Talk:Revere (band)

hello, after editing wikipedia on and off for a while, mostly on the Oceansize topic leading to setting up thier own wiki, I was asked by REVERE to try and sort their page out. I've registered to do so because obviously they've had trouble and I wanted everything to be disclosed. If anyone sees any issues with this page please let me know so I can try and help resolve them ASAP. With regards to notability, how does one proove that? Is it just through the body of the article? I'm confident I can, I just want to be sure everything is as it should be! Manofatom (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Vieux and Stephen.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vieux and Stephen.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 16 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Vieux and Stephen.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

advertising / promotion

At the start of 2013, I removed several paragraphs of non-encyclopedic advertising spiel. Checking the page again now, it seems quite a lot of similar content has been added or re-added, so I'm going to prune it back again, to make sure that everything's properly sourced.

Given that the band are not particularly notable (and also that there's a comment from 2010 by someone who seems to have been employed by them to edit this page) I'll probably nominate this page for deletion if it keeps being used for marketing purposes. Smells like content (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Blimey. I wish I'd been employed to edit wikipedia, that'd be an easy way to make a living eh! I'm just a fan who had done a bit of wiki editing in the past (a google search of my username will probably turn up the fact I do a ton of video stuff with Revere, but it's certainly not paid work in that sense, and it's certainly not anything managerial/PR related!). Someone else since has been editing this and it's not really in the state I'd left it or would have put it.

A lot of the stuff I felt like I'd sourced & justified has been removed, although I obviously agree about ditching all the unsourced stuff, I wasn't pleased when I saw it turn up, and I hadn't noticed it had been expanded on.

Part of the reason I'd left it was it felt like a job I wasn't sure how to tackle without sounding like an advert on account of my not being great at writing large blocks of stuff. Whatever I wrote felt a little like a list paragraphed, but I was very careful to source everything I put in.

As for notability, I was careful to make sure I felt like the page would pass that first time round else I wouldn't have bothered. Now with a record released on a major label internationally, tours and collaborations with certainly notable artists, and national and international press coverage it feels even more justified to be honest.

That said it feels a lot more like a list now most of the content and context I tried to add has been stripped out, so I'm slightly stuck as to quite what to do here.

Manofatom (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the vague language: when I said "employed" I meant you'd been commissioned to edit the page at the band's bequest, not necessarily paid to do so. Either way: it's still not in keeping with Wikipedia's policy on subjects editing their own pages, right?

A bunch of unsourced and un-encyclopaedic stuff has been re-added (mostly from anonymous editors), which I'm going to edit out. If you have a close relationship with the band then you probably shouldn't be editing their page: you might want to pass the message on to their PR / the band themselves and tell them the same, in case those anonymous edits came from them.

Smells like content (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I can't remember the circumstances now, but I guess the above suggests it will have come out of a conversation. I imagine my desire to make things seem more 'proper' was ultimately shooting myself in the foot, I'll have probably suggested it or something really. I wasn't asked to add/remove anything though, I wrote a load of stuff on the back of sources I found on my own steam when I was a student and had time to do it! If I couldn't source it, it didn't go in. Much of my initial work, sources and all, got binned, and then a load of stuff that clearly shouldn't have been here got added. I think a manager the band no longer have did it. None of the edits without my name are by me, I don't know where the others are from. It's not the band as far as I'm aware, something got added recently which hadn't been widely announced and they were surprised anyone had noticed and bothered to add it! That's probably as much as we've talked about it in the last couple of years. I guess someone is trying to fill out details based on bios from the bands webpage, but I can only guess. Not the way I'd have done it.

I still think there's notability here, but haven't done anything to this page because clearly it's not the done thing (for reasons I can understand, tenuous links or not, of course), so the page has floundered I guess? I get why you wouldn't bother, but there were probably elements of what's been removed which could have been sourced and made to fit. Now we've just a bunch of sentences with little connection, and I stumble across it occasionally when I'm being nosey! C'est la vie.

I'm also amused by the gaps in this conversation, who said the internet was quick eh!

Manofatom (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)