Talk:Haze (band)

External links

@Pigsonthewing: IBTD about WP:EL and untrue edit summaries in this diff. –84.46.53.251 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please write in English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Untrue is something in the direction of lying in an attempted personal attack and LMGTFY is inconclusive, but the Urban Dictionary has a clue.^[1]. As you put it on Pink Floyd: HTH. –84.46.53.33 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/884045720/884068790: Your edits on Haze were not very constructive: If you want {{authority control}} as first external link get a consensus for it, so far it is always the last thing before the categories.
Using templates such as {{discogs artist}} for external links is also generally preferred, among other features this allows a common presentation and import from / export to / plausibility checks with WikiData by bots.
While at it try harder to minimise the BS, please. Folks will anyway assume that we both didn't bother to look into WP:EL for more than a decade. –84.46.53.33 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.53.0 (talk)

One of the requirements for placing maintenance tags is to clearly enunciate your concerns on the talk page. From the above, I cannot discern the exact problems that you are trying to fix other than the two statements that you have marked as 'citation needed'.

Their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pg/HazeUK/about/?ref=page_internal confirms Danny McMahon as a drummer with the band. Although we prefer secondary sources, the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability #Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves makes it clear that social media sites may be used to verify mundane statements that subjects make about themselves, subject to five criteria, which are met in this instance. Using that page as a source for some uncontroversial facts about dates or personnel might alleviate your concern about diversity of sources.

If you have concerns about notability, then by all means consider the Articles for deletion process: read through it and take particular note of WP:BEFORE section D. A quick Google search turned up multiple sources (although you have to pick out the ones about this Sheffield band from amongst the others), although I'm not sufficiently familiar with the field to judge the reliability of those sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The concern for {{one source}} is obvious, it was a dead link before I fixed it with WayBack. The concern for {{notability}} is a corollary: One source with tour dates in the 80s isn't good enough to be notable, a WP:42 reference would help.
I know how PROD + AFD work, I'm not interested to get rid of this page, it isn't bad apart from the dubious {{Songkick}} EL (assuming that it doesn't offer new insights over the one source, untested) and the two noted multiple issues plus two missing citations. I checked this page, because I'd be interested in a US band Von Haze, unfortunately the UK Haze (band) is unrelated. –84.46.52.182 (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Placing a maintenance tag is an attempt to draft in more expertise to fix a problem that you've been unable to fix yourself. I see no attempt on your part to add extra sources, as the Facebook page that I found in seconds and gave as an example is not only another obvious source, but incidentally also answered one of your specific requests for a citation. The impression you give is that you are using at least two of the four tags you placed as criticism, not as a means of improving the article. That's not their purpose.

I'm afraid you misunderstand notability. If you don't believe that this article's subject is notable, after having looked for sources, then your only course of action is AfD. Prod won't work because it's nothing like clear-cut. Either you think it's notable and you remove the maintenance tag as not appropriate; or you think it's not notable and you go to AfD (there's no tenable middle position of "it might not be notable"). There are two independent sources supporting the content, so you'll find your AfD contested. In either case, I'll remove the maintenance tag at some point in the future if you choose not to, as I don't agree that your description above of the sourcing is accurate – and it's demonstrably so. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the deadurl in the {{one source}}, and I fixed the silly EL zoo three times, after another editor reverted this with edit summaries such as rvv, nope, etc.
If you think that there is now more than one source because you added more just remove {{one source}} while at it. Or replace it by another template message, Facebook is no WP:42 source and doesn't help wrt notability. –84.46.52.182 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we all know self-published sources don't contribute to notability, but nobody here has argued that it does, However it is a third source for the article and demonstrates how simple it was to add a source if you'd bothered to look. Adding Template:One source isn't the way to address concerns about notability; it's value is in attracting other editors to broaden the sourcing, not for finding a way to meet GNG. I'm still waiting to hear what your actionable concerns about notability are. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Whatever ProgArchives.com is, at the moment it's a red link, and unsuited as external link. If [2] has something to offer, e.g., wrt notability, just use it in a reference inline. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progarchives.com, ordinary WP:LINKSPAM as expected. –84.46.53.3 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)