Talk:Family Force 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updating Photo[edit]

I'm wanting to update their photo to reflect the band's new line-up, and have a photo (provided by the band's official photographer) that I have permission to use for this purpose. What do I have to do to ensure that the change doesn't get reversed? --SethReineke — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo has never been used anywhere else and you're permitted to release it to wikicommons with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license, just go to commons:Special:UploadWizard and release it. If it has been published before, you can have the photographer provide a release of the image via the Open-source Ticket Request System. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great if the there would be a new photo of the duo. The current photo is about 3-4 lineups old, and does not represent the current duo. ~brocklovesgreys

The same process applies as it did before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, can you please explain the process of how we can get an updated photo on the page in the right way avoiding all legal/copyright issues? I'd appreciate it, as I'm not familiar with photo updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocklovesgreys (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Family Force 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family Force 5. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Christian label?[edit]

An editor removed the band's label of Christian, supposedly at the band's request. Since this band derives its identity from the Christian label, and it's only claim to notability is Christian awards, I have reverted it. Ifnord (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could perhaps emphasize it as it's not sourced in the genres section. However, their association with the Christian market is undeniable (Best Christian Rock Artist award, and other clear associations) and it should not be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And an anon from Sydney, Australia just added it back. Let's see if the band's agent or marketing firm object. I'm staying out of this for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move article with new name "FF5"[edit]

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 article at this time, per the discussion below. If this is to be revisited at some point in the future, the request would benefit from presentation of evidence that shows the relative prevalence of each name in reliable sources. Dekimasuよ! 05:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Family Force 5 → FF5 (band) – The group has re-named and no longer goes by Family Force 5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I do not support the move based on my discussion below, I simply followed the correct process for Brocklovesgreys and used the editor's wording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The group has re-named and no longer goes by Family Force 5. There is no reason that the group's old name should be displayed as the title of the page, as it is misleading. Family Force 5 can and will re-direct to the FF5 page. The group changed their social media, website, merchandise, etc. No place is Family Force 5 listed anymore. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]

While they may no longer use the term, the WP:COMMONNAME is still Family Force 5:
  1. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/family-force-5-mn0000975165/biography
  2. https://www.billboard.com/music/family-force-5
  3. https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/family-force-5/121054708
  4. https://www.amazon.com/Family-Force-5/e/B00197GQ5G
  5. https://open.spotify.com/artist/6aUV3Fndwagje8d4rBA3xw
  6. http://wordlabelgroup.com/familyforce5 (yeah, they dropped you. sorry)
  7. http://www.newreleasetoday.com/artistdetail.php?artist_id=42 (the article itself calls them Family Force 5, even though the name lists both, and the same can be said for other Christian music sources)
I won't continue. There have been cases where female artists marry and start to release music under their married name, but we keep the article at their original name because it is more common. That's the case here. In short, Wikipedia reflects common usage, not the whims of a band's or musician's marketing. I'm opposed to the move, but am happy to hear from others who may have an opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone changes their name (per say, Caitlin Jenner) does Wikipedia still keep the name of the article as a name the person went by in the past that they no longer associate with? I'd like to see an example of this refusal of name change. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]

It depends entirely on whether than becomes the subject's COMMONNAME or not. For instance, once case with which I am familiar is that of Brooke Fraser. She had a number of well-known works. She married. She is now writing music under the name Brooke Ligertwood but has not release any albums under that name, so the article remains where it is.
As I have shown, the initialism is not yet the band's COMMONNAME and so a move is inappropriate. While we're discussing it, a move is inappropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The band clearly wants the name changed and they have overwhelming evidence of their rebranding elsewhere. There should be no debate here and the requested move should proceed as requested.Dareblock (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC) — Dareblock (talk • contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. [reply]

Yes they do. Curious how your first edit is to support this claim. However, the band's wishes are not Wikipedia policy, COMMONNAME is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The duo clearly does not associate with their previous title anymore. Do some outdated websites still list inaccurate data? Undoubtedly. But the duo changed their website url, Facebook, Twitter, etc. The music on Spotify and iTunes has been released under a new name. Perhaps if Walter has such an issue with naming the article appropriately, a new article for FF5 should be created. If you want to do this, I would be satisfied. Otherwise, it seems you're losing the discussion here. I will move the article again in a few days unless any other users express concern here on the talk page about using the current group name as the article title. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
It's not that I have a problem with it, it's that you and your friend have not bothered to read wikipedia's policy on the matter. If you move the article again, you will have to explain why to admin, not me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy referred to is subjective. I would also speculate that 'explaining' to an 'admin' would be an upgrade from the current discussion. I recommend to proceed with the move as planned. Dareblock (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your use of the term "subjective" here. What's subjective about "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." Do you mean that generally is vague? Do you mean that you don't understand what is meant by "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"? I can tell you that "independent" means those not associated with the subject. So that would exclude all of their social media feeds and their own website. I only know of two sources (newreleasetoday, listed above, and the Jesus Freak Hideout database entry) that list the band with the new name, while all others use the more common one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using third party sites to find information about the group? For what reason do you think these independent sites who are not affiliated with the duo have more accurate information than the duo themselves, who have changed all of the sites they are directly connected with or own? Shouldn't an article use information directly from the involved party rather than an outdated article on an unrelated website? Brocklovesgreys (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]

Walter Görlitz answered his own question. 'Generally preferred' is quite 'vague'. 'Independent, reliable...' is also up for argument since one party may rely on other 'independent and reliable' sources than another. My understanding of the policy is quite clear, thank you. With the extensive research, I'm a little surprised that you did not locate 'FF5' on Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8223803/ff5-new-ep-el-compadre-interview). I happen to believe that Billboard is both 'independent and reliable'.Dareblock (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brocklovesgreys makes an excellent point. An article should not be constrained to a third party's outdated content or it then becomes outdated itself.Dareblock (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the entire point. You're arguments are flawed in terms of Wikipedia. WP:GNG is the place where this terminology is best explained. And if that's not enough, there are links to the subjects.
In short, the definition at COMMONNAME is that the name "most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" determine the name of the article. Third-party sources are the definition of independent sources. That's why they're used. Social media and the band's own website are not independent of them. While Billboard has done one interview with them, they have not updated their database entry for them. So no, Dareblock. You're understanding of the policy is completely wrong. While you may think that the third-party sources are "outdated", they do constitute the COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, you drove my point home. The statement "most commonly used", as your favorite page states is undoubtedly "FF5". In fact, it's the ONLY name used. The most commonly used name to describe the duo is certainly not a name from the group's past. Thanks for supporting my point. It would seem that we're all getting on the same page in support of the move. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
No. Family Force 5 is the one most commonly used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, but you seem to be outnumbered. The COMMONNAME, in our opinion, is FF5. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]

“Where an official name has changed we do give extra weight to secondary sources published after the change, see WP:NAMECHANGES.” 2600:100C:B21F:1780:5D5F:92CE:9A21:D309 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMECHANGES Thank you anon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran a quick survey of Google news, I took the first five entries that I found.
  1. https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8223803/ff5-new-ep-el-compadre-interview FF5 prominently, but both names.
  2. http://www.thechristianbeat.org/index.php/news/4595-electrically-charged-duo-ff5-release-el-compadre-today FF5 prominently, but both names.
  3. https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Electrically-Charged-Duo-FF5-Announce-New-EP-EL-COMPADRE-Out-March-2-20180209 FF5 prominently, but both names.
  4. http://www.mcall.com/entertainment/lehigh-valley-music/mc-ent-crowder-interview-santander-performing-arts-center-reading-20180301-story.html Only Family Force 5 and not a promotional piece for the band
  5. http://mountvernonnews.com/article/2018/02/27/lecrae-headlines-mvnus-sonfest/ Only Family Force 5 and not a promotional piece for the band
So when writing about, and likely for, the band they use their new name. I am aware of instructions from record labels prior to allowing interviews, where they set-out ground rules, such as prominent mention of key words. Regardless, this is what I found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a good discussion. Thank you all for your contributions. Based on the merit of the discussion and in conformance with the spirit of Wikipedia’s policies, I agree that there is sufficient consensus to proceed. Bowstires (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC) — Bowstires (talk • contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. [reply]

I agree with Bowstires. When will the move happen? On April 3rd? Or can it happen before that since we are all in agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocklovesgreys (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you stop having your friends and fans create accounts so that a discussion between experienced editors can happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that it is appropriate to make unsubstantiated and false accusations Walter Görlitz. Dareblock (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew anything about Wikipedia, Walter, you would know that doing something like that is not allowed. And the fact that you would accuse me of something like that is just plain nasty. I have no idea who any of the other people are who are commenting on here. Why would I do that? You're just surprised that the few other users who chimed in all seemed to agree with me, and that no one else seems to think that FF5 isn't the COMMONNAME. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
Best we get input for others in the community....let's wait for established editors to chime in here. New editors here should read over WP:MEAT.--Moxy (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, Moxy. I agree that we should wait. How do you think we should deal with Walter accusing me of falsifying accounts? Or getting my "friends or fans" to support my points. This kind of abuse shouldn't be tolerated. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
I see why both sides are getting fustraded.....but best we stick to the content debate over conduct...as noting said is outrageous thus far....just their opinion as to what's going on......and to be honest it does look odd. -Moxy (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you read back, you can see that his main issue is that he doesn't believe the duo's COMMONNAME, FF5, is their COMMONNAME. Instead, he thinks one of the duo's previous names is that they no longer associate with. When a few days went by and a few other editors appeared to side more with my points, and no other editors seemed to agree with his arguments, he automatically assumed I am using sock puppets and accused me with no proof. I have a vested interest in this article, and would never intentionally violate Wikipedia policies. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
OK let's break this down
  • Have they released any music under the new name - singles - albums - videos ?
  • Have they toured under this name?
  • Have they charted under this new name?
  • When the public searches this band what will they look for?
--Moxy (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this should be two different articles? It's hard to tell if FF5 is a continuation of the five-member band or a new duo that happens to consist of two members of the old band. What do reliable sources say about that? As it stands now, the article is mainly about Family Force 5 with only a small bit on the duo formed in January. Station1 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they released a new EP, entitled El Compadre under the name FF5. It can be found on Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, etc. A video for the lead single, Fire On The Highway is said to be in the works. They've toured with the name FF5 for years. I have shirts from more than 5 years ago that say FF5 on them. If you watch videos of their performances, the name is almost always on their drum kit, and stage props, and has been for many many years. I don't believe they have charted under this name, but overall, the group hasn't done well in the charts in general, as their style relates to only a certain group of people. When the public searches for this group, there's no doubt in my mind that they will search for FF5, but if someone searches for a previous name, it should have a redirect here. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
Station1, you bring up a great point that I had mentioned to Walter earlier, although he didn't seem interested, about creating a new page for FF5. It certainly is an option that I would be willing to consider, although in the past when the group has changed their name, the same page was used and the information was all compiled in one place. ~brocklovesgreys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocklovesgreys (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5 years? Wow. Station1 makes a good point plus been 5 years this fource five is dead? I like the idea of a separate article but I'm afraid others my question the notability of ff5. Perhaps a redirect to the sub section here of FF5 (duo).--Moxy (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is an idea as well. The thing is, even for a good part of the time that their official name was "Family Force 5", most fans were already referring to them as FF5, as it was their logo, and easier to say. They've since officially changed the name and said it was just a natural move, as it was already a well-known title for them. I do think that the best title for the article is still FF5, as that is their most well-known name, but am open for discussion still. If you look back at their music releases, such as Reanimated from October of 2013, the FF5 acronym was already being used. It has also been on their merchandise and stage designs ever since (and possibly even before). They have changed their website from familyforce5.com to ff5music.com. Also, you can see that they've updated their name on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Genius, Amazon, Spotify, iTunes, and I'm sure I'm leaving other platforms out. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
If this is to remain one article, FF5 (duo) would be fine as a redirect but would not be a good title because the band was not a duo for most of its existence. FF5 (band) might be better. Station1 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to FF5 (band) as the title. I think that's a great idea, Station1! And as I've mentioned before, Family Force 5 can redirect to the FF5 (band) page, just as "The Phamily" already does. If someone is trying to research them who has not followed the group for the past 5 years and doesn't know about the name change, it can redirect to the page. But I find it unlikely that anyone who hasn't been following the group for that long will all of a sudden look back into them. But if they do, the redirect would be there. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
As you can see they have not updated their name on Amazon or Spotify. While they may have works there, they do not have database entries. Links provided above. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are their own social media accounts and excluded from the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, you've yet to explain why the duo themselves is not a reliable source. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
Based on the rules of Wikipedia, not mine. Please see my comments from 07:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC) where I did explain it. Also, COMMONNAME explains it, "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (bold is mine). That last phrase is also linked to WP:SOURCE Here independent means "not based on the band". And there's a link to Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources from that where it asks three questions:
  • Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.)
  • Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?
  • Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.)
That's why, based on the rules of Wikipedia, the duo's own submissions cannot be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"FF5 (band)" does seem more natural than "FF5 (duo)" for those seeking information on a musical talent. A redirect from a prior name "Family Force 5" would seem the natural course of action for this move. I do not see the need for a second page since it is the same entity. The details regarding the name change are already published in the article. Bowstires (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that a post is not sock puppetry? I have no idea who any of these other users are nor do I have any kind of connection with them. If Walter is so concerned, can we protect the page so only users with a certain number of posts can edit the talk page? That doesn't really seem fair that certain users opinions wouldn't matter or be taken into consideration, but perhaps it would satisfy Walter. In fact, Walter, why don't you make lists of the users that you think should or should not be able to partake in this discussion? Maybe that would soothe your sockpuppetry anxiety. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]
Just to be clear, both of those accounts were already proven to be socks by a checkuser, who also clarified that you were not the sockmaster. Both accounts have been blocked and this page has already been protected to prevent continued sockpuppetry and protect the consensus-building process. This is all standard operating procedure having nothing to do with Walter. Please focus strictly on content from here on out and avoid any continued personal commentary. This is a matter of objectively demonstrating what name the current sources are using and can most certainly be resolved without the involvement of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or SPAs of any kind. Swarm ♠ 21:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter how do you feel about FF5 (band) rather than duo? Brocklovesgreys (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]

I have no preference. They are a duo not a full band, but band is a more common term. How have they been performing lately? Do they have a full band as back-up or are they using click-tracks and a lot of MIDI for the music? That would help inform a new disambiguator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are performing as a band, the other members are just not official band members, just musicians that play with them. That's why I think band might be a better parenthetical description, especially being that they've always been known as a band since formation. Brocklovesgreys (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)brocklovesgreys[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose, no case in terms of wp:AT, would not object to relisting but doubt it will help. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Suggest everyone read the article title policy and requested move instructions before going any further. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Force_5&oldid=1207448744"