Talk:My Wicked Twin

Untitled

Regarding the tag for "improper use of self-published sources" in references -- which references are those? 66.241.134.40 (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It should just be unreliable references. None of the references for this band are from any sort of notable source. Try Allmusic, ultimate-guitar, or other reliable band sources. The main source, Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles has an equally unreliable page on wikipedia.

The band has no albums that have garnered any chart performance or radio play. The only thing that prevents it from speedy deletion on notability is that two+ members are or were from Helix, which is a notable band. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Brave Words "unreliable"? It is Canada's premier metal magazine, akin to what Kerrang! is in the UK. If you are not Canadian, you might not be aware of it, however it is a legitimate metal publication available nationwide. Since My Wicked Twin do not have an allmusic article then we can't use allmusic as a source. In my opinion the tag should be removed. 76.71.148.218 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I myself am not arguing its reliability in my opinion, I'm arguing it from a wikipedia standpoint. I do live in Canada, but I have never seen the magazine in stores (And as a musician I check the guitar shelves all the time). Quoting magazine reviews would be fine to do, but web articles will generally be tossed aside by most editors unless they are notable world-wide as a reliable opinion on music.

I simply recommend finding more sources, instead of relying almost solely upon this magazine (Which like most things Canadian (especially music), tends to go unnoticed elsewhere in the world). More sources = more notability and more reliability, as it eliminates the bias of a single source.

I also recommend getting an account. If both of the comments not made by me were from the same person, then you have a dynamic IP address and appear as a new contributor each time you log in. You should take the time to make an account, as it encourages many stubborn editors to take the time to read your opinions. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
I will look into getting an account. In the meantime, I really must question your statement about bravewords as a reliable source. Maybe you can clarify for me, because I don't understand. Why (for example) if I wanted a reference to show that Brent Doerner had rejoined Helix, can I not use Canada's most respected metal magazine's website as a source? If they publish an article that says, "Brent has rejoined Helix", why is that not reliable? It is not like this is some fly-by-night magazine, its issues now number in the hundreds and you can buy it at most Chapters stores in Canada, as well as every HMV. Tim Henderson's career goes back 20 years to when he was a writer for MEAT Magazine, and Martin Popoff's resume speaks for itself (dozens of the most intensely researched books in the metal genre available, of which I have at least 10). I have noticed other wikipedia articles using bravewords, and Popoff, as a source. I understand that people want to see more varied sources, and that makes sense. However in this case, a band who has had very little media coverage in their 7 month long career, I am using everything that is available. (As you stated earlier, notability isn't an issue since they have 3 ex-or-current Helix members and 1 current Saga member.)
So to sum up what I am asking -- for the scant information in the wikipedia article, why are references from a Canadian metal magazine's website not enough to back them up? It's not like anybody is claiming that My Wicked Twin has invented rock and roll and is using a web link to back up that claim. There are simply some quotes from the band members (from two different interview sources) about lack of sales, and how the band formed; as well as documentation about lineup changes and recording of the CD. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, I would just like further clarification because it's confusing. 66.241.134.40 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was saying that using that magazine as the sole source of information on this band is bad, because it honestly undermines any success of theirs by the fact that only one magazine has articles on them (At least as the reader would gather). Again, any source will do as long as its not tied to some information that someone could really question. Based on how many interviews/articles they seem to have with that magazine, I'm sure you could find something in local papers (Either the Tri-city's paper, Hamilton, or Toronto papers), or in other magazines. Saga is very very famous in Europe, and so I wouldn't be surprised if you found articles on this band from sites like the dutch prog-rock page. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have four sources for nine references now. 1 CBC, 1 Kitchener Record, 1 Sleezroxx, and 6 Bravewords.66.241.134.40 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good morning guys and/or gals. Reading through here, would it be more appropriate for a simple "references" tag rather than the "self published" tag? Let me know your thoughts, cheers. Frehley72 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, with the recent changes made by the author I believe it can be upgraded to a simple refimprove. Doing the deed now. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on My Wicked Twin. 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/20100603034804/http://www.mywickedtwin.com/Music/MerchCD2.htm to http://mywickedtwin.com/Music/MerchCD2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609013514/http://mywickedtwin.com/ to http://mywickedtwin.com/

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) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)