Wikipedia talk:No one cares about your garage band

	; Archives (Index) ;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wikipedia essays Mid‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

"You've never put out a "real" album"/ "Your band is not signed"

Thie section needs some updating as quite a lot of artists including genuine superstars are opting for the DIY route, even for substantial hit albums. With the ongoing decline of the traditional music industry, society's definition of a "real album" may continue to evolve, but for the time being could I suggest instead that a CD be defined a "real album" if it has been glass mastered rather than burned.

While burned discs are quite correctly already mentioned as an indicator of garagey-ness, a glass mastered album requires a substantial amount of money to produce and typically a minimum print run of 1000 copies. While it's just about possible this could be down to Daddy and Mummy being extremely rich, enough to blow money on manafacturing costs that could never be recouped, just to keep Junior And The Classmates happy, it's more likely to indicate that either:

1) The band have a large enough audience to have moneyed them up sufficiently to be able to afford glass mastering (either directly via a crowdfunding website or indirectly because the band is making enough money from gigs, merchandise etc to reinvest on this scale.)

or

2) Someone with money - and presumably some financial prudence - has decided that the band are a worthwhile sinking some money into and have paid money for a factory to run off a print-run of 1000 glass mastered CDs. Even if it's only a one off, this is still a business investment comparable to an individual release by an independent label

Either way, glass mastered CDs vs burned CDs are by now a better divider of sheep from goats in this day and age than whether a formal record label is involved or not. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@62.190.148.115: Two remarks: One, this is a humorous essay, not a Wikipedia policy. So if you really feel like this I guess it would be better to discuss it at the notability guidelines. However, I wouldn't put my hopes up if I were you because, two, I know of quite a few friends who released glass mastered CDs. They're still far from notable, though. And if I already know a few there must be thousands worldwide. Throwing money at something doesn't equal notability. Kind regards, Yintan 14:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: Yes I get that it's a humourous essay but it also serves a purpose - to shut up people who whinge about having their band page deleted again and again. To be fit for this purpose, it therefore needs to be up to date.62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@62.190.148.115: No, the place to send people who don't get it, or to discuss changing the notability criteria, is WP:BAND. That's my whole point. Yintan 19:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, but if this is to remain a funny essay (in the good sense) then it needs to keep up with the times. Talk about labels with "wide distribution" is pointless when physical record shops are fast going the way of the wax cylinder. (And of course something getting money thrown at it does not make it notable, but it does elevate it above the kind of sheer garagey-ness this article is supposed to be satirising.) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, as far as the music industry is concerned, a "Real Album" is one that has a licence from organisations such as RIAA or ASCAP in the USA or PRS for Music (formerly the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society) in the UK. Without that piece of paperwork, no professional pressing plant in most countries will touch a release for glass mastering or even for professional grade bulk-burning. Anything produced without such a license is regarded as a bootleg by the music industry, even if the work is the rightful intellectual property of the person responsible. Other than using a CD pressing plant in a country with no such licensing system (a loophole used by professional bootleggers in the 1990s - Italy often being a prime choice) the only way to produce discs without a license is one-by-one in a CD-R burning drive. At home. Perhaps in the garage, haha. 95.148.22.136 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Music Industry™" does not determine notability on Wikipedia, so it's moot. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on "garageyness" (gross non-notability pertaining to bands) not notability. It's also meant to be witty and cutting, so needs to be up to date or it will be funny for all the wrong reasons. 95.148.201.110 (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put an update in - we'll see how people feel about it. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What elitist nonsense

The problem is not garage bands on Wikipedia. The problem is garage bands without third-party citations, or any citations at all, contributed by the band member(s) themselves, violating all sorts of WP policies.

The upshot is that in order to prevent badly sourced first-person articles, which tend to be garage bands, we should then bar garage band articles. That's gross oversimplification. Far be it from me to suggest that WP policies and guidelines shouldn't be oversimplistic, exclusionary, or stereotyping. But, well, they shouldn't. The problem is people writing self-referential articles, not people writing garage band articles. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "... your garage band". Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2018

The following is a closed 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: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band → Wikipedia:Sorry, but your garage band is not notable – Hello, and first of all, apologies for originally doing the move without consensus. I am proposing this move, as this name is rude and violates WP:CIVIL. This essay's name could deter newer users from joining Wikipedia, so changing it would be beneficial. And, also the new name is more civil than the current name. Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 16:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as proposed. We want to be civil here. A bit of condescension goes a long way towards creating enemies, inciting vandalism, and just generally adding more awfulness to the world. Let's be nice. Red Slash 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, you catch more flies with honey than with you do with vinegar (and then you mount them in a historically interesting fly-on-the-wall diorama). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per CIVIL and kindness <3 CookieMonster755 ✉ 01:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, Red Slash, Randy Kryn and CookieMonster755. No one caring about one's garage band is hurtful of its own accord without the additional pain of being humiliated and insulted by Wikipedia. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SPADE. Long-standing name. Really, no one cares about your garage band. The point of this essay is to explain why. In fact, I would support a rename to Wikipedia:Why no one cares about your garage band. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the present name is inaccurate, for an encyclopedia. Probably someone cares, either girlfriends boyfriends or other friends, the owners of the garage who they may either be paying rent to or who are concerned that they won't get to park their cars in there for awhile, the businesses which sell the band equipment, passerbys who may hear the band playing and possibly like it, or a cat. The potential list is not endless, but large, so saying "no one cares" is likely not accurate. Even humorous pages pertaining to an encyclopedia should have a sense of accuracy, yes? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The present name is highly accurate. Perhaps it could be titled "No one who matters cares..." because we're concerned primarily with notability, but the extra words are redundant in the context of an encyclopedia having global reach. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is nothing uncivil about the current title. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like the article stemmed from WP:NOONECARES which is to be taken not at face value. I think a humorous tag is needed for this article, which to surprise: the initial entry had it. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Conveys the proper attitude for the rest of the essay, which is cautionary and humorous at the same time. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a move rationale. The current name is entirely correct from a WP perspective. No one on WP cares, and none of our readers care, and this fact needs to be understood. Anyone who would have a tearful meltdown about this isn't socially competent to work on WP, and the entire point of this essay is addressing the singleminded interest of an SPA who is here to promote their band, not work on the encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, undecided. Would support per WP:CIVIL. The current title is quite condescending and rude to the face of who it's meant for, and may deter new users (WP:BITE). However the title does get straight to the point, and does list truth in that a non-notable topic will not be cared about by anyone. I hate to sound patronising, but perhaps people new to Wikipedia will not understand "not notable" as much as "no one cares". Lazz _R 00:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay, not a policy or guideline to which we refer people. Generally the author of a garage band article will be referred to WP:BAND, not this essay. Essays have other uses. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The essay is for SPAs not editors who are here and we do not need to make this place a children's playground where editors are not expected to see any slight rudeness. The editor whose username is Z0 15:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

LOL

"... if we relaxed standards, the encyclopedia's overall quality would deteriorate."

Now that is truly hard to imagine . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the only and most condescending wikipedia page I have ever come across

This is probably the most condescending and disrespectful - actually the only one of this type - wikipedia article I have ever come across. There is some truth in what is written here but it should be completely erased and rewritten with a rational tone instead of a mocking, condescending and disrespectful tone. Example that pretty much describes the whole article: "How do I know if anyone cares about my band? Answer: they don't". Every artist has started small and there are no measuring sticks in art by any measure. The article instead of trying to shoot down people who are potentially the next world-known artist, should concentrate one explaining the purpose of Wikipedia and why it only makes sense to accept some articles, explaining that there is a rational point where it is OK to have an article about your band, and a point where there isn't. If I were the original author of the article I'd be ashamed to publicly spread so much hate on what probably represents the biggest advancement in educational and knowledge-sharing technology in the past 20 years (Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DC40:22F0:31DD:9966:1CA4:AB5 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this essay arose out of frustration from Wikipedia editors who have wasted countless hours 1) marking and deleting articles about artists that are not notable, 2) explaining to people that bands (or any topic, actually) aren't notable just because they exist, 3) explaining that we aren't interested in bands that are up-and-coming because possible future fame has no impact on present notability, and 4) repeating the point that Wikipedia is not for promotion and can't be used to attract an audience. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace band???

In this day and age? Hard to imagine. Who the hell is still on Myspace? There are bigger issues than a thirst to have a Wikipedia article on your garageband if you think you're going to blow up on Myspace still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians are on MySpace, as it is now a music-centric social network. Considering how unpopular and poorly it ranks "in this day and age": we especially don't want articles about your MySpace band! :-P -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another great point. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might be responding late but MySpace seems like that kind of social media everybody would use if the internet was in the 1980s. But who REALLY does use some dead social media to promote their band that’s probably smaller than an atom, not in size but popularity? Cometkeiko (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since 99% of those bands from myspace's peak have been wiped. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, nobody cares if the only sources are blogs or social media profiles! XD Cometkeiko (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is the downfall of garagebands Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 16:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I really do have a question, WHAT is the MOST popular garage band, if they perform in their parents garage? Cometkeiko (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that would be a trick question, as a garage band by definition is unpopular, and when they escape unpopularity, they are no longer a garage band. It's sort of like asking what the most popular piece of obscure knowledge is. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 17:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares about your crappy micronation

Someone really should make a version of this for micronations. The amount of people who think the inexistent country they proclaimed yesterday in their room and that only they know about deserves an article because Sealand has one is worrying. I hate micronations. Super Ψ Dro 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxically, the coverage on media outlets opposing just that allows for situations like this. The definition for a country is rather arbitrary, so we rely on Wikipedia's guidelines of notability, and unfortunately, this counts as well. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]