Talk:DOM (band)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --12.11.157.129 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevant band, songs make significant social commentary. Styles draw from late psychadelic period artists, therefore firmly placing Dom in the lineage of bands continuing this rock tradition. --12.11.157.129 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --81.64.199.1 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dom is a band that has been covered in various, well-instituted publications on independent music; they recently signed to what is relatively a major label; they have played packed venues throughout Europe with Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti. There are thousands of less significant bands being documented on Wikipedia.

Should the last name be used in the article?
Sometime this year, the name of the solo artist Dominic was removed, leaving only his nome-de-plume of Dom. User:89tresson has put the name back in. Should it stay in? Why leave it out? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of the page just be "Dom" since the page is basically about the group and it's music and not solely about Dominic Cournoyer. The first sentence in the article it talks about Dom being a music project not about Dominic himself ("Dom is an American pop / electronic solo musical project by Dominic Cournoyer originating from Worcester, Massachusetts."). SnooedKiwi (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Link to facebook page and the xLinkBot
Hello friends, I noticed this article when one of the wikipedia administrative bots tried (and failed unfortunately) to be helpful, by removing a link to facebook.

Ironically enough, in this case the editor (DomMusicInc) who 'got in trouble' from the the xLinkBot was actually not *adding* a link to facebook, they were *fixing* a link to facebook. Sadly but predictably, xLinkBot is not smart enough to know that -- it is a bot after all and not  really smart like a human -- so it stuck its nose into the good-faith update. Thankfully, our editor DomMusicInc was smart enough to figure out that 1) they were correct in what they were doing, 2) xLinkBot was wrong in what it was doing, and 3) had the gumption to put the edit in again. The author of xLinkBot intended for that to be exactly what *should* happen... the programmer is not *trying* to keep editors from making wikipedia better... but my congratulations to DomMusicInc for being only the third or fourth person to figure this out without help!  :-)  Anyways, now that we have got the explanation of the bot behavior out of the way....

Is the new facebook link 'domrlrt' really correct, and uncontroversial? The old one was 'domband' before it was changed, for anyone that wants to look. Is the old one still in use by anybody, for anything? Will it be kept around for historical purposes?

History of Dom
It sounds like at one point there was a *band* called Dom, with the person named Dominic Cournoyer as the(?) lead singer. Sometime in early 2013, the band-photo (with three people visible in a 2011 photograph) was taken down, and a sentence was added to the effect that the-band-formerly-known-as-Dom was no longer together, and furthermore that Dom would henceforth be the solo-group consisting of Dominic Cournoyer. As of this month, the username DomMusicInc has been making edits and uploading photos (including a four-person-band-photo from 2011... or five-person if you count cardboard-montana), whereas previously most of the photo-uploads and editing were being accomplished by username DomBandUSA. Can somebody please fill me in on the gory details here? Wikipedia is not a gossip site, that's not what I'm asking about, plus I could care less (sorry!). My goal here, is to improve the article -- wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia, and that means it covers the history of music, not just the latest fad. You will note that our article on Elvis, and for that matter Mozart, does not simply have a one-sentence explanation stating "Elvis has left the building" and expecting everybody to go read something else. So, from the perspective of the history of music, which is useful encyclopedic content, can somebody familiar with Dom in 2010, Dom in 2011, Dom in 2012, Dom in 2013q1, and Dom in 2013q4 please give me the highlights, of who the band-members were (their instruments/specialties if known), and who the producers/distributors were, and so on? It looks like the article has the following names mentioned:  Dominic Cournoyer (the current 'Dom' solo-group), Dom Lavin (also in the band?), Dylan White (added just this year as a 'past member' ... but never listed in the member section?), and in alphabetical order (or not?) by first name, Bobby Kelley, Cosmo DiGiulio, John Mingsley, Kenny Brown, and (unalphabetically) Erik Gonzalez as past members. Is anybody missing, that deserves to be listed? Which years were which people in Dom? Is there any dispute between the two folks with 'Dom' in their name over the solo-group name? Again, wikipedia is not the place for airing dirty laundry... but it is the place for historical fact. Preferably with citations -- links to Performer magazine, links to SXSW info, and similar evidence will really help here.

Photos of Dom
Once we get the history of the band figured out, we can make use of the band-photos we have, and the solo photo, as well as the EP cover-art photos. There is currently a dispute over one of the photos that has been uploaded, over here -- -- "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy or by forwarding email communication granting permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This also applies if you are the author yourself. Unless permission is granted, the file can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added (6 October 2013) and the uploader was notified."

Basically, some sharp-eyed wikipedia editor noticed that DomMusicInc had uploaded a photo of the cover of Performer Magazine. Is that *really* something that is your own work? Because, in order to upload it to wikipedia, you have to license any wikipedia editor, or indeed anybody in the universe with access to wikipedia, to be able to distribute the photo, make changes to the photo (with attribution to the original photographer), and so on and so forth. Unless you are the *publisher* aka copyright-holder of Performer Magazine itself, then prima facie it is unlikely that you have the necessary legalese in your favor which would allow you to upload the cover-photo. Not impossible, mind you, just unlikely, and because it is a Serious Legal Problem for wikipedia, we're pretty careful about such things. You can discuss it with me here, if you like, but you also need to discuss it with the editor who marked it for WP:COPYVIO, or it will prolly be deleted. This is not done to be mean -- wikipedia is based in the USA, and can get into serious legal trouble if editors violate copyright, even unknowingingly. Anyways, if it turns out that you *do* have the necessary legalese in your favor, for that particular image, it can always be re-uploaded at some later time. Also note, that in some cases fair use exceptions will permit you to upload images to wikipedia that are *not* backed by the *usual* legalese, but instead are backed by the special statuatory fair-use-clause legalese... doing that requires jumping through some hoops, but it is not that difficult.

Here are the photos I know about, not counting the disputed cover-photo mentioned above:, , , three people 2011, album 2010,

Is everybody involved here *quite* sure that all the copyright ducks are in a row for the album-art uploads? Who is the publisher/distributor of the album, in real life? Are they the ones who uploaded the album-art? If not, that might be subject to fair use, or it might be WP:COPYVIO that needs to be fixed (and pronto).

Note that it probably does not make sense to have an article with four short paragraphs actually *display* half a dozen full-size photos... but certainly it makes sense to link to them, or use thumbnails of them, as long as the legalese is properly settled.

Confusing language and citation-needed

 * "In early 2013 Dom announced that Dom was no longer a band."

Okay, that sentence is *not* very useful... the average reader of wikipedia will instantly be confused about the intended meansing. What the sentence is trying to say, methinks, is something like this:


 * "In early 2013, the-solo-artist-formerly-called-Dominic-Cournoyer-but-now-known-as-Dom announced that the-group-of-musicians-formerly-known-as-Dom-the-band were no longer  performing together under that moniker as a musical group."

For the sanity of wikipedia readers, the language in the article needs to reflect the history of the various musicians involved. When the article speaks of Dom-the-solo-artist-2013+ it needs to be clear that is what is intended. When the article speaks of Dom-the-former-musical-group-2010-thru-2012-or-so it needs to be clear *that* is what was intended. Don't call both things "Dom" pretty please? Also, where does Lavin fit into this? Is he *also* calling himself "Dom" when referring to his musical efforts? Wikipedia needs to be an informative, fact-oriented encyclopedia. It is not the place for naming disputes, especially if those real-life-naming-disputes turn into edit wars here in the wikipedia article. Why don't we talk it over, here on the talkpage, which is the usual wikipedia policy for controversies both large and  small (the former is a real-life Endless War and the latter is a bunch of people who think there ought to be an article on wikipedia-edit-wars busy engaging in a wikipedia-edit-war with other people who think there should be no such article... pretty nuts, eh?). See also, Sayre's Law.

Also note that I've inserted the dreaded citation-needed tags into the sentence. Wikipedia cannot just *state* that the-artist-formerly-known-as-Cournoyer announced something. We have to provide a verifiable citation, a reference, a hyperlink, *something* to indicate that the statement is backed up. In a special case like this, where *Cournoyer* is saying something about himself ("I am now a solo artist calling myself Dom"), the citation does not have to be very strong -- a link to his facebook post where he says as much is probably sufficient. However, in almost all other cases, wikipedia demands reliable sources for statements made in the articles. Information needs to be verifiable, because *anybody* can edit the article. Right now, I could go onto the main Dom article, and say something like "Dom was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 when his musical genius singlehandedly united the formerly-warring populace of Alpha Centauri A with the populace of Alpha Centauri B -- and in gratitude, they have since renamed their entire starsystem the Dom Galaxy." Just because wikipedia says Dom won such a prize, does not make it so. I have to provide a source. In this case, a link to Dom's facebook page is *not* anywhere near enough... because while we might be able to trust (warily and cautiously) his facebook page for statements about himself, we cannot simply trust his statements about what the members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee did or said, and for that matter, about what hypothetical interstellar civilizations did or said. We need a hyperlink to the Nobel website *and* also www.Centauri.gov, which verifies that Dom's facebook page (and my wikipedia sentence) are factual. Actually, wikipedia is even more picky: usually, we want to link to a New York Times *story* about the prize being awarded, and to an article in the Economist *covering* the name-change put forth by those SETIs, plus a citation to the journal Nature which explains how Dom's music impacted their inhuman brainwaves. The reasoning here is that those publications -- NYT / Economist / Nature -- are top-notch widely-respected fact-checking reputation-on-the-line Reliable Sources. The publications you see in the supermarket checkout aisles, which say that the current head of the Centauri government is now Elvis, are *not* considered as reliable.

Anyways, here are some statements in the current article for which a citation is needed:


 * "originating from Worcester, Massachusetts."  -- needs a facebook cite, or if possible, something a little more formal... boston music awards usually prints the hometown in their publications, right?   But note that some existing sources in the article claim 'Dorchester' which is a different city... so best get the correct info, with cites to show it is correct.


 * "DIY aesthetic ... upbeat, sunny rhythms"  -- who says that Dom sounds like that?  give the name of the reviewer.  Dom's facebook page not really enough... unless you say in the article "Dom intends his music to" or something along those lines.  Better to give a real review, by a real reviewer (not Dom's parents or friends), that was published in a Reliable Source.  WZLX?  SXSW?  Give us a source here.


 * "was released in March 2010"  -- who released it?  link to a published review is best here... do *not* link to a store where the CD can be purchased, that violates a ton of wikipedia policies .... but document the fact of the album, and the fact of the date, by citing Somebody Important who noticed both facts, and published them somehow.  Blog of a music critic is okay here; blog of a fan is Not Reliable.


 * "received much critical acclaim" -- okay, now you are *definitely* violating a bunch of wikipedia policies.  WP:WEASEL, WP:COI, WP:ADVERT, and prolly WP:NPOV.  You must not put things like "many people believe Dom is the greatest musician of all time a true deity amongst mortals destined for greatness buy our stuff now pleeeeeeezzzz" into wikipedia.  You will be smacked down; gotta remember this is an encyclopedia, not a facebook page, not a webstore.  If in fact Dom *really* did receive favorable reviews, you must cite the sources, as published in reliable independent third-party publications (print/tv/radio/internet/whatever... does not matter especially as long as they satisfy WP:RS for the music industry).


 * "picked up by Capitol Records/Astralwerks (US)"  -- citation needed, from the company, or from some industry publication that noticed (not from Dom or his friends)


 * "picked up by Parlophone Records (UK)" -- ditto


 * "picked up by Modular Records (AU)" -- ditto ... anybody can *say* this is true, wikipedia requires that you *show* it to be true -- it's the only way to make wikipedia Good


 * "After gaining popularity" -- see the discussion under 'received much critical acclaim'  ... who *says* Dom gained popularity?  Billboard?  okay.  Dom?  nope.  Dom's mom?  nope.  Dom's record label?  *Big* nope, unless they back it up with sales figures, which were published by an independent reliable third-party source.  See WP:COI.


 * "Dom was asked to open for Ratatat" -- need cite from Ratatat, or better, from a journalist who covered the tour.  And watch out for weasel words:  was he *asked* but never did, or actually did?  Only the second is notable, prolly, and you must not mislead the reader (by saying he was 'asked' but failing to then go on to say 'but then he did not actually').  Revise the wording, add the cite, or just take out the sentence please, until such time as it can be made encyclopedic.


 * "2010 Boston Music Awards Dom (as a band) led in nominations" -- congratulations, cite already in the article! outstanding claims deserve outstanding cites.  Now, it could be improved still... the cite is the place that *issues* the awards.  Which seems fine right?  Well, sorta.  It would be way better if there was *also* a citation from a Boston Globe article, talking about the BostonMusicAwards that year, and saying how important the award actually was, compared to something like e.g. Grammy Awards.


 * "Gucci Mane later remixed" -- got the cite, good work (however the photo-upload might not be permissible... it uses the Image of a Celebrity, possibly without their Legalese-Oriented Permission....)


 * "Best of 2010 Lists, including Pitchfork Media" -- citation needed... and if Pitchfork Media has any *financial* incentive, i.e. they are tied in with Dom, or with Capitol, then this is not encyclopedic, unless you *also* have a cite for Boston Globe covering the award or something like that.


 * "Spin's 20 Best Songs of Summer" -- see previous.  We need the issue number, page number, or better yet, URL of the online version of the story.  But a third-party source, where somebody familiar with the music industry wrote a story covering the Spin Magazine awards, is best... because that shows how Notable winning such an award really is.


 * In August 2011, Dom released Family of Love EP" -- cite the date, and the fact of the release, preferably from an independent third-party review, but record-label deep-link URL is okay here


 * "Co-produced by Nicolas Vernhes" -- cite needed, to *show* he co-produced... record label deep-link okay, but prefer coverage by reliable independent third-party.  Use


 * "(Animal Collective, Björk)" -- cite *definitely* needed, who says he is 'related' to AnCo and Bjork.  Use    To improve further, in what way is he related?   (as their co-producer presumably?  cite for that fact?)


 * "EP was featured in Rolling Stone" -- cite *definitely* needed, with exact page and preferably easy-to-verify-as-true online URL of the story. None of the sources in the article now give this info.


 * "Top 10 College Radio chart September 2011" -- same problem, got to have an exact cite for this


 * "nominated at the Boston Music Awards 2011 for Song of The Year" -- cite


 * "Playing Lollapalooza 2011" -- cite


 * Dom was asked by festival founder, Perry Farrell... -- cite from Perry for the ask, or from official festival website (Dom's say-so is not enough)


 * to open for Jane's Addiction. -- cite from independent coverage that Dom *actually* played as an opener for them


 * "Dom announced" -- cite, personal homepage ok in this case


 * "He plans to release" -- cite.  Anything  about a future event is usually a no-no, unless it has been reported direct from the entity (KISS-108 management/owners in this case), or better, by reliable third party like New York Times.  Cite from Dom's homepage *could* be enough to document his intention to release a solo album with a particular title at a particular time, but is *not* enough to allow him to claim that KISS 108 is going to be the label.  (Also, confusing wording, this should explicitly be called the "solo debut" to avoid confusion with the 2010 debut album of the band-with-the-same-name.)

Finally, a note about WP:COI
As you probably know, wikipedia is one of the top ten websites in the universe. Lots of people want their name in lights on such a website. Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone... but that does not mean that anybody can say anything. (Hopefully the exhausting list of citation-needed stuff above is evidence of that!)  In particular, wikipedia has a very strong prohibition against advertising, which is pretending to be an encyclopedia article. Does that mean no commercial products, no companies, no record labels, no band, no albums, and no music industry rags are permitted on wikipedia? Nope. What it means is that, first of all, if they -- the shareholders of the company, the inventors of the product, the members of the band, the writers of the song, the promoters behind the music, and the PR firms and advert agencies hired by all of the above -- if *they* want something in wikipedia, they *cannot* put it in themselves. Note that this is a policy, not a technical constraint. Technically, Dom is free to open up wikipedia, and write about how he saved the Centaurians from mutual anihillation with the power of his tunes... but he will be banned, and his edits will be deleted, and sooner or later his article will be chucked to the bit bucket (okay not really... but the article would be protected against vandalism... in this case specifically it would be protected against edits made by editors with a clear Conflict Of Interest).

Now, call me crazy, but if your username is DombandUSA, or even more pointedly, DomMusicInc, you are almost certainly not supposed to edit the article on Dom. Seems crazy, right? Who knows more about Dom, than the members of the band, and their record label? *I* certainly do not know more than them. However, more important than making it easy for the article to contain the maximum amount of info, is making sure the information in the article is correct, cited, and unbiased. See this key wikipedia policy -- WP:NPOV. It is simply not possible for somebody with a financial interest in the success of Dom (whether it be the solo-gig or the former-band) to edit an article about Dom without bias, and with full maintenance of a neutral point of view. Thus, it is contrary to everything wikipedia is about to allow the people that 'know the most' to do the actual editing of Dom's page, because the *reason* those people know the most is that they have a financial *interest* which drives their knowledge in the topic. Letting a politician (or their staff) edit that politician's wikipedia article is a big no-no, as far as building an encyclopedia is concerned. Letting the marketing department of a corporation write the articles on their products and their corporate history is a big no-no, for the exact same reasons. And, letting Dom's label, manager, friends, fans, or band-members (including Dom himself) make edits to wikipedia is also a big no-no, again for the exact same reasons.

Does this mean that all edits in the past are reverted? Nope, not by me, although some editors are more draconian... and now that I've given you a full and fair explanation, they will be more than happy to continue to be draconian. Those guys are the Bad Cops of wikipedia... not people to be trifled with. But they are fair, even if they are strict. Follow the policies, and you'll have no problems. I'm one of the Good Cops, who tries to be helpful and explain how things are supposed to go, and why. I even help edit the articles.

And that is the key here: if you are somebody with a financial interest in Dom's success, you cannot edit Dom's article, without violating the WP:COI policy. You can, however, edit this *talkpage* of the Dom article, and simply ask somebody to make the edit on your behalf. Somebody neutral, like me, who has never heard of Dom, and except via wikipedia likely never would. As long as you've cited your sources (see above), and as long as what you are trying to insert is encyclopedic (rather than advertising hyperbole), neutral helpful editors will be more than happy to assist you. In fact, I'll be happy to help clean up the article with you this week. Of course, my time is not unlimited, and my responsiveness is not instant, so editing Dom's page might take longer than if you were just to go in and fix it up yourself. That's okay: wikipedia is for the ages, not for the moment. If you think of wikipedia as advertising for Dom, you are guaranteed to run into trouble. If you think of wikipedia as a reliable history of Dom, that discerning fans will trust... *then* you're getting closer to the right mindset.

Here is the best-practices process to follow: if you want a change made, author the sentence (careful with neutral-point-of-view and avoiding bias), find reliable sources that show it is true, and paste your edit-request here on the talkpage. Unwritten rule -- since Dom is not yet as popular as Elvis or Madonna, it might be awhile before some neutral helpful editor like me happens along. If you request has been languishing without comments for a few days, you can try using the protected page request template. If even *that* does not work, then go ahead and make the edit yourself, right in the main article, and leave a note on the talkpage saying that since nobody responded to your edit request within a week, you went ahead and made the change in the article. Are you violating WP:COI by doing that? Yup. But you are -- *if* you were careful to make sure your change was reliably sourced, encyclopedic in tone, and not misleading or hyperbolic in any way -- in that case, you are Improving Wikipedia, by trumping WP:COI with pillar number five. If there is not enough help to go around, you will end up talking to yourself on the talkpage quite a lot. Talkpage: can somebody make this change? Talkpage: nobody responded in a week so I'll make the change. Article: changed. Actually it is a pretty easy workflow, once you get used to the idea. And, if you follow it religiously, you will have *no* problems when a Bad Cop shows up looking for violations, because your nose is clean.

Anyhoo, in case I did not remember to mention it before -- welcome to wikipedia. Thanks for improving the article on Dom. I'd like to help out, and help you get used to how things work around here. If you have questions or comments, post them here. If you don't get an answer back from me, feel free to put a note on my talkpage to remind me. Thanks and good luck. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Should folks with plausible conflict of interest *hide* their identities?
One other thing I forgot to mention... with a username like DomMusicInc, or even DomBandUSA, it is crystal clear to me that the editor behind that username probably has a conflict-of-interest, and should not be editing the article on Dom. But that crystal clarity is a *good* thing! Sure, you can always give yourself a username like NoFinancialRelationshipToDom, or just edit with an IP address without logging in... but that would be cheating, gaming the system, sockpuppetry, and just generally Not Nice... and of course, such tricks are definitely frowned on by the Bad Cops, so please do not be tempted. Honest is the best policy on wikipedia: keep using DomMusicInc, so that other editors can plainly see where you are coming from. Do *not* simultaneously use IP editing, or multiple usernames, or similar tricks -- that will get you in hot water quick. If you decide to make edits on the Hannah Montana page, using the DomMusicInc name is again great protection for you -- it is clear you have WP:COI problems, since she is a competitor to Dom ... well... kinda sorta but you catch my drift. But because you are upfront about your relationship, nobody is going to get angry. If you go make some edits to the article on World War II, your music industry connections will not sway you... and the folks there will welcome your assistance, because often they *will* have some sort of WP:COI or merely WP:NPOV difficulties.

Short and to the point: keep using DomMusicInc. That tells wikipedia exactly what is going on, and why, and makes everybody's life simpler. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Update... having reviewed the relevant policy recently, I made one important mistake. It is typically required that you use *one* single username per person.  If you have more than one person, make sure only one person uses DomMusicInc... an they should probably *only* use that account, not also edit from an IP, and make a bunch of other accounts.  See WP:PUPPET for why multiple accounts per person is *very* highly frowned upon.  The frowning over multiple people using one account is less strict, but still does exist.  Note that you do not have to use your full legal name, you are free to remain anonymous, or pseudonymous, such as calling a username of somebody in the building G4_at_DomMusicInc ... but if some other person also wants to edit wikipedia, they should get their own username, perhaps A3_at_DomMusicInc, for their edits.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Speedily NOT MOVED, clearly there is no primary topic here. Red Slash 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dominic Cournoyer → Dom – The name of the artist is, Dom. The surname, Cournoyer is incorrect as the full name of the artist is, Dominic Hus. Thanks. Dommusicinc (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose This is clearly not the primary topic of "Dom", and there is a different page located at Dom. If you want to delete Dom, then you'll need to nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. It's clearly much too large to collapse the disambiguation page at "Dom" into a hatnote on this article. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Per above. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment, user 70.51.200.101 above has I think rightly questioned the Dom nom regarding conflict of interest via talk page. I suggest rapid closure.  GregKaye 12:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.