This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SharpTone Records article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels 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.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
I read the linked 2023 discussion the same way, that no consensus was formed at that time to keep every artist entry. It's a stretch to treat a record label page as a list article. If an artist is/was important to a record label, WP:SECONDARY sources would cover it, not just label announcements. Many new artists are signed without enjoying career success during their time with the label. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I don't think we would be serving the reader to list these. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything indiscriminate (nor, for that matter, undue) about a single mention of an artist's name in a list of artists signed to a label. For the vast majority of independent labels, the list fits the criteria of CSC #3; a short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of a group. (Verification that a band is signed to a label is generally trivial to verify and WP:SKYISBLUE applies; there's rarely a good-faith reason to TNT a list of artists on the grounds that the verifiability is suspect.) Chubbles (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the list should be limited to important artists whose affiliation with the label is noted in independent secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lists here don't seem exhaustive. The lists read as only notable artists (with the exception of one non-linked but sourced). The list of releases is probably more an issue as that's typically associated with the band, not the publisher, in the music industry. — Masem (t) 12:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presently it's not. The disagreement is about what was re-introduced at this editGraywalls (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thst I agree is indiscrimate. Without third part sourcing for each item, that borders on promotion. — Masem (t) 19:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The indiscriminate portion that you see there is the album discography? Since that's a list of published works, there's no need for third-party sourcing (it's akin to a bibliography), and it is matter-of-fact, in-depth accounting of the label's activities. I have no problem e.g. collapsing the table, but I don't see it as fundamentally promotional - certainly, not for defunct labels, and we have plenty of inoperative labels with (attempts at) complete discography tables. Please note that Graywalls apparently is now using this reasoning as grounds for removing entire lists of artists from label articles, notable or non-notable; see here. If label articles cannot serve as navigation aids to the bands they publish, there is no reason for us to keep having articles on labels at all. Chubbles (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a page about a business, we generally want to verve away from using primary sources and particularly listing things just because they happen to be true (per WP:V). And we are still serving as a navigational aid if the requirement is to include blue-linked bands or those with 3rd party sourcing only, since those blue-links will help.
Certainly, discographies from record labels are a huge question since they don't really get into the creative aspects of the work, compared to the effort by the actual band. It would be like having a book publisher, like Penguin, list all the books they've published which is in the thousands. I would be more forgiving on more complete table of bands under a label, but still there can be labels that serve hundreds of bands but only a dozen of them notable.
Also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument here. It is probably necessary to review those other articles to strip down their tables. Masem (t) 12:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we are still serving as a navigational aid if the requirement is to include blue-linked bands or those with 3rd party sourcing only, since those blue-links will help. Do I read you right that you believe it is not justified to remove lists of blue-linked bands and bands with third-party sourcing from label articles? (The position that Graywalls is staking out goes so far as to claim it is justifiable, although he has not done so on this article.) Chubbles (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that a fully exhaustive list that is likely going to include a good portion of bands signed to a label that are not notable nor associated with the label by third party sources is in the realm of NOT#CATALOG. But a list that contains only notable bands (on the presumption that their connection to the label is referenced on the band's page) or those that are sourced by third parties shows appropriate discrimination in list inclusion and is fine. If this list is basically every band promoted by a label, well, that's fine, we're still discriminating the list by notability/sourcing. Masem (t) 04:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know if there are other editors, besides Graywalls, who do not accept at least this much listing of bands in a label article. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make too much of silence, but...nobody else said anything. This has impacts on Graywalls's actions on other articles. We are kind of having several conversations at once, which probably is too confusing to do much with, but I think the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is headed in the wrong direction. The conversation here seems to be using this specific article as a prototype for generalizing about how we should structure label articles, but I don't think that's helpful. If we were looking at a defunct jazz label from the sixties and seventies, to which a comprehensive discography had been added (and we have a bunch of those), I think the conversation about encyclopedicity, and the people contributing to the discussion, might be quite different. So the decisions made here (and, to be honest, this label is not terribly important to me) should not be taken as illustrative of what we ought to do with the bulk of label articles - especially if subject matter experts in music aren't prominent in the conversation. Chubbles (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with Graywalls and Masem. JoelleJay (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles:, If label articles cannot serve as navigation aids to the bands they publish, there is no reason for us to keep having articles on labels at all. You're getting there. The point is that labels that fail to meet WP:NCORP should not exist and they should be AfD'd if suitable target can not be found. However, you have been actively resisting the effort to purge NCORP failing record lavel articles. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
