 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
1
edit@Ss112: what are the sources you think are unreliable? Flooded with them hundreds 10:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Flooded with them hundreds: Ravejungle uses the standard Wordpress template—the small black banner as a footer on the website is a dead giveaway.
- The page source for thissongslaps states it uses Wordpress plugins, indicating it is written using that website and is a blog
- The page source for nesthq uses a "Google analytics for Wordpress" script, indicating it is written using that website and is a blog
- edmsauce.com is clearly a blog with the small black banner used on Wordpress sites and has been removed from similar articles before
- edmtunes also uses Wordpress (indicated by its layout and page source) and is therefore a blog
- The layout for noiseprn is a dead giveaway it's a Wordpress blog. I've used that exact template on a Wordpress blog I've made before.
- relentlessbeats.com uses Wordpress scripts, indicating it's a blog created using that site
- Weraveyou uses the Wordpress generator in its page script, indicating it is a blog created using that site
- runthetrap additionally uses Wordpress scripts, indicating it is made using that website and is a blog.
These are self-published sources (per WP:SPS). Anybody can make a blog using Wordpress, buy a .com domain and act like they're an authority. Ss112 11:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Without these, you'd still have like eight or nine sources, which is enough for an article of this size. I don't know if all the information will be sourced, though. Ss112 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- We Rave You, Noiseprn and EDM Sauce have a crew of credentialed staff. Not all websites that use Wordpress' template are unreliable[1] and many of these are big name publications in the EDM industry that have operated for decades (EDM doesn't get huge coverage though so it's reasonable for people to doubt the reliability of its main sources). Run the Trap is a news site dedicated to Trap music (EDM). It was created by a Mashable staff[2] and has its own dedicated staff team. I'm not seeing anything that shows how Relentless Beats is unreliable. Nest HQ is run by Skrillex's Owsla so maybe it can be removed. EDM Tunes is probably a mirror of EDM Sauce so it too can be removed. If just the two are removed, are you okay with untemplating the article?
- We Rave You - https://weraveyou.com/the-crew/
- CEO & Founder - Yotam Dov, CO-Manager - Tim Olsson, Editor - Shantanu Singh, Instagram Manager - Antonio Di Giorgio, Writer - Abhinav Manmohan, Editor - Florito Maniego, Spotify Manager - Tomas Zboril, Youtube Manager - Petar Lazarevic, Writer - Raymond Murphy, Brand Manager - Branka Maxim, Twitter Manager - Henry Wallis, Editor - Amy Martine Shaw, Writer - Alexander Costello, Writer - Sean Wolfe, Writer - Keith Warren, Writer - James Todoroski, Editor - Jake Gable, Video Manager / Writer - Johan de Kock
- Noiseporn - http://www.noiseprn.com/aboutus/
- President & CEO - Jorge Brea, Editor-In-Chief - Jeanette Kats, Video Production - Lorenzo de la Cantera and Vanessa Johnson, Graphic Design - Adam Bentley, Advertising and Marketing - Janette Berrios and Greg Vinas, 16 Staff Writers
- EDM Sauce - https://www.edmsauce.com/about-us/staff/
- Founder & CEO - Steven Jacobs, Editor in Chief - Erik Mahal, VP of Events - Kris Novak, Director of Photography - Joseph D'Oria, VP of HR Operations - Bruce Genovese Flooded with them hundreds 11:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to get into credentials, the fact that these sites have multiple people working for them doesn't mean any of them are actually writers with anything beyond a fan perspective on the subject matter, and maybe they also copyedit the other fans'/writers' articles for their websites. Are they writers who've had pieces printed in major publications aside from the Mashable guy? Are they experts on the subejct matter? Doubtful. They can't all be reliable sources that you've used, and where do we stop using Wordpress blog sources then? For instance, my sister and her friend set up a Wordpress blog with a .com domain and checked over each others' articles too, does that make them authorities on the topics they wrote about enough to be cited on Wikipedia because they were technically a team and editors too? No, it doesn't. Several of these you previously dismissed as blogs, so I think you need to make your mind up about what is and what is not a reliable source when it comes to sources for EDM and stick to one consistent perspective, instead of changing it depending on the situation. I doubt you knew much of what you've just written when you added these sources to the article; you've just found it out by researching it now. So you added the sources to the article without knowing that they're reputable publications and are finding whatever to back it up. I'd like to have other editors' input. Maybe a request for comment can be opened, or by dropping a line at the WikiProject Electronic Music talk page. An editor tagging a page you created is not a personal slight and it does not make your article look bad by having it there. It doesn't mean it's going to be deleted or in danger of it. I am not saying I am right and all of what I said were Wordpress blogs should go, I'm saying they're not all reliable just because they have people working for them—because so do plenty of the sites listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID. Ss112 11:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- How about at least replacing the template with ([unreliable source?]) for each of the sources? Is that fine? Flooded with them hundreds 12:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Flooded with them hundreds: Not getting a timely response doesn't mean I don't object and that you can just go ahead and make your proposed changes. You've just disregarded WP:OVERTAGGING. What you have just done is a prime example of overtagging. Read that link. It clearly says use an overall tag for a section or article instead of lots of little tags. I told you just before not to take a template at the top of your article as a personal slight but obviously you can't get past that, and the visibility of it is a big problem for you. You've actually now made three reverts because you've removed the template yet again to do what you've just done. Ss112 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Come on, it's not a big deal! Flooded with them hundreds 14:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously it is a big deal to you, otherwise you wouldn't have kept removing it. Ss112 14:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Come on, it's not a big deal! Flooded with them hundreds 14:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Flooded with them hundreds: Not getting a timely response doesn't mean I don't object and that you can just go ahead and make your proposed changes. You've just disregarded WP:OVERTAGGING. What you have just done is a prime example of overtagging. Read that link. It clearly says use an overall tag for a section or article instead of lots of little tags. I told you just before not to take a template at the top of your article as a personal slight but obviously you can't get past that, and the visibility of it is a big problem for you. You've actually now made three reverts because you've removed the template yet again to do what you've just done. Ss112 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- How about at least replacing the template with ([unreliable source?]) for each of the sources? Is that fine? Flooded with them hundreds 12:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to get into credentials, the fact that these sites have multiple people working for them doesn't mean any of them are actually writers with anything beyond a fan perspective on the subject matter, and maybe they also copyedit the other fans'/writers' articles for their websites. Are they writers who've had pieces printed in major publications aside from the Mashable guy? Are they experts on the subejct matter? Doubtful. They can't all be reliable sources that you've used, and where do we stop using Wordpress blog sources then? For instance, my sister and her friend set up a Wordpress blog with a .com domain and checked over each others' articles too, does that make them authorities on the topics they wrote about enough to be cited on Wikipedia because they were technically a team and editors too? No, it doesn't. Several of these you previously dismissed as blogs, so I think you need to make your mind up about what is and what is not a reliable source when it comes to sources for EDM and stick to one consistent perspective, instead of changing it depending on the situation. I doubt you knew much of what you've just written when you added these sources to the article; you've just found it out by researching it now. So you added the sources to the article without knowing that they're reputable publications and are finding whatever to back it up. I'd like to have other editors' input. Maybe a request for comment can be opened, or by dropping a line at the WikiProject Electronic Music talk page. An editor tagging a page you created is not a personal slight and it does not make your article look bad by having it there. It doesn't mean it's going to be deleted or in danger of it. I am not saying I am right and all of what I said were Wordpress blogs should go, I'm saying they're not all reliable just because they have people working for them—because so do plenty of the sites listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID. Ss112 11:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Without these, you'd still have like eight or nine sources, which is enough for an article of this size. I don't know if all the information will be sourced, though. Ss112 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- With all arguments aside, if these source are not reliable then they should be replaced, or at the very least discussed at WP:RSN if it isn't clear whether they are reliable or not. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming it is not obviously frivolous or inappropriate, as a general rule maintenance tags should not be removed until there is a consensus that the issues in question have been resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)