Talk:The Souljazz Orchestra

Changes and image

Changes are welcome. But, please keep existing citations if they're valid. Also, please include new citations for any new facts. It's possible you may know something is true, but you need a citation, for other people to verify. Also, if people want to use a better image, that's great, but it's necessary to obtain a free license from the photographer. You can read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for examples of what to ask. This is a legal matter, so we can't just take whatever image we want. Also, it's not enough for a band to say we can use the image, they have to release it under a free license, or make it public domain. --Rob (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rob, where's your template for the free licence to replace the photo? Can you instruct people reading your notice how to obtain said license? I know someone who took a nice picture of the entire band (instead of yours that contains only four of the members). And are we assuming you have permission from the band to publish this pic? --Sers jr. (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The image has only four of the six members. What person would fight to keep it?--198.103.180.1 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

After 7 years, can someone please find a new photo? Surely there are better and more current ones available that we can replace this with?Sers jr. (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Needed Improvements

I added a few internal links to othe WP entries. I also added a discography section and pulled the bio from their site. The content looks much more up to standard to WP. I really like these guys and want them to have a good entry in WP --198.103.249.251 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's great you want to improve the article. But you can't just copy text from a web site, even a Souljazz page. You need to write your own words. Also, you should provide sources for the information you provide, so other people can verify the information. A Wikipedia article is completely unlike MySpace (which the text was copied). We're not here to promote this or any band. It's an encyclopedic article, reflecting what third party sources say about the topic. --Rob (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to promote them, but I don't want them to have a delinquent entry either. A lack of detail in a reference such as Wikipedia is worse than filling the detail with info from Myspace, especially when you have the sources to use in those articles that are listed. If you have to be in complete control of their page, create in your own words certain details: how they met, how the albums were produced, or how the Mighty Popo ended up on their second album.Who plays what? What cities have they travelled to and performed in? Have they performed at any festivals? These are the details that should be included in a Wikipedia entry. They aren't subjective opinions that must be sourced, they are facts (Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content). You have the bio from their site as a source, but no info from it here on Wikipedia. Compare this entry with that of other musicians and see the huge difference (and notice the info that doesn't have to be sourced). Coldplay, U2, Soulive, Beatles and Philosopher Kings don't need sources to justify certain general details. If you've self-appointed yourself the controller of their entry and won't accept my suggestions, I'm politely requesting you fix it yourself, soon. --198.103.249.251 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the entries for 10 other bands, and none of them sourced the band's membership. They don't source the city of origin, or the style of music, or the list of albums. Needing a reference for these details is apparently "sourcing overkill". I believe that this is the "source" of the problem.--198.103.249.251 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a policy that "All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source." None of what this guy is wanting to add is contentious. Therefore, it shouldn't need to be sourced. Musical groups have regular info that isn't disputed because you can check the info in the linear notes: the name of the albums, the band's members, the date of publication, roles in the band, etc. Without these details, they shouldn't have an entry. Made changes. --Sers jr. (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

According to our verifiability policy, everything has to be sourceable. If it's not contentious the source can be added later, but everything needs to have a source. Also, when you say "None of what this guy is wanting to add is contentious" that's baloney. The text he copied from the MySpace page claimed a release " is already being hailed as a modern classic". Of course, that's absolutely contestable. Other dubious claims are made. --Rob (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the use of a Myspace page for text either. I see from the references that you have a personal investment in the band. But the guy outlined the questions/concerns he/she thinks should be answered in the comments. And they're fair: there's nothing contestable in a simple discography with some dates and names of labels. That's why I added it. Album are legal copywritten materials that can't always be sourced electronically. If they have albums, they should be listed. Members of bands aren't contestable either. It's all detailed in their legally copywritten albums. That's all that's required. We don't have to source Amazon as proof. How they started up can't be sourced, but would be an interesting addition that you find on every band article. --Sers jr. (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Providing references is something everyone is supposed to do, and it's not a sign of "personal investment". By definition, for something to be verifiable, it must have sources. Also, you should be careful about relying on liner notes. Many bands produce their own works out of their home. But, generally, unless something has been released on a notable record label, or has been written about independently, it really doesn't deserve mention anywhere in Wikipedia. This band appears to have actually had some stuff released on a label, which is why I haven't removed it. If you do add a discography without a source, you should at least simply state the record label that released it (it's an implicit source). I'm not going to remove the discography, as I'm sure that info is available. And again, don't make stupid accusations, such as I have a "personal investment" in the band. I don't care about the band, and I wasn't the person trying to add promo material, but was the person who removed it. --Rob (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy you don't object to my additions, Rob. --Sers jr. (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa U

Can we say in the bio that they met at University of Ottawa? Or is that not correct? They used to play at the U of O all the time at the café.--198.103.249.251 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerts

For a group that has played hundreds of concerts throughout the years, it is not necessary to single out a single performance in "Fredicton" [sic] in an encyclopedic article. It's better to keep the article short than to provide trivial and random facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.43.152 (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First, two sentences do not make an article. One could argue that they make a dull entry that don't merit an entry in the first place. That's why most bands have a bio. Second, the gig in "Fredricton" was not singled out. Milestones, such as being invited to five jazz festivals across Canada, should be added even if they're in smaller cities. Getting to play at a jazz festival is not the same as playing at a bar in Ottawa. This band has achieved certain accomplishments that deserve to be added as facts (they were even sourced). --Sers jr. (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per evidence given by nom, which supports WP:THE explicit section about band-names. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Souljazz Orchestra → The Souljazz Orchestra – The band's official name is "The Souljazz Orchestra", not "Souljazz Orchestra". It is the name listed on each of their albums, the name on their official website, the name used by their labels Strut Records and Do Right! Music, and the name used in most reliable sources, including the AllMusic Guide listed as reference. Marc skwiercz (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE. Looking at the references in the article it appears that it's normally written as "the Souljazz Orchestra", not "The Souljazz Orchestra", in running text. Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Capitalization such as Jenks refers to is not uncommon even when "The" is part of the band's name. Observe, for example, mixed usage in prose of The Pogues. This doesn't necessarily mean the move is a good idea, however; "the" can also be added to names when it just sounds more natural. Official usage supports the move, and the refs seem to be using it too. "The" is sometimes omitted in headlines for convenience's sake, which can also be seen at The Pogues (from no less an authoritative source as the BBC). --BDD (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.