Talk:Dead Air Silencers

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... Lol, fuck that noise Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

GNG is clearly met, I don't create promotional pages. There is no promotional content to remove, it is written in a clear encyclopedic style. G11 just doesn't apply here and its really hard to see how a reasonable editor could believe it did... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

linking websites/publishers in citations
@Scope creep Hi, just wanted to double check if this is ok. I've often treated the website and publisher lines as interchangeable if they are the same (I would differentiate if the publisher was one entity but the website the source is being hosted on is another and is significant in its own way).

Was reversion of the edit I made because the link should have been in the Publisher line while the website line retains the www.xyzabc.org structure? Like website=recoilweb.com and publisher=Recoil ? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it? The website should list of the website name, not a url. So if www.xyzabc.org, the website name would be something XYZabc. A concrete is for the Guardian newspapers, is the url is the "https://www.theguardian.com/uk" and the Website name is "The Guardian". Sometimes publisher and website are the same and sometimes they're not. The reason I reverted it was the the url of the reference and the magazine wasn't the same, at least for the reader. It might be the same company, but the reader wouldn't necessarily know that. It best to keep the references as pure as possible. Only use what is on that particular url. You could put something in like a quote filed, stating its the Recoil Magazine. But its the same company. I think it was the formatting that was wrong. The website here would be Recoil and the publisher would be publisher=Recoil You know something I think you had right the first time.    scope_creep Talk  17:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep Wait no no don't revert it lol. I'm  working on adding website names and archived links for several of the other sources.  I just wanted to check since I was super sleepy when I made those last edits and wasn't sure.  What you mentioned about the website and publisher being different (and possibly confusing) makes sense.
 * I don't know if it's correct but I'm thinking that if the the website and publisher are almost identical (like Recoil), maybe just better to use only one since Recoil. Recoil. would just look weird. So either use website or publisher parameter but no need to fill both and you can link whichever one you do use.
 * If the website and publisher are different, citation style 1 says to....hmm...I guess it depends on how well known the work itself is compared to the publisher. Like, USA News is published by Gannett Company but USA News is much more recognizable (and useful for the reader) than Gannett Company....I guess?  Haha funnily enough, academic journals are way more straightforward in this respect.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the website and publisher are different, citation style 1 says to....hmm...I guess it depends on how well known the work itself is compared to the publisher. Like, USA News is published by Gannett Company but USA News is much more recognizable (and useful for the reader) than Gannett Company....I guess?  Haha funnily enough, academic journals are way more straightforward in this respect.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the website and publisher are different, citation style 1 says to....hmm...I guess it depends on how well known the work itself is compared to the publisher. Like, USA News is published by Gannett Company but USA News is much more recognizable (and useful for the reader) than Gannett Company....I guess?  Haha funnily enough, academic journals are way more straightforward in this respect.  Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)