Talk:Just the Beginning (Grace VanderWaal album)

Her official site doesn't double as album official site

While I'm not doubting that there might be some cases where a website can fit as the official website for an artist and the artist's work, I don't see how it applies here. My thought was that the "Album trailer" link serves some of the purposes of an official site, especially in how it links to smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning . --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about my edit summary. It would have been better not to bring up any reference to past disputes. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've exchanged the link given for this specific page on her site that states that it is the official page for the album. Why don't you fix things instead of always blindly deleting? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a store site. It's a rather blatantly inappropriate. It's linked from "Store" on her official page.

They can call whatever they want an "official site" (I'm not seeing what you're referring to though), but we have guidelines and policies to follow. A music album will rarely have an WP:ELOFFICIAL link because an album is not a person or organization that can meet the purpose of ELOFFICIAL, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."

I'm not going to remove it at this moment in the hope that it will help us resolve this quickly. --Ronz (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I would not add the link to the sales page, but the official site that was edit warred over does not beach WP:ELNO, and I would expect to see an artiste's official webpage linked. My suggestion would be to tom back to that one. – SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress.

Her official website doesn't belong because this article is not about her. External links should give insight and additional information directly about the subject of the article, the album. If editors want to learn more about the person, we have an article about her that includes her official website. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, having a link to an artist's official website is progress, isn't it. It seems like common sense to have a link to the artiste's website. It won't replace our article, or (being at the bottom of a page which links to her three times) put people off reading our article on her, but will provide a sensible link to something very closely related. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

People coming to Wikipedia for information about this new album need a link to VanderWaal's official website. If you don't like the homepage, pick which page you prefer, but you can't just delete a link to the artist's website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for inclusion. Any further arguments? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no policy-based arguments for exclusion. Your move. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As there's no further arguments, let's break down the entire section:

• VanderWaal's official website

  This is not an WP:ELOFFICIAL website for the album.

  This website is not about the album, and is focused on basic promotion of VanderWaal's works.

  As such, I think that the link fails all applicable parts of WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Album trailer

  A short pr video for the album that links to smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning , which contains samples of each song from the album. The content is highly promotional, providing very little information about the album. I don't think has enough relevant content to meet EL, and too heavily conflicts with NOT. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• VanderWaal at the Austin City Limits Music Festival, October 7, 2017, where she introduced several songs from the album

  A short pr video that has little to do with the album, much less give any information about it. As such, I think it fails NOT and EL. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I disasgree. The official website does not breach the WP:ELNO guideline and should remain. WP:NOT has nothing to do with this. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with SchroCat. I do not agree with anything that Ronz states above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the descriptions of the content of the webpages? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes [adding for clarity: Yes, I disagree with your descriptions]. But mostly I disagree with your understanding of WP:EL and your ongoing attempts to deprive readers of useful links. Your persistently aggressive over-interpretation of ELNO is destructive to the Wikipedia project, and, again, I urge you to avoid dealing with EL issues and try some content creation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Then, unless we hear otherwise from SchroCat or someone else, we agree on the description of the links. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I responded that I DISAGREE with your descriptions of the links. I have clarified further above so that you cannot possibly misunderstand this time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you describe them then yourself, or point out what you disagree to? --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Whenever I see your name on my watchlist, I know that you have come to waste a huge amount of my time and the time of everyone else who contributes to the article in question. You have never contributed anything useful to any of those articles. Why don't you stop your obsessive behavior (I say "obsessive", giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your actions are in good faith), and do something useful? You are not doing anything useful here. That is a certainty. You continue to harm the Wikipedia project by sucking up my time with your ongoing, crusade against ELs, so that I, and others, have to spend time answering your silly questions on Talk pages instead of researching and writing articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Just_the_Beginning_(Grace_VanderWaal_album). --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. Do you actually see how disruptive you are being over something so minor? This really is sub standard behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Just the Beginning (Grace VanderWaal album). 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/20171103025835/http://trl.mtv.com/news/3045259/grace-vanderwaal-trl-appearance/ to http://trl.mtv.com/news/3045259/grace-vanderwaal-trl-appearance

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) 10:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)