Talk:Iamsound

Recent edits
My addition of Lord Huron was reverted for putatively being unsourced and for the band's being non-notable. You may note that I have written an article for this band establishing its notability; furthermore, the label's own website, which is footnoted on the page, lists the band on its roster. Beyond this, there's nothing even remotely controversial about this band's being on this label; I can't imagine why a raft of references would be needed for something so banal. There is nothing non-notable about the list of bands - notability applies to articles, not to content - and in any case, a roster of artists is about the most germane information anybody could provide about a label. I think the artist list demonstrates that the label satisfies the line in WP:MUSIC about independent labels which have a significant roster of notable artists. I'll see if I can't do some improvement work, but it looks to me like there was a little surgery with a sledgehammer done here over the past day. Chubbles (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, hang on, it looks like somebody knocked the Lord Huron article off while I was asleep...hang on while I get that back. Chubbles (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetized artist list and added a couple of news articles, hopefully that's a good start. The Lord Huron article's back up and needs admin review for the A7, shouldn't be a problem. I'll keep looking... Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2016

 * 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: Marking as no consensus to move. The pseudo-oppose comment remained uncountered after 11 days. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Iamsound Records → Iamsound – Iamsound is a company whose function extends far beyond that of a record label. Aside from the music industry, the company operates as a marketing agency as well as a representation division for visual artists. To create consistency with other referential platforms, I am requesting that the word 'Records' be omitted from the page name. Telefresco (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to vote nay, simply because the above is almost inscrutable ad copy (what constitute "other referential platforms"?). Wikipedia is not part of Iamsound Records' business solution. That said, if independent news outlets have covered other aspects of the label's business, the information they report may lend some credence to the move request. Chubbles (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2016 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iamsound Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621233623/http://www.iamsoundrecords.com/artists to http://www.iamsoundrecords.com/artists/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Artist list
There are multiple problems with the recent spate of edits, but I'll start with this one. The artist list has been removed several times on the basis that it no longer accurately reflects what the company does. But this is not a promotional press piece for the label's 2021 activities; it is an encyclopedia article, whose job is to explain the organization's history in addition to its current status. One of the principal things a label's encyclopedia article should do is inform the reader of what musical artists have released albums on that label - it's perhaps the most basic of tasks we have to provide to our readers about a record label. I have no problem whatsoever if we want to change the structure of the list so that current and former artists are separated, or if sections need to be split out for musical and visual artists. But I simply don't understand the insistence that it be dynamited entirely. What gives? Chubbles (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some of the artists in the list were moved to the appropriate sections (separated by visual and music). Similarly, I don't understand why information which was directly sourced from external publications was removed, while the list of artists (which I can't find sourced anywhere) remains. How else do you propose representing this information as a historical reference than the list which may not even be factually correct? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, it should be added that IAMSOUND as an entity doesn't appear to be strictly a label, and so the revisions were made to reflect that aspect as well (while acknowledging it began as label) Jacobmcpherson (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Using this source - https://www.discogs.com/label/126854-IAmSound-Records, I think it makes more sense to depict the list as "Albums" (in chronological order) and not Artists. What do you think? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, you say that some of the artists were moved to the appropriate sections, by which I take it you mean the prose sections labeled "record label" and "creative & marketing studio". But not nearly all of them were (for example, Io Echo and MS MR, who unquestionably released albums on the label, and which no one would have trouble verifying). Now, a prose section would get cluttered if you put them all in, because there are a couple dozen; that's why a list is useful. You ask why sourced information was removed while the list of artists was not. I removed the sourced information you refer to (which was not related to the list of artists) because it failed Wikipedia's content guidelines for other reasons besides sourcing - chiefly because of WP:NOTPROMO concerns. The list of artists is neutral and uncontroversial content; if there's some dispute over the signing status of an artist or band, then a citation may be needed, but in most cases, when a label puts out a record by a band, it's so easy to verify that we don't typically need a battery of citations (see WP:SKYISBLUE). (I mean, the album, as a published work, is itself a reliable source for the fact that the band has released on the label.) And if we did add such a battery, it wouldn't serve the reader very well; it's the kind of thing people tend to demand more to demonstrate hidebound devotion to the rules rather than fostering genuine improvement of the articles. Can you tell me if there is a specific band on the list you believe was added in error? If there's some genuine concern that the list is not factually correct - and I do want to indicate that I take it seriously if you believe we have erroneous entries to the list - then I will absolutely look for sources for that artist on your behalf. But the blanket removal of the list, multiple times, is not a good solution here.


 * I accept that the label has expanded to other operations; I'm no longer contesting the removal of the "records" from the article title, for instance. Again, I'm fine splitting out into sections the artist list into record label and visual subsections if you like. None of that contravenes the changes I made and that you reverted more than once.


 * I don't in principle object to the artist list being expanded into a table with each album release being listed, but it's not work I plan to do myself. But if we provided neither an artist list nor an album discography, the article would be missing essential encyclopedic information. Chubbles (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That table of album releases from the company seems most factual and relevant to its business operations. I also looked above and saw you've been involved in the development of this Wikipedia entry since 2013. In no way did I mean to diminish the work already done, but am really trying to bring more accuracy to the organisation's activities as a whole Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I do see your point with showing a comprehensive list, and maybe for now, it doesn't have to be a full table (to save time), but a bulleted list of "Releases" with Album Name, Artist Name, and Year? Also, I wasn't aware of the album itself being a source Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Good morning fellow editors. Noted the 3O request, and also the suggestion below that Jacobmcpherson has an undeclared COI. This rather torpedoes the chance of a helpful 3O so I deleted it. Please resolve that question first; then resubmit a clear question for a 3O if wished.  With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahem; I have removed the renewed 3O request. Clean hands applies - not the same as WP:CLEANHANDS, but that policy is relevant. Jacobmcpherson added material, which was removed, and subsequently had a discussion on here with another editor. Jacobmcpherson then asked for a 3O.  I removed the request because of the suggestion - which appears to be correct - of an undeclared COI.  Now Jacobmcpherson is (I think quite properly) disengaging, but has renewed the 3O request.  IVO the history and the COI I have removed the renewed request for a 3O.  Jacobmcpherson has disengaged so there is nothing to mediate.  Springnuts (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

IAMSOUND → Iamsound – Per WP:NCCAPS. Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried case, as this is not an acronym and is capitalized merely as a corporate stylization. Chubbles (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense Jacobmcpherson (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

COI tag removed
I placed a COI tag on this page because edits recently added by the user Jacobmcpherson appeared to be promotional in nature and because Jacobmcpherson's user page indicates that he is paid to edit. Jacobmcpherson then removed the COI tag. I would like to ask: Jacobmcpherson, are you being paid to edit the Iamsound Wikipedia page? Chubbles (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that, per the terms at WP:PAID, if you are being paid to edit this page, you must notify Wikipedia who your client is (not merely that you are paid to edit - you must state who is paying you to edit) in one of three places: your user page, on this talk page, or in an edit summary. I have not found any declaration of yours in the edit summaries or on your userpage. Chubbles (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I decided to WP:DISENGAGE and also asked for a 3O on the "Artist list" discussion.

Cement Media Inc did get paid by IAMSOUND to handle edits for the article, and I've found a way to disclose that on my page. The format style Wikipedia provides didn't appear to work for accurately representing this relationship. I also made autonomous edits, using my understanding of the Wikipedia framework. That being said, I'm failing to see how the contributions I made violates WP:PROMOTION, since they are externally verified by sources other than the company's own. I was getting the sense that it was becoming a "me vs. you" discussion, and still think a 3O editor is necessary for clearing up the WP:PROMOTION concerns and "Artist list" conversation. I will also add that the page had a lot of inaccuracies before I made edits, including: I'll also add that other editors have since cleaned up my additions, including correctly sourcing the content you viewed as WP:PROMOTION. I hope this clears everything up for you. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Company formation year, it started in 2007, not 2006.
 * The original article had dead links in the sources.
 * Company structure, I see that I wasn't alone in contesting this and conversations around this started in 2016.

3O Response: Short answer: an editor with a declared COI for an article should never remove a COI tag on that article. Long answer: While the usage instructions for template  state:  if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning. I find this really odd. While it would be best practices for the tag placer to start a discussion, I rather put the onus on the person removing the tag, that they should either deal with the issue, start a discussion to gain consensus on removal, or possibly replace the tag with a more specific tag. This would err on the side of caution given that COI could represent a policy violation. Although it is in line with the WP:BRD practice, I'm not aware of any other policy-level tags (e.g.: ) which allow for removal in the absence of discussion. I'll note that template instructions themselves are neither policies nor guidelines, so I feel there's a good case to follow the spirit of policy on this. Furthermore, if you go down a little further in the usage instructions, it is clearly stated: This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved (underlining added). So someone with a declared COI for the article should never remove the tag under any circumstances. I'll also note that this talk page and the talk pages of all the articles listed at User:Jacobmcpherson which have been directly edited by that user should have the template as I have placed at the top of this page. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, I went back at the COI template instruction's talk page archives, and it seems that wording was the result of an RfC following a protracted edit-war of the template instructions involving a paid editor. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am thankful to have cleared that up. I began my discussions on this page with the artist list, because I thought it would be the easiest of the several problems to resolve (since it involves neutral and non-promotional content), but that is proving not to be the case, so perhaps I will move on in a new section to discuss the content I believe is not neutral and is promotional. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROMO concern
The following was added (and aggressively reinserted after I removed it for being promotional in nature) in the recent activity on this article, and remains in the article as of this writing: the phrase "Additionally, they work with brands like Top Shop, Soylent, Adult Swim, and Vans, handling experiential marketing, brand partnerships, digital activation, and content creation.". This is a laundry list of corporate connections filled with business jargon; it is written like a press release. My initial removal noted that it was "spammy and unsourced" (which I stand by). It was then reinserted, with an edit summary giving the grounds "This list of brands comes from the Billboard article sourced in the introduction paragraph", but no footnote was added from that article, and even if it were, it would not solve the problem with the content itself. I removed it again, saying more specifically that it flatly failed WP:PROMO bullet 5. It was then reinserted again, with the statement "I'm not sure how this is promotional if it's factually true, and written in a matter of fact manner, plus it's sourced." Promotional tone is about rhetoric, not truth; truth per se is not the issue. If it is presented in a non-neutral way, it fails our content guidelines, and a list of big-name clients that liaise with the label to do branding and marketing is not proper content for an encyclopedia article. Plus, it is not sourced, as the edit summary claims (but again, I would argue for its removal even if a footnote were added). I'll start with this phrase, because it is illustrative of the general promotional tone of the article at its current juncture (not all of which, I believe, is attributable to the most recent activity), and which I would like to copyedit, or at least add a tag to without encountering swift reversion. Chubbles (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the one-sentence paragraph beginning Additionally, they work with brands like should be removed or greatly reworked. It's unsourced, it's promotional name-dropping without a purpose, and the "like" makes it ambiguous and encyclopedically meaningless.  Are they brands 'similar to' those named, or are they brands 'including' those named?  The article could benefit from copy edit for peacock language, but content should be sourced and stabilized first.  I'm not sure what is meant earlier by "creative studio".  Is there such a thing as a non-creative studio? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When this article was written, the Billboard source - https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8461189/iamsound-niki-roberton-creative-directors-spotlight-interview/ wasn't behind a paywall - but it does list the brands Top Shop, Soylent, Pitchfork, Adult Swim, Spotify, and Vans in the third paragraph. This list is followed by the word "like" (in the Billboard article). Would the sentence, "They've also worked with Top Shop, Soylent, Adult Swim, and Vans," meet your interpretation of the Wikipedia stance? I don't see how the brand list itself is considered promotion, when it's a reflection of the businesses activities. Similarly, "creative studio," is how the company defines the department and I don't see how a department of a company is promotional in nature? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have access to the full article through Outline, and I can see it mentions these brands. But why are they being mentioned here in an encyclopedia article? Marketing partnerships are generally promotional in content by definition and they don't tell us anything of enduring value (unless and until some journalist or scholar makes the case that they are reflective of some important point about how or why people did business the way they did in this era, which I don't get from that Billboard piece). "Creative studio" is meaningless company jargon - we should avoid it and instead report what types of creation are going on (music making, filming, art installation designing, or what have you). Chubbles (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the archive url for that source. Unless using a direct quotation, be careful about using the same wording as the source which can represent a copyright violation.  We should generally paraphrase and summarize the sources.  The fourth paragraph of the source describes it as a "visual art studio" which is a little more understandable in my opinion, maybe following with 'for in-house music video production', possibly noting that Robertson was directing music videos when she founded the company. If you're going to use 'creative studio' it might be best to explain to the reader what that means: music videos, stage design, and other creative direction/support/branding for artists. They've also worked is better for tone, but I'm still not sure if it belongs, and what follows seems like industry buzzwords and should probably be presented more plainly. We're writing for a general audience.  I agree with Chubbles, stating what they do is more important and informative than stating who they are doing it for. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Morning all. I simplified that phrase taking the puffery and jargon out. Appreciate you may between you wish to revert, but it is perhaps a better starting point for something encyclopedic. With respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and regarding the department naming / company activities discussion, these links weren’t included - but may help - https://iamsound.zora.co/ https://www.iamsound.com/studio While I understand the company's own website isn't enough of a reference (as a standalone), it's still useful when combined with external sources for accurately representing activities.

Jacobmcpherson (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, this link mentions the company - https://d21buns5ku92am.cloudfront.net/17491/pdf/campaigns/191994-20200929130006000000000-wetransfer-pro-partners-with-wales-bonner.pdf Jacobmcpherson (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (August 2022)
has declared paid contributions to the article here. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 23:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)