatty on his talk page. I think he has all the necessary information now. I'm just trying to avoid writing on this talk page. The Twins actually have some new releases but we can deal with that later on. Dontreader (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)