Talk:Miniscule of Sound

Should that read "Minuscule"? Or is the misspelling intentional and actually part of the name of the night club? I wasn't sure, so I didn't correct it. Mardiste (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Miniscule is apparently considered valid. - LeonWhite (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification of dimensions of Miniscule Hi all: One of the links I put up - to show the dimensions of the miniscule of sound - was tagged as "failed verification. I am not sure how to link to the exact web page but if you go to http://www.minisculeofsound.com and follow the link under "Book", it will take you to the dimension of the club. This seems to be a page using some sort of scripting so I can't seem to link directly to it.The image URL, if you wish the precise link, is http://homepages.phonecoop.coop/miniscule/assets/page/tech_01.gif . kind regards. mgaved (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have an independent source of this? The Banner talk 08:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for nature of Miniscule of Sound Hi all: a query has been raised over the nature of the Miniscule of Sound. In the text, I have noted "The Miniscule of Sound is a theatre performance piece" and somebody has commented "[citation needed]". I note my bias here, I sometimes help with the Miniscule of Sound. I'd say the key people in the Miniscule of Sound would be happy with this designation, so I am not sure what to do with the question of "citation needed". Given that the people who designed and run the Miniscule of Sound declare it to be a theatre performance piece, how do we cite this? I suppose we're into an interesting wikipedia authenticity situation, how is it normally resolved when well meaning editors can't find evidence of a claim yet the originators of an artefact make personal undocumented claims about what they are doing? mgaved (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact it is quite simple: don't add it when you don't have a reliable independent source. In the present state: if you can't prove it, remove it. The Banner talk 13:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi The Banner: I'll use the British Council press release then for this claim. kind regards and thanks for your advice. mgaved (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be cautious with that. Press releases are not always seen as reliable sources (See: Verifiability). And this press release is nothing more than an announcement. You better check it with others, but I would not accept this as a reliable source. The Banner talk 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks The Banner. I recognise your caution about the value of press releases. The press release I am referring to is one put out by the British Council, which according to wikipedia, while nominally independent, is effectively a branch of the UK Government's Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We might have fun deciding whether the UK Government is considered reliable or has authority ;-) but I'd suggest that if a UK government department, responsible for promoting British culture overseas, funds an arts group to perform overseas, then its definition of what that arts group represents in their eyes is a reasonable definition for at least those events they performed at. What's your opinion? would this be valid? I could change the definition if you'd like to "The Miniscule of Sound has been defined as a theatre performance piece by the British Council..." - would this be a preferable phrasing? The events that took place were photographed, so I could add in documentary evidence that they occurred, and were not just announced. One of the events was reported on in a 3 minute segment of BBC Radio 4's PM programme with an interview at one of the events (BBC Radio 4 PM programme 30th March 2005); I can't find this on the live BBC archive though I have a personal copy of the recording; I am not sure if I have copyright permissions to reproduce it though. As always, I welcome you and others' advice on how to improve the article drawing on the documentation that exists. Thanks again for your help. mgaved (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is more the type of document that gives reason for concern. And looking at the content of that press release, it is just an announcement. The Banner talk 14:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, The Banner. I notice your earlier comment was that "Press releases are not always seen as reliable sources" so I'll go and read up which one might be considered reliable. Would evidence that the events happened make them be considered reliable? or is your concern that we might not be able to claim the British Council (specifically, the Cultural and Education Section of the British Embassy in Beijing and the Cultural and Education Section of the British-Consulates-General in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chongqing) are trustworthy? The article was written by their then Senior Communications Manager, Tracy Driscoll. In case this isn't considered a reliable source I've added another reference, this time from the German news magazine Der Spiegel. Kind regards again and thanks for your time mgaved (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)