Talk:Tom Holkenborg

Origin

A performer's origin is usually the place where his career kicked off, not his place of birth. In the case of Junkie XL that would be either Groningen, Amsterdam or Wolvega but not Lichtenvoorde. I think his career as the musician Junkie XL started in his Amsterdam period, maybe in Groningen but not before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.215.205 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Junkie XL. 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/20130630040145/http://www.buzzinemusic.com/interviews/music-interview-tom-holkenborg-junkie-xl-booming-back-at-you-02102009 to http://www.buzzinemusic.com/interviews/music-interview-tom-holkenborg-junkie-xl-booming-back-at-you-02102009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026115633/http://www.onbeat.com/interviews_JunkieXL.php to http://www.onbeat.com/interviews_JunkieXL.php

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) 03:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. no objections raised (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 07:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Junkie XL → Tom Holkenborg – Per his official website, Tom Holkenborg only uses the stage name "Junkie XL" for his works as an electronic artist. His last studio album was in 2012, and he has since transitioned to mostly film scores (which he is best known for nowadays). He did recently release his first EP in almost a decade (article), but as seen here he has been credited as "Tom Holkenborg" in virtually all of his albums since 2015. His Twitter and Instagram profiles are also titled "Tom Holkenborg", while his official website is located at tomholkenborg.com and not junkiexl.com. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding sourcing

@Armegon: - Every film in the table needs a source per WP:VERIFY, not just the two with the removed refs. Sourcing is important for verification, and I don't think the films having released is a reason to remove sources. In the case of the Screenrant ref for Rebel Moon 2, the article linked doesn't mention Holkenborg, so removing that one is apt since it doesn't verify his involvement. Waxworker (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY DOES NOT SAY "every film in the table needs a source" -- so I don't know where you're pulling that from. Also MOS:TABLES does not say anything that citing sources are a definite must-have for tables, this is more of a personal style if an editor wishes to add a REF. column to the table or cite a source in the header. And again, every single film score on those tables are left unsourced. So, it makes no sense to restore two sources for two films that are already released. If anyone disputes the credits, the billing credits are immediately available. Armegon (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Armegon: - WP:BURDEN states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". If the concern is inconsistency with every other entry in the table, I'd like to add refs for every other film entry so they can be readily verified. I don't think that the presence of other unsourced content on the article is a reason to remove sources. Waxworker (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You're ignoring the context of WP:BURDEN: "The BURDEN to DEMONSTRATE verifiability LIES WITH THE EDITOR who adds or restores material." A context that doesn't apply here because no one is leaving a new edit unsourced, we're removing two existing and unnecessary sources.

Besides, the refs would be cited in the article's body, not the table. Several film-related articles have wiki tables without refs, see Quentin Tarantino's Filmography, Christopher Nolan's Filmography, List of works by Akira Kurosawa. As you can clearly see refs are not necessary for tables because they're already cited in the body. The only exception is refs used for the NOTES column, like List of compositions by Danny Elfman.

If you're gonna add sources to every single column on the table, then that's fine -- though I recommend you citing them in the body not the tables. But there's no logical reason to leave only two refs and the rest empty. Again, neither MOS:TABLES or WP:VERIFY pushes for refs to be cited on wiki tables specifically and several articles, like the ones I shared above, don't cite refs on their tables either.

And if one is to add refs to a table, then it seems you're required to include an extra column for refs like the tables at Quentin Tarantino filmography, not next to the film title column -- but that article looks to be specifically made for wiki tables more than prose paragraphs. Armegon (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Armegon: - I'm working on getting refs for all of the film scores, and done a bit under half the table thus far. The vast majority of the credits in the table weren't cited in the body of the article either, so I'm unsure what you mean by "no one is leaving a new edit unsourced, we're removing two existing and unnecessary sources" - the sources removed aren't in the body of the article. Waxworker (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Just saw your new edits. Good job! The tables and article in general is looking nice and sourced. I’ll fill in a few blanks myself later on.

And to clarify my comment, the context of WP:BURDEN is that it’s up to an editor to back up their claims with sources. But there’s no burden on anyone, in this case, since we (were) removing two old sources, not adding new edits and leaving them unsourced. Armegon (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)