Talk:ARTE Quartett

Untitled
I don't understand this tag... I made this article under the terms of relevance of wikipedia... I think there are the same therms as in the german version?BKappeler (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I hade a look on ohter articles about musicians. I don't understand what I have to change/cleanup to comply more with Wikipedia's content policies. I read the policies of the relevance of a music group. And I think it is what it has to be. How can a article about a music groupe be more neutral? BKappeler (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are writing about yourself which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.  Teapot  george Talk  13:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As I know allmost every "activ" music group made a article about themself... Is that in this case so bad? There are allmost only facts in the article. Should I let the article write again from someone else. Or what should I do now? BKappeler (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can enyone tell me what's the difference between this article and any of the other groups in the category Saxophone quartets? I can't finde one... So they must all removed too? It's also no difference in other chamber music categories. When there are rules, it should be the same for everyone?! BKappeler (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The other articles in The Saxophone quartet category have reliable secondary sources and/or notable members with their own articles or have won major awards.  Teapot  george Talk  19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is so not true... I can't finde major award by most of the groups, also not secondary sources. And they have not as half of the colaborate work with other known musicians worldwide as the ARTE quartett. Even not this much CD or radio production. BKappeler (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look again... they all have either major awards, notable members or reliable third party refs  Teapot  george Talk  19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is: What is more importent for the relevance of a group: Win awards, or playing around the world with many known musicians and release CDs in differnet countries with many different musicians worldwide (they are all linked in the article)? But I will add some refernces as secondary sources in the next days. Thanks for the help making my article better.BKappeler (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From a quick search, it looks like the sources should be out there. "Importance" is a very subjective concept; we have to set some objective benchmarks within Wikipedia to maintain a level of reliability.  One aspect of the article I see as problematic is the list of performances.  This can be seen as promotional.  The Interior  (Talk) 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Interior for your help! Are articles in music magacines and international newspaper ok as a "second source"? Or what should it be exactly? The problematic about the performance list is a "funny" thing. In the german version of the article I was told to put a perfomance list in the article. In the frist version there was none. I was told for a music band it's important to see the relevance of a group. Are there so big difference between the different Wikipedias? My major problem now is: I didn't create the article by myself (or a other member of the group). But I postet it. And I didn't know that this is against the policy of wikipedia. This is all new for me and there are many rules (I tryed to made a article in the right way). So I made a mistace that I postet the article myself. If that means the article will be deleted? If so, there is no reason to work on the article any further and add some sources into it. I hope there is a way to make it right? I see on Wikipedia so many articles about music groups and I think many of them are the same like the one about ARTE Quartett. But it looks to me that I make a big crime if I see all this "!" tags. Thanks again for your help and sorry for my bad english... I hope everything came clear and in the right way I mean it... BKappeler (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the article; but you can still offer suggestions for improvement, links to articles in music magacines and international newspapers, etc. on the talk page of the article (in other words, right here). And yes, there are different rules and different expectations in the different languages' Wikipedias, other than core principles like verifiability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orangemike. You are in good position to find sources on your band, and if you post them here, others can help get the article up to spec and neutral. And yes, music mags are good sources, as long as they are reputable publications - see WP:Reliable Sources.  With good sources that demonstrate notability - see WP:BAND for the specifics - the article will not be deleted.  Without them, as the article stands, deletion is possible.  But from what I've seen, the group most likely meets our threshold.  So I'd say keep searching for those sources. The Interior  (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm back from the hollidays and found some links that includes some sources. I post the link here and hope that someone will editing the article. Thanks again!! http://www.intaktrec.ch/rev186-a.htm http://www.intaktrec.ch/rev155-a.htm http://www.intaktrec.ch/rev130-a.htm http://www.intaktrec.ch/rev091-a.htm http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=32707 http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/1399 BKappeler (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Overtagged?
While I appreciate that there are COI issues here, the BLP and Autobiographical tags seem misapplied. This is an article about a musical group, not a BLP. I'd like to remove them and replace with the regular "unsourced tag". The Interior (Talk) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The autobio tag was added because the article was created by User:ARTEq; in other words, some kind of role account for the group. The article contains unsourced assertions about all of the band members and some of the people they work(ed) with, so I felt the BLP tag was appropriate. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but can't the reader get that from the COI tag? I guess it just bothers me to have this categorized with BLPs.  We don't use our BLP standards with other band articles. (though an argument could be made that we should I guess).  The Interior  (Talk) 22:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I revised the text and removed two of the four "issues." Sourcing and notability seem to have been dealt with. FWIW I was listening to an ARTE recording as I edited this — in Alabama USA. — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  14:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)