Talk:Mac Stanton

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

Untitled[edit]

This article is a WORK IN PROGRESS!

I am going to be a little busy today but I will finish categorizing and linking this article when I return.

You've asked for more time to work on this article. Whether or not you will get it is entirely in the hands of each administrator who happens to take a look at the article in response to the deletion request. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which requires them to give any extra time to you and, indeed, there is a strongly-expressed opinion that asking for additional time should be avoided (see the third bullet point). One admin may see your request and do nothing, but the next one that comes along may ignore your request and delete your article without hesitation. There are some templates which you can use to say that you're actively working on the page and need some grace: {{new page}}, {{in creation}}, {{under construction}}, {{in use}} (and maybe some others that I don't know about) but before using them you need to read their text and their documentation very carefully. More importantly, however, you should note that these templates request only a few hours grace, so you can't expect them to help you overnight or for a period of days. If you need that much time — and frankly if you need any time at all — you might consider userfying or incubating this article. Doing so will remove the article from the area where Wikipedia keeps its articles (the "main namespace", but more commonly called the "article namespace" or the "mainspace") and into either your own userspace (that's userfication) or into the Article Incubator's space. Either way, the article will not be subject to quick deletion for lack of sources or lack of notability (it still cannot, however, be unconditionally promotional and it still cannot contain Wikipedia copyright policy violations [which are different from copyright law violations], unsourced information about living persons [especially, but not only, negative information], or vandalism). — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information TransporterMan, I found it very helpful. I will be using some of your advice to make sure this article is written and submitted properly so as not to be deleted. TetraEleven (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm currently reading all of the WikipediaHelp articles to see which is best for this article, however if anybody would like to give me some input on what you think is appropriate, it would be very much appreciated. TetraEleven (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add another word of advice: Though it may not look like it on first blush, there are strict policies on what subjects and content can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. In very general terms, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have
  • already been recognized
  • as important or significant
  • by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
  • with a established reputation for fact-checking
  • which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself.
That's just a plain-English generalization of the actual rules to give you an idea of what's going on here, so don't rely on it but refer to the actual policies instead. (For a great analogy illustrating these concepts, see WP:SCRABBLE.) Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Good luck with your editing, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again TransporterMan. The article is in the incubator which I hope is acceptable for this article. TetraEleven (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now In Article Incubator[edit]

I have moved the article into the Article Incubator, and it will remain here until it is properly finished, evaluated, and processed. Please post any comment you believe to be necessary. TetraEleven (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject iconElectronic music
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Recommendations[edit]

Mac Stanton

  • good start. some minor things: citation number 3 should be placed inside the box, not after it; just make sure it's connected to the text. Also, it's bad form to have subheadings with no content, so I would removed the remixes section until you have something to put there. A "See also" section (maybe linking to the genre of music) would be a nice addition right above the references section, and if Marc Stanton has an official website, you can include it in an "External links" section underneath references.
  • Expansion: expansion is always an excellent thing, and adding more research is the only way to get the "stub" status to go away. (the stub status is harmless, but irritating). If you can scrounge up some more third party references, that would be fantastic.
  • Citation format - you're using a good template, except I would recommend you individually name each citation. This the format I personally use:

reference format[edit]

A piece of information from the first source.<ref name="sourceone"/>

A piece of information from the second source.<ref name="sourcetwo"/>

A second piece of information from the first source source.<ref name="sourceone"/>

== References ==
{{reflist| refs =

<ref name="sourceone">{{cite web|title=Mac Stanton Discography|url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Mac+Stanton|work=Mac Stanton Discography|publisher=Discogs|accessdate=27 May 2011}}</ref>

<ref name="sourcetwo">{{cite web|last=Campbell|first=Joe|title=Mac Stanton is Feeling It Out (For You)|url=http://inyourspeakers.com/content/news/feeling-so-french-records-and-you-05162011|publisher=In Your Speakers|accessdate=27 May 2011}}</ref>

}}

It will look like this:[edit]

A piece of information from the first source.[1]

A piece of information from the second source.[2]

A second piece of information from the first source source.[1]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Mac Stanton Discography". Mac Stanton Discography. Discogs. Retrieved 27 May 2011.
  2. ^ Campbell, Joe. "Mac Stanton is Feeling It Out (For You)". In Your Speakers. Retrieved 27 May 2011.

Sloggerbum (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Article incubation assessment

  1. Does the article establish notability of the subject?
    A. It does not yet apparently meet the general notability guideline: I can find no mention of awards, sales figures, or critical commentary indicating an assertion of notability. Has the label won any awards? How many of each album was sold? For how much money? Has anyone written anything about the recordings saying that they are good? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," then please include that information and mention it below. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
  2. Is it verifiable?
    A. It contains references to sources:
    B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. There is no original research:
  3. Is it neutral?
    A. It is a fair representation without bias:
    B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
  4. It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
  5. Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:

Suspend assessment for three months. Anyone who has not yet edited the article may re-assess at any time, and is encouraged to do so. Dualus (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mac Stanton. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mac_Stanton&oldid=1199250256"