Talk:Cash Cash/Archive 2

Article cleanup/Wikifying
I've been attempting to clean up the article in rather basic ways, but have met opposition along the way. I have no interest on edit warring, so I'll list below changes that need to be made. I'll keep the list going, but here's just a tip of the iceberg. Sergecross73  msg me  12:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) "Founding members" is not a status given in the members section.
 * 2) Terminology needs to be consistent. (For example, "production" not "Producer" is consistent with how we list things. (Just like its "guitars", not "guitarist"). Also, the terms should not be capitalized. (So the use of "Producer" is the wrong choice on multiple levels.
 * 3) I can't find any good examples of using "DJ" in a bands member section.
 * 4) Overuse of slashes. ("/")
 * 5) "The Beat Goes On" should be better defined. (What combo of song/EP/Album is it?)
 * 6) "Other band" is an awkward section title. Usually "Formation" and/or "Early years" is used. Keep in mind that it's very common that events occurring before the band to be covered here, it's meant to mean "Early years leading up to the bands formation. See FAs Pink Floyd or Nirvana (band).

If you really think founding members is not a status then you can remove it but I think it' crucial information. I've seen so many variations to members sections throughout wiki which makes me feel it's all dependent on the group. Terminology does need to be consistent so I put their new roles in parentheses to show "roles" vs "instruments." I hope that can be our compromise on that issue because it's not fair that their new roles aren't respected but old ones are. I'll put & symbols instead of /'s if you think there is an overuse. I will dig into the Beat Goes On, It was tricky because it was released as an EP in a lot of places but a full length in Japan. I'll get to that next. I feel previous band is crucial because they went from being a rock band with a different name to an electronica group. It was a different band. I think every band is different. Nirvana and Pink Floyd's formation was a bit different. Given Cash Cash is a new group from the Consequence. It's similar to the foo fighters. They mention the how it was formed but don't consider nirvana to be 'early years' of foo fighters. How about we do something similar to foo fighters wiki page and try "Formation and previous band" I tried working on the equipment section to make it clearer. Let me know what you think about the current status of that. Everything I added to the page aside from the equipment section is based on material that was already up there...I embellished the touring history to reflect their recent tours. Nobody cared to keep up with that so I made great effort to dig on the subject. Their label situation was very in-depth so i made sure to clarify that throughout the article. They've been on various labels along the way which define certain chapters in their career and explain their transition. Spinnin' Records was a clear stepping stone during their evolution. Chubbles stated it would be good to make their transition clearer which I think i really did successfully. I will keep working to make the article even better as they continue to grow.
 * Your examples about "Early years/Formation do not make any sense. Nirvana is clearly mentioned as part of the formation section at the Foo Fighters article. Same with Pink Floyd - it mentions other bands they were in before Pink Floyd. What you are saying does not match yours (or my) examples. Sergecross73   msg me  16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The members section is still not okay. DJ does not belong there, and "Producer" should have a lowercase "p" and be "production". You can discuss their DJing in the rest of the article. Alrernatively, you can be more specific about it. I don't know what they specifically do, but along the lines of "turntables", "sampling", etc.
 * You want to keep both slashes and ampersands to a minimum. Commas are usually just fine.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Serge, what I’m saying is that I agree with calling it “Formation” the way the foo fighters page does. That why i brought it up...I was just fighting for the wording of it to make it clear that it was a different group with a different sound that led to the formation of Cash Cash. I renamed it “Formation and previous band” My argument was that “early years” made it seem like it was early Cash Cash when it was indeed a completely different band as nirvana was a different band from the foo fighters with a different name and not called "early years" on their wiki. Now this page is based on the way the foo fighters section phrases it. Hopefully we have resolved the issue.

As far as the member section goes, I do not agree that DJ doesn't belong there. Other DJ pages don't list it like that because they started as DJs and it's implied. This situation is rare given they started as a band and transformed into DJs. That's my reasoning why it should be listed there along with their instruments played. I will update ampersands with commas and fix capitalization but if wikipedia itself respects DJ as a position then there's no reason we should not include it.

Some comments:
 * "Previous band" is misleading. Available sourcing indicates that The Consequence is an early incarnation of the band. Ms. Castellano doubts this but marshals no evidence to support it.
 * Edit warring has become depressingly common on this page, and is being carried out because it is effective. I do not know how to resolve this; I have never seen new editors who are so adamant about edit warring and yet who technically continue to follow the rules, avoiding a WP:3RR report. But discussion is not working, and it is impoverishing the page as a result. Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing I just noticed. This page is protected, at my instigation, from edit warring by IPs and new editors, since that has been a problem in the past. User:2point5ken, the main instigator of the most recent incarnation of the still-simmering edit war over emo-pop, made exactly ten edits, then waited out the waiting period before commencing a flurry of edits here, and only here. This is, at best, indicative of a WP:SPA, and possibly much more. Perhaps I am being foolish in bringing my concerns to WP:DR; I am realizing more and more that conduct, and not content, is the only real issue. Chubbles (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I’ve explained all my reasoning to Chubbles on our dispute. My justifications are written very clear all over the talk page and on our dispute page. I think the only way were going to agree and move forward is to leave “synthpop” & “emopop” off the page and settle on how USA today, Billboard, SXSW and many others call their early work “electropop”  If you notice synthpop's wikipedia page states “Synthpop (also known as electropop, or technopop”)  Let’s settle on “electropop.” I’m ok with that because on the wiki page for “electropop” it speaks about the genre by saying, “The genre has received criticism for alleged lack of emotion and musicianship.” which is the exact point I am trying to make on how Cash Cash was the opposite of “emo” with their complete lack of dark, emotional, depressing, or deep lyrical content either paired with yelling, soft light vocals, or even screaming as emo is thought of. Listing emo - pop is a total contradiction considering the wiki definition of emo pop is “blending "youthful angst" with "slick production" and mainstream appeal, using "high-pitched melodies, rhythmic guitars, and lyrics concerning adolescence, relationships, and heartbreak." Cash Cash was known to have the opposite lyrical content making “pop” the only correct word in the phrase. Their early work was happy, bright & filled with synths, keyboards, and “bubble gum” lyrics. Listing “emopop” is bias, confusing, negative, and a huge contradiction. Hopefully we can settle with “electropop” and end this argument. Like I said before, classifying them as “emopop” can be very negative & offensive because Cash Cash was on the opposite side of the emopop movement. “Emo” stems from the word “emotional.” On the contrary, Cash Cash’s lyrical content along with music strayed far away from emo given their “Bubble Gum” lyrics. Their first single was called “Party In Your Bedroom,” and is self explanatory of what they were about during that era. They were bubbly “synthpop” not “emopop.” Both genres are very different and should not be confused. Considering the argument at hand, I feel it would be smart to list “electropop” as the fair compromise because at least it’s not a confusing or misleading genre that would misinform anyone researching Cash Cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * While this is mostly rehashing old arguments, there is one light in the tunnel: the decision to source electropop using reliable sources. Perhaps I am getting through to you, at least a little. This is a necessary condition for sourcing contentious material, as genre seems to be for this page. Your removal of synthpop represents no compromise, as I had no problem with it, only its sourcing to Wikipedia pages (which other editors have already removed). The "emopop" discussion goes nowhere; you're still tying it too closely to "emo", and they are not the same thing, any more than "disco punk" is the same thing as disco. (furthermore, your only recent edit off-page was to remove everything other editors had added to the emo-pop page about how Cash Cash had been identified early in their career as representative of the genre.) If you do not like "emo", or find it "negative and offensive", and wish the band were not referred to in this way...I'm sorry, but "I don't like it" is not good enough reasoning, and the fact remains that, stylistically, critical commentary has connected the band with the emo-pop style of the late 2000s, and not arbitrarily, either.


 * You have refused to engage in serious discussion through WP:DR; fair enough, you are not required to do so. In lieu of consensus-building, I have cut the infobox down to two hopefully non-controversial signifiers and shunted the remainder of the genre kerfuffle into its own section on style, where I have expounded at some length upon the band's early style as portrayed by early music press accounts. This includes expanded, reliably sourced mention of "emo-pop", since it was seemingly a key identifier at the time. You are welcome to expand the section on their later work, but please do not remove reliably sourced information unless you have some other policy- or guideline-based reason to do so. If you do not, your edits may be reverted as violations of WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:GENREWARRIOR. Chubbles (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the recent edits made on July 25th, 2014.
A lot of Chubbles’s rewording was definitely good with regards to flow, it’s just a shame that now the history section is completely out of order timeline wise…but if his way is considered “wikifying” then I guess I will just take a step back and move on. I personally felt having a separate section for touring was the best way for readers to get the information they needed but he seems to disagree. Either way, I’m not going to fight about that. Im more concerned with content, section titles, and other issues I will address.

As far as what is important and what is not…all the festivals they’ve played are equal if not bigger than previous shows listed such as the let it rock tour, bamboozle, warper tour etc most not being sourced at all…I think we either leave up past and recent touring or just remove all touring together. Whatever the consensus is, I feel it just needs to be consistent. Nobody is allowed to dictate which shows are relevant or not especially since most the early shows aren’t cited at all. A lot of overseas and international touring was added that I personally think readers need to learn about to see the group is not just based in the US. Overall my vote is to keep all the touring past and present up because it shows readers the group is and has been a live act not just a studio act.

Section "EP Releases" should be changed to "Overtime & Lightning (2013-present)"

Section titles should be consistent throughout the article. “EP releases” is unclear and doesn’t follow the format of how the article’s written. For instance, the previous sections are not labeled “LP releases,” they are named after the release titles defining the respected eras; then each section expands on other issues based on the release cycle since a lot of other content besides the releases are spoken about in all three sections but we’re using the release names to mainly stamp a time and place/era so we can then branch off. That seems to be the format and we should stick with it throughout the article.

Section titles should be consistent throughout the article. “EP releases” is unclear & doesn’t follow the format of how the article’s written. For instance, the previous sections are not labeled LP releases they are named after the release titles defining the eras then each section expands on other issues based on the release cycle.

Moving on to other information in the article that is cited with twitter, I’ve seen twitter citations all over wikipedia on musicians and artists pages including katy perry’s page, given it’s a valid way to get information on artists as their lives are constantly changing. If you want to remove those citations that’s fine but the information should stay if it’s important just like there is a lot of information on their early history that isn’t even cited but continues to stay in the article...ie their atlantic signing was cited by twitter...is anyone really going to doubt at this point they are signed to the label? haha so removing the citation is one thing but deleting the content is wrong

secondly, the compromise term for the “The Consequence” section should be “Formation.” It was a different band with a completely different sound like the Foo Fighters. The two should not be confused. They share members but that does not mean they are the same band hence the name and sound change. They are two separate band names with two different sounds and that should be clear. One was a rock band and one was a synthpop band. Note that early Cash Cash was never a rock band…The Consequence was. That should be very clear as it’s currently not. I will get to the styles section to fix that when I have a minute. Another example, Army of Anyone’s wiki page... They were a different band with a completely different sound then Stone Temple Pilots. The two should not be confused because they are different bands with different sounds. Formation seems to be the proper section title I’m finding everywhere on wiki. Army Of Anyone’s formation sections talks about Stone Temple Pilots but it does not call it early years. It just sets up the article to show where the band came from. This should be the same.

Preface: The Foo Fighters introduction preface is very long in depth and there’s no reason Cash Cash’s shouldn’t be given their extensive history. Certain information must be left in. Please reference the foo fighters wiki page to see what I’m taking about. I will be adding some of the relevant important information back to the introduction making sure it’s in a neutral way as it’s important to have on a group's page that is this long.

I will also be adding back valuable information pertaining to their involvement with EMI Music publishing. I have no idea who allowed this information to be removed in the first place as its official information pertaining to their ties with a major publishing company. This is not promotional, or advertising…it’s a fact the way you would state their record labels.

- As of 2014, EMI Music Publishing's website confirms that as songwriters, Cash Cash is currently signed to EMI Music Publishing, which is now owned by a consortium led by Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

I’m adding back important information pertaining to how the group got support in the dance community which explains the transition of their career. In dance music, when other djs spin your music in their live sets is like a stamp of approval. That shows readers how they slowly got accepted in the dance community. If this is the section you feel is promotional…I recommend rewriting it vs removing it because it’s in their career transition. If you can’t seem to figure this part out, then I guess just remove it and we’ll leave it out for good but it's worth trying given it's importance in their evolution.

- Other international DJ’s such as David Guetta, Afrojack, and Zedd, starting featuring Cash Cash original songs and remixes in their podcasts and live sets which helped the group grow rapidly in the electronic music scene.

As far as the production equipment gear section goes, they speak about using the Avantone gear themselves in the video...so that information was coming directly from them as well as avantone's website. I think it's important to producers researchers other producers and should be added back. If you still feel it's promotional after now learning it was spoken about by the band themselves and not just the company then go ahead and remove it again as I have no plans to fight or edit war over it. I come peacefully.

as far as “previous band” goes, I will fix the sentence to say previous band the way it was stated in the sourced interview. It's not right to reword what an artist says in an interview. That’s incorrect and unjust. If we’re quoting an interview then it should be quoted and spoken about the way it was said.

I also made an occupations tab which I’ve seen on similar group’s pages to generally clarify the things they do, See above & beyond’s wiki page on this. They do it as well. Please look at each of my edits separately, as I’m going to be very clear what edit is what. I do not want to start an edit war as all my edits will be individual and separate from one another. I’m here to better this article the way everyone else is. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not believe these edits are improvements. Chubbles wiki-fied the article, making it more encyclopedic. Your changes move it back towards it sounding like a promotional piece written by the band's label. Sergecross73   msg me  21:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Serge, please elaborate on which exact edit is promotional? How is embellishing the preface more promotional after adding more info on past releases and their involvement on producing krewella's live for the night? Please have a look at the foo fighters preface. I want to hear more from you on exact edits that you find to be promotional. For me the only one in question would be the - Other international DJ’s such as David Guetta, Afrojack, and Zedd, starting featuring Cash Cash original songs and remixes in their podcasts and live sets which helped the group grow rapidly in the electronic music scene edit which I said I'm ok with having it removed if you still find it promotional after I tried rewording it...To me that and stuff in the equipment section would be the only things that anyone could call slightly promotional. I think the rewording in the equipment section helped a lot...I'm not sure what else there is in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the main promotional issues is how much "name-dropping" happens. The article constantly sounds like its desperately trying to convince that the band is "hitting the big times" or something.

I think Chubbles was successfull in making it not look like the band is "hitting the big times" The way the information was listing the information in an outline form made it look like that but his recent contributions definitely helped make it read more like an article which I support.

It's not supposed to be looked as as name dropping. The dance scene is very community based and DJ's supporting other dj's is very important information but like i said in my last edit. If you still want to remove that part, I will not fight it. - KEN


 * Please read up on how to write an intro (lead) section The Foo Fighters have a long one because they've been around for almost 20 years. They're meant to be a brief overview, not list off all these random singles, or co-writing a single song, like you keep adding on.

These are not random singles. Their song lightning is a recent song that has one of their biggest features to date. It makes the page seem relevant when you can find information such as that without having to read the whole page. I've seen this all over wikipedia...this is not the first. You should be able to compromise with me on this. Them producing and co-writing Krewella's live for the night is a recent fact that researched should be able to find easily given it's an important part of their career and transition. This is not random. It's two valid pieces of information that I feel strong about being in the introduction. - KEN


 * Army of Anyone is a bad example used above- "Early years" wasn't used because the band was so short lived. There weren't really "early years", when the band only spanned 2-3 years.
 * Those "1001 tracklists" sources (like http://www.1001tracklists.com/tracklist/43687_david-guetta-dj-mix-189-2014-02-08.html#tr_172989) are absolutely not reliable sources. Neither is "dancing astronaut", that lighthouse one, etc. Bad sources keep on being re-added, and you and Lauren have made no effort to figure out what a reliable source is.

It's not supposed to be name dropping...but like i said before, if you really don't think it fits the tone of the article then you can remove it without having any issues from me. I just wanted to try and explain it a little better so you might see a different side of it and understand why it's important to list. - KEN


 * You and Lauren keep on saying "EP releases" is not an appropriate section name because "they need to be kept consistent"...but that's not according to anything other than your own personal opinion. There's nothing against using something general like that to summarize a number of releases. Same with using "Early years". You two oppose that with such authority...but its based on absolutely nothing.

The reasoning is, Take It to the floor represents all the stuff that is in it's section. The section talks about other things as well that were happening in that era. shows, singles, etc, Same goes to Love Or Lust & The Beat Goes on. Those sections talk about a lot of other stuff but the album name is was defines that era. Overtime & Lightning are the same. Those releases define all the stuff that section talks about and dives into. It keeps consistency and sets a time and place for all three releases. Also it's confusing to list EP releases because there were previous ep's released in the other eras but we still choose to call by the main releases that defined that period. Album titles is how every other wikipedia page lists eras and there's no reason why we should be doing some form of hybrid. It just doesn't make any sense to me and makes the page weird. - KEN


 * I find it rare to find 2 new editors which such obstinance in learning how things work here, yet so aggressively push their own points of view. I imagine that's where Chubble's COI suspcion comes from. Sergecross73   msg me  23:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to help man, I'm not here to battle but it's not right that the group is getting ganged up on because some people feel new relevant information is promo and advertising. We have to be reasonable. If there are promotional statements in questions let's simply work together in changing the way they are written or agree to remove them. Anything I added in the preface is no way promotional and that's for sure. But please feel free to delete the section cited by 1001 track listing - KEN
 * If you were here to help, I would think that both of you would be a lot more cooperative and receptive to being advised on how the website works. Instead, you and Lauren have been very combative and dismissive. You don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, you seem to be here to show this band the way you personally best see fit, disregarding policy, guidelines, and precedent. Sergecross73   msg me  04:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup, flags, and new updates - July 23, 2014
Currently this article is properly cited and sourced from front to back. Over the last year it has expanded in all the right ways making a solid encyclopedic article on Cash Cash. It’s obvious to anyone reading the article and talk page that a lot of TLC has been given to bring this article up to date in a factual way and a lot of users played a crucial role in the process…user;Lauren Castellano was definitely one of them and did an outstanding job with her edits and should be thanked for all her hard work and research. I highly doubt anyone will disagree with that statement after reviewing her contributions. So to user: LaurenCastellano - Please do not feel disheartened, I assure you that your contributions to this article are greatly appreciated and I hope you continue to stay involved as much as you can. It’s users like you that help make wikipedia a relevant place for information. user: Derek_R_Bullamore, thanks for filling in open references with reflinks. That helped a lot. This page is finally at the professional level it needs to be at and I hope it continues to grow with Cash Cash instead of sitting stagnant the way it did before her and a handful of enthusiastic wiki editors took action.

I’ve been making edits here and there over the last 8 months or so before I recently got serious and became a registered user after the page became protected. Overall my contributions were minuscule compared to a few users on here especially the person who made those stunning grid tables for their albums, singles, chart positions, eps, and remixes. That person deserves a medal for their contributions! They turned out flawless and look stellar. If you’re reading this, thank you for your time. I think everyone should feel very proud of where the article currently stands. It came a very long way. Trying to send good vibes to everyone involved. - kenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, and I never saw the article's supposed rough shape...but there's still a lot of cleanup needed for this article... Sergecross73   msg me  02:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Naturally, I must beg to differ, and I have today put my time where my mouth is. This article was far from "properly cited and sourced from front to back", as it contained many references which fail Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. (I have linked that guideline over, and over, and over again on this talk page. Our strident new editors would do well to give it a good look-see, as they seem to be largely unfamiliar with it.) I have removed some; others could probably go, as well. As for a "solid encyclopedic article"...it was well on its way to being an excellent promotional tool for the band, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. The page is still far from being "at [a] professional level"; better referencing (using that old phrase again, "reliable sources") is needed, some stylistic expansion on their later work would be nice, less promotional tone in the "equipment" section is desired, and the history could read less like a chronology ("On january 1, this happened. On January 2, this happened....") and more like a narrative of the band's career trajectory. Subdividing the paragraphs into related topics, as I have tried to do, is a start. I'm not sure that every festival appearance needs to be rigorously documented and dated, along with all the other participants; either this could be listified or it could be condensed. Anyway, I cannot but expect that these edits will prove irksome to other editors, and I am willing to discuss further needed changes; it would help if concerns are itemized, perhaps in a new section on this talk page. I recommend using the talk page first before reverting; further edit warring will be reported to administrators. Chubbles (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article can be improved but at present its well sourced (assuming the sources are of good quality--I haven't looked at them). Secondly, I think it would be good for the person(s) who placed the tags on the page, to list what specific sections or issues they feel need to be remedied into order to the remove that tag. Tags are not badges of shame they are intended to be alerts to other editors to inspire improvement. Same with the COI tag. Unless there is an ongoing content problem related to the COI that tag does not need to be there.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon this article when it was being discussed at WP:DRN at the same time another dispute that I had observed but not been a part of had been discussed at the same time. I added the "rewrite" tag because many of the sections were not typically titled and there were many a number of unencyclopedic elements to it. (Such as a cruft-y "equipment" section that gave no explanation of what things were or why they were significant.) I see Chubbles has made a lot of changes to the article, but that was very recently and I wasn't able to see if this was resolved yet.
 * Things are heavily sourced, yes, but they don't appear to be reliably sourced. There's a lot of social media posts used, and a lot of these websites "Thatsongissick.com", "dancingastronaut", "emptylighthouse.com" appear to be blog websites that don't meet the criteria of WP:RELIABLE.
 * I assume the "COI" claim is against that "Lauren" editor. It appears she overhauled the article to a very fansite/promotional type writing, and has actively reverted any attempts to fix it. If its not COI issues, it'd be OWN issues. Maybe both. Sergecross73   msg me  18:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the COI tag: I placed that a long time ago - couple of years - because the article was heavily edited by both anonymous editors and SPAs claiming to be band members or appearing to be members of the band's management team. They spent many months editwarring over the page - primarily over the use of emopop as a genre and attempting to remove all mention of the band's early years as The Consequence. I fought these changes tooth and claw because I believed that COI editors ought not have the final say over how the page is presented, which is in line with Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, their attempts were dogged and relentless - even going so far as to contact some of the sources I had used and replace their band biographies with new writeups. I believed the band was trying to "rewrite its own history" in an attempt to distance themselves with their own early work, perhaps because they found it embarrassing to be lumped into the scene in which they had found themselves; they were trying to make it seem as if they "had always been an EDM group", which is not the case, as early press accounts of the band make manifest.


 * I voiced some suspicion about our newest editors and their motives, and a detailed look at the talk page will tell you why; the two new and strident editors have taken up exactly the same banners that the band's own management team eventually gave up on after years of trying. I asked them to declare any COI interests if they have them, and they have disavowed any. Fair enough. I suppose, then, that they are dedicated fans who have meticulously read over the talk page and came to believe the band was maligned. This is particularly unfortunate, because in the process of trying to defend one of their favorite artists, they are inadvertently learning how to edit Wikipedia in ways entirely contrary to the spirit of the project.


 * If one of the veteran editors watching this page evaluates its current status and decides COI tag removal is warranted, I will not oppose it. Chubbles (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't remove it. I've come across similar scenarios myself, where band management tries to rewrite a bands history. One tried to edit a bands original lead singer out of existence. So, I can't help but think things are similar and fishy here too. Sergecross73   msg me  17:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

2.5ken edits, Jul 26
Responding point-by-point, by timestamp:


 * 16:41: I have no problem with this edit, but it probably obviates the need for the nonstandard formatting in the "members" section that was so contentious earlier.


 * 16:47: It doesn't seem like the Rzeznik track is important enough in their overall discography to merit mention in the lede; it wasn't a charting hit, and while Rzeznik is a big star, there doesn't seem to be a reason to highlight him in the lede with an entire sentence, rather than, at most, a passing mention in the next sentence. Tired of fighting over this point.


 * 16:54: Fine, whatever. It would be better as < Overtime & Lightning EPs (2013-present) >, I think.


 * 16:56: This is unacceptable. Early press accounts of the band clearly refer to The Consequence as an early incarnation of the band with most of the same members, not a "totally different band". See cited sources ("Cash Cash got their start in 2002 under the name the Consequence... They changed their name to Cash Cash in early 2008 and signed with the major label Universal") and  ("the band originally formed as The Consequence in 2002.... Changing their name to Cash Cash in March of 2008"). There is nothing unjust about what I have asserted; it's right there in the documents.


 * 16:59: Good catch, thanks.


 * 17:01: This doesn't seem important to me, but I'm not going to oppose its reinstatement.


 * 17:09: This edit constitutes original research; you are taking posted DJ tracklists and making a claim about their overall success based on that raw data. First, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises (they could have been played at these sets without anyone really taking notice), and second, this is not the venue for making original claims about the historical development of their fame. That has to come from secondary sources - from music critics or journalists writing about the band, not from your own personal observations about who's playing what.

I am taking the liberty of making the minor edit needed to fix up 16:54. Other than that, the "action items" are 16:56 and 17:09. These two edits, I believe, are unsupportable and should be reverted. Chubbles (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe Ken said he supported the removal of 17:09 after I pointed out how the sources aren't RS's, though its hard to tell, because he left such a mess of wall-of-text, non-formatted/indented responses all over my original comments in the section above. Sergecross73   msg me  18:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that now. I removed that sentence and accompanying footnotes in the text. Would still like to remove 16:56; waiting a little longer for any continuing discussion. Chubbles (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing none, I have edited the page to conform to what contemporaneous sources say about the group's early history. Please discuss any dissenting changes here before posting, and please back them up with reliable sources. Chubbles (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Styles Section
Chubbles, the styles section was a great idea!..keeping the two simple genres up top and creating this section for us to explain sub styles is awesome. I also love the way you reworded all the information I added over the past few months to make it feel less of a list and more like a written article. kudos! I just freaked out while you were making your recent edits because it looked like you were just erasing all of mine…I do apologize for that and from now on will let people finish their final edits before making new ones. <3

My only concern with the styles section is the wording. I want to make sure it doesn’t sound like a review section of opinionated words. ex. listing statements such as “the group can write huge hooks and carry themselves with enough style and confidence to score big points with teen-age listeners.” ”singalong choruses, [and] slick-as-oil vocal harmonies” that’s too puff/promo and the wording is too positively opinionated. Stuff like that shouldn’t be there. Let’s keep it neutral sounding….also, Cash Cash wasn’t the rock band. They did start as an electronic band from the beginning which I reworded to be clear. The Consequence was the “Rock” band and that is kept spoken about in the “early years” section and probably shouldn’t be jumbled in with this section pertaining to Cash Cash’s sound. Let’s keep this section on Cash Cash given this is an article on them making it simple, digestible and easy for readers to process factual information pertaining to Cash Cash’s genres and sound transition which is confusing enough. I don’t want researchers mistaken or confused that Cash Cash was a rock band but Cash Cash was indeed a band with instrumentation which is fact and important. I even elaborated on the subject adding bass guitar, vocals, etc. Overall, the few issues I’m having can all be easily resolved and compromised with some simple rewording that I’m about to do. I also researched a bunch of amazing articles that further explain what influenced their sound transition. I intertwined the content I found into the styles section making it very informative and neutral. I feel confident that I found a really great way to bring it all together and know from now on we can work peacefully together!

LaurenCastellano (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What you've done here is: remove wording that indicated the continuity of The Consequence and Cash Cash, which I have repeatedly demonstrated does not square with what we know from reliable sources about the band's early history, and remove every pull quote about emo-pop and minimize its presence on the page, despite my having shown that it was a key way that early sources interpreted the band's style. You are still fighting the same edit war, even after being blocked and even after months and months of fatiguing discussion. I wish to restore what has been removed. Reversion with a patronizing smile and "good vibes" is still reversion. Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, I'm not sure what your talking about. I left a lot of your stuff in there except what was puff and review based. It's not the place for that. I expanded on the style change so it didn't just go from point a to point b. It reads like an actual section now. I'm not fighting you on anything. Wikipedia is just not a review website. Stuff like “the group can write huge hooks and carry themselves with enough style and confidence to score big points with teen-age listeners.” ”singalong choruses, [and] slick-as-oil vocal harmonies” is way too puff...This section needs to be neutral that's all I'm saying. Having The Consequence's sound listed in this section is a bit overkill. It's more than enough being spoken about in the "early years" section. We should keep the styles section focused on Cash Cash so people are not mistaken. LaurenCastellano (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't help but feel this is a little "pot, meet kettle"...but I included quotes which I thought accurately synthesized the reviewer's overall judgment, similar to what you'd find in a "critical reception" section (the one place where judgments would actually be welcomed). I actually chose more positive-sounding quotes because I thought they would be less controversial to Castellano and Ken than some other possibilities; both reviews included significant dollops of both praise and blame. I don't need to mix style and critical reception elements here, but it is not appropriate for you to trim sourced content after having been warned on your talk page to discuss changes before implementing them. Chubbles (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I know, that's why I brought my concerns to the talk page first and labeled a new section called "Styles Section" and directed at you so you would read it...I come peacefully and want to be civil with you. LaurenCastellano (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for other voices on this matter. Chubbles (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, I prefer erring on the side of more rather than fewer genres when plenty of them are sourced, as it helps show a fuller picture of what the band/book/video game/etc. is and how it's perceived. This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with any given genre; "emo" tends to just reflect clean, high-pitched male singing nowadays, and I think the term "alternative rock" has been completely meaningless since the mid-1990s. However, we don't get to editorialize on which genres are correct, particularly if lots of sources bring them up, rather than one saying "Check out Sub Pop's latest Iranian psych-UK-garage-folk ensemble: Cash Cash!" in some kind of ironic post. In other words, I support "emo pop" staying. Tezero (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, my most recent edit does the following:
 * Removes "electropop", since none of the sources given were actually describing the band's early work in this way. I have no objection to this being restored if it is added in a paragraph referring to the band's later work, or if another reliable source uses the word about the early work.
 * Restores my original wording of the first sentence with the addition of the other instruments Lauren has listed. Removes the word "rock" in lieu of "traditional", which is vaguer but is supported by a cited source which talks about their early work (the USA Today post).
 * Restores the Allmusic quotation. It's not the most neutrally worded pull; it is a review, after all, and its point is to express an opinion, but it is discussing substantive matters of style, and to sanitize it of its non-neutral words would also be to sanitize it of its descriptive power. If there is a better pull quote from that article you would like, please discuss here and we can see if it works better.
 * I agree that the PopMatters pull quote was less informative than opinion-expressing, so I have replaced the second half of it with another quote which discusses style and likens the band to another group. That gives a more substantive sense of the band's style from this third-party review.
 * Adds a sentence referenced by the helpful USA Today article about the group's early reception in the press.
 * I left the two quotes in, but I rather think the USA Today article has better ones. I removed the sentence about self-production, since it was taken almost verbatim but was not presented as a quotation.
 * Left the menagerie of genres at the end. This would do better as a series of pull quotes from top-level review sites, as in the previous paragraph.

When you have concerns about these edits, please consider discussing them here prior to acting - as in, wait for someone to respond here before taking any action on the article page. We have repeatedly requested this before. Chubbles (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, why are you so adamant about listing and embellishing a style that is so borderline and contradiction in this situation? It’s like why cause confusion and trouble when there doesn’t have to be. “Powerpop”, “Synthpop”, “Electropop” are valid genres that have been used to clearly describe their early material without contradiction. I think it should be “Powerpop” like their early releases on wiki. An opinionated review online should not dictate a band’s style especially when there are major concerns on the subject. Trying to argue that they are content free emo pop is the biggest contradiction I’ve ever seen in a genre. Think about that for a second.

please read all my statements on this so you can understand how emopop is completely incorrect and why it’s wrong to list

“emopop” should not be listed on this page and corrected to “synthpop” and or “power pop” for various reasons. Classifying Cash Cash using the word "Emo" is misleading & incorrect. The word Emo relates to band like Senses Fail, Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights. Cash Cash is nothing close to them. Their early releases were in the vein of electronica synth pop bands such as Hellogoodbye & 3oh3 which are both listed as synthpop on wikipedia. The sourced wikipedia pages pertaining to Cash Cash's early work, which is the material in question, are also listed as “synthpop.”

Listing emo - pop is also a total contradiction considering the wiki definition of emo pop is “blending "youthful angst" with "slick production" and mainstream appeal, using "high-pitched melodies, rhythmic guitars, and lyrics concerning adolescence, relationships, and heartbreak." Cash Cash was known to have the opposite lyrical content making “pop” the only correct word in the phrase. Their early work was happy, bright & filled with synths, keyboards, & vocoder. Listing “emopop” is bias, confusing, negative, and a huge contradiction.

Trying to argue that they are content free emo pop is the biggest contradiction I’ve ever seen in a genre. Think about that for a second Chubbles. Why are you so adamant about listing and embellishing a style that is so borderline and contradiction in this situation? It’s like why cause confusion and trouble when there doesn’t have to be. “Powerpop”, “Synthpop”, “Electropop” are valid genres that have been used to clearly describe their early material without contradiction.

When a researcher sees the word ‘emo’ they are left with the impression of dark, emotional, depressing, or deep lyrical content either paired with yelling, soft light vocals, or even screaming. That is what the word “emo” evokes to music listeners because it defines bands that were hardcore screaming & singing about dark depressing issues / self inflicting actions in an overly dramatic way; this occurrence makes “emo” a very confusing & misleading word. Cash Cash began as a jubilant synthpop act that did some tours with a few “emo” artists along with many other bands of different styles including rap, metal, and even rnb; but that does not justify them to be listed as any of those genres. If that was the case we could call them Rap because they toured with Tyga.

It’s also very negative & offensive to them and I’m going to elaborate why. Cash Cash was on the opposite side of the emopop movement. “Emo” stems from the word “emotional.” Bands like Dashboard Confessional, Brand New, & The Get Up Kids greatly embraced the term. On the contrary, Cash Cash’s lyrical content along with music strayed far away from emo given their “Bubble Gum” lyrics. Their first single was called “Party In Your Bedroom,” and is self explanatory of what they were about during that era. They were bubbly “synthpop” not “emopop.” Both genres are very different and should not be confused. Cash Cash doesn't deserve to have their reputation confused because someone is hooked on the idea that they were "emopop" because of an opinionated review. It's not fair to the group or researchers.

Synthpop's wiki page states, “the genre has received criticism for alleged lack of emotion.” That’s exactly what Cash Cash was doing early on. Their lyrics were bubble gum and on the opposite side of emo. It’s unfair to list emopop in an encyclopedic place such as wikipedia when it was based off biased material that doesn’t fit them. I hope I’ve made it very clear on why it’s the wrong genre for the group. links to their early releases on wiki  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I contradict. I contradict using reliable sources. The sources you have provided do not support your case, as I have meticulously documented. Since you are not defending your case according to the principles of verifiability and reliable sources, I have reverted you. Here, you have repeated an opinion you have stated multiple times, which is not supported by reliable sources. You have refused to participate in facilitated discussion, instead deciding to edit war; you revert, I discuss, you stonewall for days. Then I revert. I can no longer assume good faith about your behavior. Further disruptive editing will be reported to administrators. Chubbles (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources as defined in WP:RS and in particularly secondary sources. References to other WP pages do not count as sources. Likewise our own personal logic, conclusions, opinions and even first hand knowledge of a subject have no bearing on WP content. Its all about reliable sources. If an editor adds content without reliable sources then the content may be challenged by any editor and the burden to supply reliable sources is on the first editor. If sources are not provided within a reasonable amount of time then the test may justifiably removed by the challenging editor.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why STILL locked?
I came here for routine gnoming stuff: is it really so fraught with edit-warring that it needs to be frozen in the medium term???? How annoying. Tony  (talk)  02:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Take a look at this talk page. Yes, there are a lot of long-term arguments over the page. Sergecross73   msg me  02:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, honestly, I think it might get worse before it gets better. Chubbles (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG, it's huge. Right. You guys are admins, yes? I hope you can bring them together. Tony   (talk)  12:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Years Active.
I was going back and forth on this issue but now I actually do think it's better just listing 2002 the way Chubbles had it because it makes the band seem like they broke up if a reader doesn't know the full history. Seeing an end date on first glance makes it look like they might be currently disbanded. 2002 is all good with me. I originally figured that 2008 was the better year to list since it was the year Cash Cash formed - but given the history starts in 2002, it makes more sense to list one origin date to keep things clear. Salvidrim's edit here was to resolve edit warring on the issue but that won't be needed as there’s agreement on the date of origin. - Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough...I don't mind Salvidrim's version but the current infobox status follows the sources, and that's all I really want to see. Chubbles (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just using 2002-present is a more standardized way of presenting it anyways. Sergecross73   msg me  10:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)