Talk:Monstercat/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015
Slips & Slurs should be added to the current roster of artists.

Christopantz (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

✅ fishyfing (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Artist Roster
As many of us know, the artist roster on MC's website isn't up to date. For example, Krewella definitely hasn't released on the label this year, or the one before that. So for people to use that as a valid source doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Please leave feedback below.

Also, does Soulero count as a current artist?

fishyfing (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, though we can't really have a different "current roster" than the website, we'll have to denote that we did it ourselves and a way of deciding who goes on which list. Also we need to source it somehow.


 * And Soulero's last release was on 022, and by that logic artists such as Rezonate, Falcon Funk, Case & Point and others wouldn't be "current".


 * Valkyrino 8:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Change article to semi-protected
There have been a lot of roster edits lately that haven't been correct, since people think that one release = on the roster. Artists such as Jauz, Xilent, Botnek and I see MONSTAS are all being added since people ignore the TODOs. I think it would be beneficial if this article was SP again. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrino (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. It would help keep the page free of spam
 * fishyfing (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Done
 * Valkyrino (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016
I would like to update the album table to add Best of 2015

Gwizz402 (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016
Add "Best of 2015" onto discography

96.38.173.104 (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because Monstercat Media has literally saved my friends life twice.
 * Thats a good story, but not what matters when it comes to Wikipedia policy. However, the CSD tagging was unfounded, and I have removed the tags, and will discuss it with the editor who tagged it. --allthefoxes (Talk) 03:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tristam Link not working
Tristam actually didn't have a wiki page, so i made him one with the linked page "Tristam (DJ)" i have requested for the page to be moved to "Tristam" instead of what it currently is. But as of now the link to his page works under the current artist section. However the box at the bottom with all the artists listed again has the wrong link, and leads to the wrong page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidenscraft (talk • contribs) 06:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016
I wanna edit this because i have been a fan of Monstercat since 11. June 2014 and wants to help Monstercat as much as i can :)

Axcelerator FX (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal with Album 021?
The entire list is shot out irregularly compared to the rest (it's just a list of more albums? Why?), and same with 012. Someone fix that please?

redirects pointing here
Is there a redirect for each artist? Endercase (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for artist chart: adding a new column for the artists' name(s)
I want to get some feedback on what people think before making such a major change. Here's my suggestion of what it should look like. Let me know here or on my talk page if you think of any improvements to it, or if you think it shouldn't be added.

This is just a small part of the chart to give an idea of how I would like to have it changed to. I skipped some to show examples of what groups with multiple names would look like.

Clbsfn (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Much better then the current one, it really shouldn't be seperate charts, makes it look messy and seems generally is not needed and seems like filler, yet if you were to put the name chart in the same one as the artist release chart (or whatever you call it) it looks nice and neat. Micro 03:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroPowerpoint (talk • contribs)

Changing formats of tracklists to colored cells
So i have a suggestion for the tracklists: to make each track colored to its own genre. Colors would be determined by the colors used in the chart at the bottom of the article, which are based off of the MCatalog's genre colors. The downside of changing to this format is that it would require changing the list template from "Tracklist" to "wikitable". Here's an example of what the current tracklist for Monstercat 001 looks like:

And here's what it would look like in the new format:

And, if there are featured artists on a track (or if there's a remix), a note column would be added. Here's a small example of what that would look like:

Here's what the note column would look like for a remix:

And if it's a remix, and has a featured artist:

Ordinarily, the note column would replace putting parentheses for a featured artist or remix, but if there happen to be both of those, then parentheses will be required to separate the remix from the featured artist.

So, clearly this would be a very complicated process and a big change for the article. Let me know if you want to give any feedback, suggest changes, or express dissatisfaction with this entire idea. I'm open to any suggestions of change, and of course I'll only start changing the tracklists if/when the consensus appears to be in agreement of changing it to this new format.

Clbsfn (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the genre colour idea, keep the colours in the genre list. I like the BPM suggestion, but I don't know if it should be added as it is minor. I don't like the note column as it over complicates things and I would much rather prefer the current method. Micro 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain that there is no way to add a BPM column to the current tracklists without removing the genre column. In order to keep both of them, we would have to change the format from the Tracklist template to a wikitable, which in my opinion would not be worth changing just to add a BPM column. However, if you and other editors think that adding a BPM column would outweigh the downsides of changing from Tracklist to Wikitable, (which would simply be that it looks nicer in the Tracklist template) then i'll start on that. Clbsfn (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then I don't think it would be worth adding BPMs, which means that I would favour the current format. Plus we still have convert 010 to 018 into the current template. Micro (Talk) 02:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. And we should definitely focus on converting all the remaining albums to the current format before discussing changing formats, anyway.Clbsfn (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Add that genres colored by Monstercat UnknownPro (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly how much of this article's content should be removed?

 * Which parts of the page should be kept, and which should be taken out? Let's start a discussion here so we can come to a decision that reflects the consensus of editors involved in this page. Clbsfn (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So there are a few wikipedia pages similar to this one in that they describe a relatively minor music label (compared to Warner, Sony or Universal). Barong Family, bitbird, and mau5trap. These pages contain some examples of record label discographies upon which we could model Monstercat's. Clbsfn (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Only thing I think may be removed is the genre sheet, but that is still pretty useful to see sub-genres and such, so I want to keep that. The page does seem big, but it's collapsible, it's fine. You can make several new pages for "LPs and EPs released by Monstercat" but that seems over excessive. Micro (Talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Micro (Talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't see this until after you responded below to Prizyms. Thanks for giving feedback. I agree that the genre sheet would be the first to go, if we were to trim the page down, but I also see that you agree with me that the chart is important for readers to see various sub-genres. Clbsfn (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Entire discography

 * entirely unnecessary and a waste of space. genre labels make this page seem like an arrogant fanpage rather than an official article. Listing all the tracks with their BPM and 'genre' is not good encyclopaedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizyms (talk • contribs) 23:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please sign your notices, and make sure that you add your response to the section within the one i created here. I have made it so this is a subsection of the new section i have made. Clbsfn (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Albums are fine mate, although the EPs and LPs should be changed to the format that the albums use. It's better looking and cleaner. Getting rid of everything though? Bit over excessive. Micro (Talk) 23:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Micro (Talk) 23:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will change the EPs and LPs to the compilations' format, and continue adding them in that format from this point forth. Thank you, Micro, for contributing to this discussion. Clbsfn (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * An extensive list of every track released on Monstercat does not add anything of use to this article. The genre labels and BPM listings make the label appear extremely immature and pandering to genre-nazi children - nobody cares about it except for you. Remove the subgenre talk as it is in no way relevant to Monstercat. You do not need a list of every single track - compilations only, and link to compilations in their own page. Prizyms (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will argue for the deletion of this page if it continues being the unnecessarily large remake of the terrible 'genre sheet' it is now. This needs to be an article on Monstercat as a label, not a list of its every release with superfluous details nobody cares about. Prizyms (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree that adding a list of all the singles would be going too far, especially because we basically have all of them already in the compilation tracklists. Clbsfn (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But to respond to what you've been saying, there are artists and vocalists mentioned in these tracklists with their own wikipedia pages. People like Kerli, Talib Kweli, Cozi Zuehlsdorff, Chali 2na, Andy C, Eden, and Xilent. Having a more complete discography not only presents more information about these artists who are may be barely mentioned in wikipedia articles anyway, but it also sheds light on other artists who will probably never have their own wikipedia pages, such as Arion, Obsidia, Gemellini, Neilio, and many others. Clbsfn (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop being a pedant. People don't share my opinion because only two of you edit this page, and obsessively so, for no reason. You are forking the 'monstercat document' onto Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a directory - remove the list of every song ever released and its BPM and subgenre, which is wrong in so many cases. Remove all references to the unofficial fan-made genre sheet - this is 'original research' as much as it disgusts me to call that piece of musical fanfiction 'research'. This is not an article the Monstercat team would be proud of seeing, at all. It focuses far too much on what doesn't matter, because you are genre pedants (EDM subgenres) and doesn't feature very much detail on the label itself. This is a terribly written article. How pathetic. Prizyms (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "genre-nazi children" - Prizyms 2017. I want that on a shirt. Anyway, Monstercat was pretty much genres. They had labeled songs their respective genre (they still do though it's in the description) and they had distinctive genre colours on a recognisable visualiser. Though they don't do it anymore, I feel like it's a requirement to do what Monstercat did: genre label. Though they did it pretty basic, it stuck and now people like to see the exact genre of a song and other channels label songs the same way Monstercat does, multiple fan channels have spawned out of this format and people still say in the comments "Wait, is this Jungle Terror?" And such. Micro (Talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * BPM labelling though can go. It's excessive and Clbsfn changed/ is changing them to the album format. There was already a discussion about it but I shot it down. Micro (Talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the genre sheet, it's pretty useful for seeing sub-genres and such, but it can be minimised or just chucked here in the talk page. Micro (Talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The genre sheet is almost entirely made up of misinformation and falsehoods, and is not at all official. It also makes Monstercat fans look like genre pedants. Prizyms (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not offical, but it isn't "made up of misinformation and falsehoods". It is constantly updated to be as accurate as possible. If you have a problem with the sheet itself, go to the guys who work on it. Micro (Talk) 02:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Prizyms, which genres in the MCatalog do you consider to be false? I'm sure they would like to hear your opinions. I know this sounds sarcastic, but I'm serious here. They want feedback so they can have the genres be as accurate as possible. Here's a link to the place where they discuss genres on github. Clbsfn (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * EDM subgenres are in no way relevant to a Wikipedia article about a record label and to say they are is absolutely incorrect. The 'genre sheet' was created by 14 year olds whose only knowledge of electronic music comes from Monstercat and do not understand how electronic music has changed over the years. Delete them all and remove the reference to this terrible 'genre sheet'. Prizyms (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have *any idea* as to how difficult it is to browse this page on mobile? You do not need a complete discography with every track and their (mostly incorrect, always unnecessary) 'subgenre'. It makes the page look like a poorly written fan document - which this page absolutely is. It's a fork of the Monstercat document and I have grounds to get this page deleted because of it.Prizyms (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll just say this: if other editors take a look at the Monstercat page, and actually think that labeling genres is a bad thing, then that's fine. But when they come over here to see this talk page, they're probably not going to take your side if they read all the things you've been saying. I recommend editing down your previous comments here to make them less aggressive, if you wish to get other people to support you. And I will not try to hinder your progress in any way, when you go to get other editors. As I have said many times, I want the best for this page, and if removing the genres is the best outcome, so be it. There just needs to be feedback from a larger number of editors than have been dealing with this issue so far. Clbsfn (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your article is a circlejerk of biased editors who all share the same opinions. Four people edit this article. Prizyms (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm talking about other editors who haven't worked on this article. Also, there have been a lot more editors on this article than just four. Look at the revision history from April and beyond that. Clbsfn (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove the genre labels Prizyms (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of editors on the Monstercat wikipedia page in the past few months. This is just for the month of May: Robcuiper, LilHelpa, Landonfleury, TheMagnificentist, Frietjes, BeaverInABlender, Ruben Emblem, MicroPowerpoint, MARTIN WNDRLVND, Ross MacPhee, Magioladitis. Clbsfn (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's April: Buff Transvestite, TheMagnificentist, Nevermeltsounds, Hmains, AbsentHiya, NoToleranceForIntolerance, MicroPowerpoint. Clbsfn (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * March: Jennica, LivinAWestLife, Nevermeltsounds, PurpleGladiator, CopperWhopper67, Materialscientist, Operator873, Alexander matthiessen, ProprioMe OW, Frosty, XBobcat, MicroPowerpoint, JustAnotherGuyToBeForgotten. Clbsfn (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sick you can namedrop and also didn't capitalise 'April' in your last message. Stop being a grammar nazi, pedant. Prizyms (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand, you arrogant swine. Your editing community is a group of circlejerkers who all share the same views. Of course they're not going to support me since they've been jerking each other off to kingdom come since the beginning. How stupid are you? Prizyms (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why exactly is this argument even taking place? Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective source of information, and trying to pigeonhole hundreds of tracks into various interpretations of "subgenres" is entirely counterproductive. @Clbsfn the Monstercat community's hiveminded mentality extends well beyond the confines of this article, and trying to defend this by spamming the names of your fellow users isn't exactly anything to be proud of. BatmanHQYT (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I just found their names off of the version history, I don't actually know any of those usernames. And, yes, filling the page with subgenres is indeed counterproductive for this article. I would be glad to see this article improved so it does not just reflect the Monstercat community. Thanks for contributing to this discussion, Batman. Are you *the* "batman" known for leaving comments on all the monstercat videos, by the way? And could you stick around here to help make the Monstercat article better? It would be much appreciated if people qualified to work on this page, not me, were to help improve it. Clbsfn (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Prizyms. The albums and track listings are unnecessary. They're against What Wikipedia is not policy. - The   Magnificentist  22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Magnificentist, for taking the time to join this discussion. I hope that you can help improve this article. I'll go blank those sections of the page. Clbsfn (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Artists
Can we just have a list instead of the table? Also, the country is called The Netherlands, not Holland. Prizyms (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the table is fine as it is. It's nicer looking, neater and we can put more stuff in it compared to a list. We used to have a list but it was changed to the table. Micro (Talk) 23:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should keep the table, because it looks much better than the list did. And, as Micro pointed out, it has more capacity for information than a simple bullet list. Clbsfn (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on the AfD discussion, the table/list is the reason that this article keeps getting nominated for deletion. Perhaps we could replace the comprehensive table with some prose highlighting just the most prominent artists (those notable enough to have their own WP article) and those that have been featured most often with the label? – &#x1D558; wendy &#124; &#9742;  14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: after looking through the history I see a lot of the tables have already been removed, but I still think a list of every artist and when they were featured is excessive for this article. – &#x1D558; wendy &#124; &#9742;  14:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, so for the ones without a wikipedia page, we should have a set number of releases on Monstercat an artist must have for us to keep them on this chart. What should this number be? 2, 3, or 4? Or higher? Clbsfn (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I will remove all artists without a wikipedia page who have only released once (i.e., minimum of two to keep on the chart). Let me know here if the minimum number should be higher. Clbsfn (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Artist Chart
We need to come to a conclusion on this issue. There has to be a set guideline on keeping the amount of artists on the chart low, so we must determine here exactly what this guideline is. We can't only use vague terms like "prominent artists," because there is no objective way to discern how "prominent" one artist is over another. I suggest that we have a minimum number of tracks on Monstercat an artist without a Wikipedia article must have to stay on the chart. Can someone give their opinion on what this minimum number should be? Clbsfn (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Before discussing the guidelines of the chart, we should take a vote as to whether or not the artist chart should be kept, since there is at least one user who wishes to delete it. Please respond to this comment here, with either "Keep" or "Remove". The purpose of this vote is to determine how many editors want the chart on this article. Any editors voting here are encouraged to put their reasoning on why they voted a certain way after their vote. Clbsfn (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep —Reasoning: There are several artists with their own wikipedia pages who have released on Monstercat, and many others as well. The point of this chart is to have information on certain artists who have released on Monstercat, which years they have released, what country they originated from, their real names, and any alternate aliases they might have had on Monstercat. There are 27 artists on the chart significant enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. At the very least, this chart should be kept to have links from this page to their pages. If all of those artists' wikipedia articles link to the page Monstercat, then we should have a place in this article that links back to their pages. Clbsfn (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete —Reasoning: It's so horribly formatted and contains irrelevant information as well as unfounded rumours about artist identities. Delete the bottom template too, while you're at it. It's so unprofessional. We've already established that precisely none of your contributions to this page have been helpful. Prizyms (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, now we must wait for other editors to vote here to break the tie. The decision to delete the chart must be made by multiple editors, not just one. And the same goes for the template. I'll start a discussion on the talk page for the template. Clbsfn (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep —The chart is fine as it is, I don't see a real reason to get rid of it. Just get rid of the "rumoured to be" and "possibly" bits and I would have no problem with it whatsoever. Micro (Talk) 01:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While I do thank MicroPowerpoint for joining this discussion to voice his opinion, I feel that we should have at least one other editor vote before we come to a conclusion about keeping the chart. In the meantime, I will edit the chart to remove any theorizing of artists' identities, and will change them to say "unknown." Clbsfn (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you seriously need templates for every artist who has ever released here? Ridiculous. Prizyms (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we do not. The discussion here is not to keep a very long list of artists, but whether or not it should stay in chart format. And, by the way, the chart does not at all contain all the artists released here. None of the following artists are on the chart: Kayzo, Robotaki, Matt Vice, SMLE, Priority One, yh, 1up, Dzeko & Torres, Skifonix, Rundfunk, Subformat, Xilent, I.Y.F.F.E, Excision, Chrisson, I See MONSTAS, Obsidia, Neilio, Arion, NGHTMRE, Matduke, 23, and Klaypex. Clbsfn (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - the artist table doesn't look encyclopedic. It looks like a fan-written personal draft. I think the table and roster columns should go. A simple bullet-list of signed artists would be good enough. - The   Magnificentist  12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Though the vote technically stands at a 2-2 tie, I will close the vote in favor of Delete. TheMagnificentrist is the most qualified out of any of us to decide what should go on the Monstercat article. Clbsfn (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words but it's just my opinion though. Maybe more editors can look into it. - The   Magnificentist  20:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All right, so if several more editors join the discussion here who want to bring back the chart and thoroughly argue for having it on the article, then I will re-open this discussion. But, as it currently stands, I do not wish to heighten any conflict that may have arisen as a result of this discussion. Clbsfn (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We could bring it back, just remove the alternate aliases, real names and locations and just keep the artists and the years that they have been on the label (so just keep what is said in the references)Micro (Talk) 00:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @MicroPowerpoint - I'll work on what you suggest in my sandbox, and if/when other editors come here to support the notion of a chart, I'll add it to the article. Clbsfn (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was bored so I did it Micro (Talk) 03:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The following is a chart of all the artists included on Monstercat's rosters from the current (2017) back to 2011. Please note that not all artists who have released or will release with Monstercat are necessarily supposed to be on this chart. Artists without a wikipedia page should only appear on the chart if they have appeared in at least 2 monstercat tracks. Alternate aliases for artists in this chart should only be mentioned if they are archived as a separate artist on the official Monstercat rosters.

Insan3lik3
Is Insan3lik3 missing from the table? He has done much more than two tracks.

Thanks, Klayman55 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Klayman55


 * The table only includes artists that are on the official Monstercat rosters. There are several artists not on the official rosters who have released on Monstercat, such as Insan3Lik3. Other examples would be Priority One, yh, 1up, Dzeko & Torres, Skifonix, Rundfunk, Subformat, Xilent, I.Y.F.F.E, Excision, Chrisson, I See MONSTAS, Obsidia, Neilio, Arion, NGHTMRE, Matduke, 23, and Klaypex. Clbsfn (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Templates
I don't have an issue with the artist chart. But I think the excessive templates placed on the article and on artists' articles isn't appropriate. I just think the involved editors are adding superfluous content that aren't really encyclopedic. Similar label articles don't have these content. The label templates aren't related to the artists and the artist templates aren't related to the label. - The   Magnificentist  12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fully agree, the current editors need to go. Prizyms (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Rosters
We do not need a list of every artist who has ever released every year. It's unneeded. Just have a single bulleted list of this year's roster. Prizyms (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it's unneeded, showing artists who have released multiple times in specific years is pretty useful in a historic sense. There are a lot of artists who are quite significant who haven't released on the label this year such as Marshmello, Let's Be Friends and Krewella and a artists roster showing 2017 alone is not very useful because (like as I said before) it is somewhat historically significant to Monstercat to show various notable artists towards Monstercats popularity who may have released in 2011, 2012 or 2013 and yet they are not mentioned anywhere on this page. I would like it if you were to say multiple reasons why it is necessary to only show artists from 2017 or (more likely what you said) only recent years. Micro (Talk) 13:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I mean only 2017. Listing every year's roster turns this into a database. We should only have relevant information. Prizyms (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a question. If every year before 2017 is irrelevant information, then why are there wikipedia pages for Alone (Marshmello song), Faces (Candyland song), and Two Fold Pt. 2? If all of those songs and album are irrelevant, then why did Wikipedia approve for those three articles to be created? Because all three of those were released in 2016, before 2017. And do you imply that once it becomes January 2018, then we should remove the 2017 roster? Because there are two wikipedia pages for songs released on Monstercat in 2017: Saving Light and This Time (Kayzo song). Are those wikipedia pages irrelevant? If so, then why were they approved for creation? Clbsfn (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To add, it's not just songs and albums from 2016, (from which Clbsfn has pointed out) it's also multiple songs, albums and artists from every year who (in way or another) have played significant roles for Monstercat's popularity. Examples for songs include Flight, Razorsharp, Coffins and Surface. Exapmples for artists include Tristam (in which he is the most viewed artist on the label with most of his songs having more then 1 million views), Pegboard Nerds (same as Tristam, most of their songs gaining more then a million views and some have become the most popular songs on the label), Insan3lik3, Krewella, Ephixa and Haywyre. All of these songs and artists are significant to Monstercat's history and popularity, thus making them relevant information. It is important that we have the artist rosters from all years, but preferably in the table shown above and not in a column as the table is neater, better looking and is much smaller. Micro (Talk) 23:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop being pedants. You're turning this into a database by adding every roster ever, especially after saying that Monstercat signs tracks not artists. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I've already argued for the vast majority of your terrible 'contributions' to be deleted, which they have been. This is the last step. Prizyms (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I doubt that calling us pedants and calling the majority of our edits 'terrible' will solve anything and change our mind about the roster. I still stand with my decision which is to keep all roster years but just to use the table instead of a column because the table is smaller, neater and generally better looking. I don't think this page will be a 'database' if we were to simply add the graph. Micro (Talk) 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Prizyms, just answer this one question: Why did wikipedia approve the creation of articles for Alone (Marshmello song), Faces (Candyland song), Two Fold Pt. 2, 001 - Launch Week, 002 - Early Stage, Saving Light, and This Time (Kayzo song)? Clbsfn (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with this Clbsfn, stop grasping for straws Prizyms (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're avoiding the question. Marshmello, Candyland, and Haywyre, are clearly notable enough to have not only their own wikipedia articles, but to have articles for their songs and albums released on Monstercat. Why, then, do you believe that this page not mention artists because they haven't released in 2017? And, if you say that only the roster for the current year be kept, then what of Gareth Emery and Kayzo's songs Saving Light and This Time? Are we not going to mention them because they will have released in years past? For 001 - Launch Week and 002 - Early Stage, there are several artists in those albums that aren't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Will we not mention them on this article because they released years ago and are insignificant? If people like Stephen Walking, Going Quantum, Varien, Project 46, TwoThirds, and Eminence are featured in those two wikipedia articles for albums released by Monstercat, then is it reasonable that the actual wikipedia page for Monstercat not mention them at all? Stephen Walking's "Top of the World" has over 4 million views on YouTube. Does the fact that he hasn't released in 2017 mean that the Monstercat page shouldn't mention him? The answer is simple: No. And what about Tristam and Braken? 50 million views on "Flight," and 27 million on "Frame of Mind," but since neither of them are on Monstercat's official 2017 roster, they shouldn't be mentioned on this wikipedia article? There are 65 million people in the United Kingdom. The amount of people who have listened to "Flight" is equivalent to more than three-quarters of the population of the UK. Krewella has released on Monstercat, too. Oh, but they didn't release in 2017. Does that mean that we shouldn't mention them? Krewella has gotten to #32 on the Billboard Hot 100, but apparently no artist that released on Monstercat before 2017 is significant? #32. That's even higher than Marshmello has been on that chart. Clbsfn (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

you are so stupid. those are songs, not lists of artists who released on Monstercat in previous years. That is useless content. When will you get the message that your contributions are utterly worthless, which is why they're all being deleted? Prizyms (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , from an "uninvolved admin" perspective, you're kind of getting to the point of incivility here. I highly recommend you tone down the hateful attitude. If you want to debate the edits, that's fine, but to insult the editor is highly frowned upon. Primefac (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, this will not happen again. Sorry Primefac and Clbsfn. Prizyms (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Prizyms, I'm done defending those artist rosters. If you want to delete the lists, fine. I will no longer try to stop you, but I know that others might. And if you can successfully convince them that the rosters should be removed, that would be great. One of the most significant ways that decisions are made in editing on wikipedia is having consensus among editors – when everyone agrees on the content of an article. However, that can only be accomplished if you interact nicely with other wikipedia editors. I hope that in the future you will act nicely towards people around here. As Primefac pointed out, editors should focus on criticizing and debating the edits people make, not attacking the editors themselves. Clbsfn (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting Rosters
I know this might already have a consensus, but just in case it doesn't, I'd like to propose the idea of expanding the roster in the article to include artists on Monstercat's "Featured" and "2016" section (assuming the artists aren't already on the list and that the artist may have an intent to return to the label at some point in 2017 or the future.) There may have to be some exceptions, though. For example, Snavs, who is in the 2016 roster, won't return to the label, and Stephen Walking, also in the 2016 roster, is currently listed in the 2017 roster as Orbiter, a collaborative alias with 2013-15 artist 7 Minutes Dead.

Does this sound like something that can be agreed or improved upon? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already proposed a modified artist table above showing most artists and what years they were signed to the label. That table is still up for discussion whether we replace the list with the graph or something else. I bring this up because it seems similar to what you are proposing (just without the featured artists) Micro (Talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect the reason why the featured artists wasn't mentioned in your proposal, as you said, is because they're already included in the other rosters on the website. Which is why I included them in this proposal. It's similar to your proposal, except not as extensive and provides a better summary, which I also believe is the concern had last week on this issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like if you can provide an example or draft of your proposal, it's better then just describing it. Right now, I like idea, but I'd like a small example. Micro (Talk) 02:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course. I'd also like to include the subject of collaborative artists, after an edit made by . I do not believe collaborative artists should be included as part of my proposal considering the fact that Monstercat doesn't include those artists on their website either. Second, for the future artists, like Slander and the 3 Rocket League contributors not on the roster, I'm not necessarily against their inclusion, but a paragraph or two in WP:CRYSTAL might prevent their inclusion here as their tracks have not been released yet. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 02:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Unless collaborators have made multiple apparences (such as Exist Strategy) then don't include them on the roster. For second statement, artists should only be added when they release and not when they are confirmed to release or if they haven't released yet. Micro (Talk) 02:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand why, and agree that, we shouldn't add collaborators that have appeared on Monstercat only once or future artists. That said, I want to point out something else: Koven and Rich Edwards have only released remixes in 2017. If they are to be mentioned in our 2017 roster, then we should add the other artists who have only released remixes in 2017, such as Andy C, Virtual Riot, and Barely Alive. If we do not add all 2017 remixers, which is what I suggest, then we should remove Koven and Rich Edwards from the current list. Clbsfn (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I want to say that I like jd22292's proposal, and I also would like to see an example of the concept here on the talk page. Clbsfn (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Same as collaborators, unless the remixer has made multiple appearances then don't add them. It should be best if you were to remove Koven, Rich and anyone who had a one-time collab or remix. One-time songs are fine however. Micro (Talk) 04:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda on the fence about the recent removal of Anevo from the roster here. Don't forget: this year, the artist released "Waiting On Your Call" with now regularly featured vocalist Park Avenue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgot about that release, my bad. Micro (Talk) 04:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I will write out the rules we have currently set for the 2017 list. Please correct any mistakes, if there are things that I misunderstood. Clbsfn (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As we currently have it, the roster lists artists who have either 1) released at least one track on Monstercat on their own in 2017 ("Artists"), or 2) released at least one track on Monstercat with another artist in 2017 ("Collaborators"). Collaborators will only be put on the roster if they have appeared at least twice on the label at any point in Monstercat history. Artists who have only released remixes in 2017 will not be placed on the roster. Any artists in category 2) ("Collaborators") who have released in 2017 that have their own wikipedia page will be added on the roster, regardless of how often they have appeared on the label in the past. Clbsfn (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples:
 * Artists (all are eligible): Kayzo, Anevo, Tut Tut Child, Vicetone. |–| Clbsfn (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Collaborators (some are eligible): Gareth Emery (eligible because he has a wikipedia page), Standerwick (not eligible, since he has no wikipedia page and has only appeared once on Monstercat), Quiet Disorder (eligible because they have appeared more than once on Monstercat), Holly (not eligible because he has no wikipedia article and only appeared once), Exist Strategy (eligible because he has appeared more than once). |–| Clbsfn (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Remixers (none are eligible): Koven (appeared on Monstercat before 2017, but not eligible since they have only released a remix in 2017), Rich Edwards (same reasoning as Koven), Barely Alive (same reasoning as previous two), Andy C (has a wikipedia page, but not eligible since he only released a remix in 2017), Virtual Riot (same reasoning as Andy C). |–| Clbsfn (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

When you are ready to show your example, you may do so below this reply. Thanks again! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 04:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have an example, I thought you were going to make the example as you came up with the suggestion Micro (Talk) 05:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. The only example I had matches the current format of the roster, yet adds the artists in question (mainly Featured artists with exception; I'm still hesitant on adding 2016 artists at this time.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 14:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI
Hello. I have opened up a discussion in WP:COIN regarding a possible conflict of interest with one of the new editors to this page. Feel free to provide input on it here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Notaker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notaker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Notaker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Uncaged, Vol. 1 Wiki page name
I'm almost done doing the Uncaged Vol. 1 page in my sandbox but I don't know whether to use "Uncaged, Vol. 1" or "Monstercat Uncaged, Vol. 1". I did the page so it fit the other compilation album names (001 - Launch Week and 002 - Early Stage) but I think I should do "Monstercat Uncaged, Vol. 1". Thoughts? Micro (Talk) 05:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, with "Monstercat Uncaged Vol 1" and other forms as redirects via, and "Monstercat Uncaged Volume 1" as a redirect via . I also recommend making the pages for the other 28 albums in-between as well, provided the sources can be found. The draftspace is very useful for this just in case. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Compilation Wiki pages
So I'm gonna try to make page for some compilation albums, currently doing 003, but I'm not very happy with the current 'template'. Micro (Talk) 09:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I've received a response to my Peer Review request, however, I have only accomplished one of the suggestions given. Is there anyone that can handle further improvements? Thank you! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do the history from previous years, I thought about doing it before, might as well do it now.

{{hlist If I forgot (which is most likely) here are some cool links you guys can use: {{flatlist| }} Micro (Talk) 07:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.youredm.com/2012/09/13/monstercat-009-reunion-monstercat-media/
 * http://www.youredm.com/2013/09/21/monstercat-announces-2014-reunion-tour/
 * http://www.youredm.com/2013/07/12/monster-charity-music-festival/
 * http://www.youredm.com/2014/03/20/monstercat-commences-podcast-series-with-enormous-success/
 * {{ping|MicroPowerpoint}} Unfortunately, when {{u|TritonsRising}} said {{tq|"...not just music blogs but also national coverage to establish notability..."}}, he didn't mean just finding sources from YourEDM. There's plenty of coverage on Monstercat in Billboard about their Tomorrowland set; a simple Google search does wonders. I've already added an article from Billboard in the {{tlc|ref ideas}} template on the top of this page. Perhaps consider these suggestions? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Tis just an example. Imagine if the entire article had YourEDM as every source. Micro (Talk) 21:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Userbox for Monstercat fans
I know this is irrelevant to improving the article and I am fully aware of WP:NOTAFORUM, but I wanted to inform the watchers of this page about a userbox I made some months ago in case you guys want to "show off". Here is the userbox. Enjoy! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the idea of a separate list article for artists
Should there be a separate list article for notable artists that appeared on the label? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

One idea I had for improving this article specifically is to move the current list of artists into a separate article, which would be called something along the lines of List of Monstercat artists, in a sourced table. The table would have values: "Artist", "Country of Origin", "Joined", "Left (if applicable)", and "Description". While the first four values seem obvious, description would be used to briefly describe the history of the artist, their main genres, and notable works while on the label. Obviously, the descriptions would need to be reliably sourced from places like Billboard, etc, per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An example of how the table would work can be found in my sandbox. Note that I only include artists with Wikipedia pages, which is a standard for many lists. Also note I am using as a placeholder in the Description field. This is where the brief summary of the artist would go. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems like overkill, so no. The most I can say yes to is the artist chart that can be found if you were to scroll up. Micro (Talk) 15:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR Monstercat errors
They need new section on the page where videos have, but we don't need to revert this edit, is a good faith edit, Monstercat produces a visualizer on there videos links to Monstercat Release, but this time play monstercat videos on YouTube such as Aero Chord's Surface UnknownPro (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also considered WP:FANCRUFT; material written by fans of the label for which no reliable source exists. Sure, Monstercat has a Visualizer, but so does every other label that use one on their own videos, such as Trap Nation or NoCopyrightSounds. Hope this helps. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So Trap Nation has a 3 different circle s, and fonts those are different with it. Monstercat changes colors where the genre is UnknownPro (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Monstercat stopped using colors in 2016. I've already done a Google News search for the Monstercat visualizer which turned up nothing related specifically to the visualizer. The visualizer is something we cannot verify at this time because no major news source has covered its uniqueness for the first 5 years of the label; see WP:V. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If Dubstep, Its purple, If drumstep, its pink If Drum & Bass, is red, If Trap, is darkish-red color, If Trance or Glitch Hop, is green or dark-ish green. If Electro, is yellow, If indie dance, is dark-ish blue, If Nu Disco, is blue, If EDM and Electronic and Electronica, its white UnknownPro (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What colors they use now? UnknownPro (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just white with an animated background. Monstercat stopped using colors because the genre of each song was becoming a heated topic over the years. Still, no source has covered it and therefore it should not be included on the article at this time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So what variants of the backgrounds of the release? UnknownPro (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been moved from my user Talk page to the appropriate article. The issue at hand is whether to note the visualizer, which turned into a WP:NOTAFORUM discussion about the label itself. My argument is that the visualizer addition is WP:OR and that it cannot be verified per WP:V because no source exists. See also WP:FANCRUFT. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Color lineup for releasing Monstercat from 2011–2016
Can you add the lineup of colors BPM length and date for there releases? And logos? UnknownPro (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No. It's excessive information we don't need. Micro (Talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add to this: do you have a reliable source that mentions the visualizer in some way? See WP:RS. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Add the BPM length color fillment of Monstercat colors in infobox Jd UnknownPro (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌: As said, it's useless to the normal reader who would otherwise be reading this for research. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's see now done UnknownPro (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hold, on JD? Micro, done? UnknownPro (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Compilation articles
Now that I've finished improving the article per a recent Peer review (see also a relevant discussion at WP:RSN for why I replaced some refs), are you willing to finish writing the articles for the other 27 compilations? Each entry is currently hidden from view pending their creation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I’d have no problem with doing the rest of the compilation albums, but I don’t want them to do them in the 001 - 003 template and instead want to do them in the uncaged template, which would prove more difficult as it relies on referencing for some songs and new artists. I also have other stuff going on with me, so it may take more time then wanted. Nice work with the article by the way, keep improving. Micro (Talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Finish the lineup
Do you finish yet? UnknownPro (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Monstercat 027
Page needed because of Marshmello Namruga (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * is working on it along with the other Monstercat compilations. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m trying to work on the early compilation albums as I said earlier, which has proven difficult as there are little references. 027 to 030 should be just as easy as Uncaged, Vol. 1 because Monstercat is just as popular back then as it is now. Micro (Talk) 23:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay to work backwards, Micro. You already have something to work off of with the Uncaged articles this way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jd, it doesn't matter what order we write the articles in, as long as we have enough references to work off of. Working backwards will be the easiest way to do it, since we'll have a lot more complete articles with enough references faster than we would working through the albums in chronological order.Clbsfn (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn’t know that this was a discussion. I’m more focused on the earlier albums because they are harder to make compared to the newer compilation albums. As an example, I made 30 - Finale in around 2 hours. Micro (Talk) 11:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add the flags!
Per WP:ICONDECORATION, the flags appear decorative on the list of artists, and would serve as a distraction to a normal reader. Please do not add this information again! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 22:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering
Why Feint (DJ) redirects to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:40:af11:1cd7:bd8d:2825:b96b (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the mention of an artist called "Feint" in the Current artists section. You might need to click the drop-down menus to assist with this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But Feint isn't a Monstercat only artist and most of his releases aren't even on Monstercat. That doesn't feel right at all. 130.18.131.153 (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could Feint's other releases have been self-released? The only reason Feint redirects here is because this is the only known label associated with the artist. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 23:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for historical artists
With the exception of the Current artists subsection, I've added a list with descriptions of a few artists that were at one point attached to the label. Since it would be excessive to list every single artist that has been attached to the label in the past, what should be an appropriate inclusion criteria for descriptions of artists that were at one point signed on to this label? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 16:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My first guess at this point would be to follow what users are doing at NoCopyrightSounds and only include artists that either have a Wikipedia page or are cited appropriately with a reliable source listed at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, but I also want to see if anyone else has ideas. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 16:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably prioritize artists with wikipedia articles first, then focus on adding other artists if there are reliable sources that mention them. Embryo Yall (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Uncaged Vol. 3
I've pretty much done the Vol 3 page, it just needs a track list, confirmation on album length and references for Worth The lie (the Muzzy, Koven and Feint collab) and the album itself. Link Micro (Talk) 03:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Spitfire
I've created the page for Spitfire. Should take some time for additional sources to emerge. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 19:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Koven draft
I'm currently working on a draft for Koven (DJ). Does anyone want to help me expand on what is already there? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Artist to record label redirects
Per the consensus at Articles for deletion/Laura Brehm, certain artist to record label redirects are implausible as their only mention on the target are mere listings, which creates confusion. An ongoing RfD also appears to be reaching this same consensus. This appears to be the case with most of the redirects I've seen to this article. Could there possibly be alternative targets for these redirects, and if so, would it be possible to retarget them to other articles, i.e. songs or albums they've contributed to or compilations they're featured in, even if it's the Monstercat compilations? 2601:589:8000:2ED0:D1ED:3328:E4E8:D92A (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Discographies of Monstercat artists has been created
Does anyone want to help me populate this related category? I’ve already added a few example pages to the category. 66.87.148.136 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Re-addition of Former artists section
So now that we're sourcing the artists section appropriately with both refs from the Monstercat official artists list and, when that's not the case, their individual releases, would it be feasible to re-add a former artists section, provided similar sources are used? Honestly, with sources, it should address the WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues raised at the previous AfD (even if not directly related to those issues). Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be too much, the closest to a former artists section is the "Other notable artists include" bit in the Artists section. If there was a notable artist who had previously released on Monstercat, I suggest putting them there and not in a giant list with every other previous artist from the past 7 years. Micro (Talk) 21:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

General improvements for future GA nomination
- Formatting of Italics and Quoted subjects, e.g. "Instinct" or Instinct.

- Getting rid of most/all references in the lead, moving them to the articles body.

- Make sure all information in the lead/infobox are properly and reliably sourced.

- Any available photos/images that can be used as examples? If so, they must be properly licensed (no "N.A" sections in summary, etc)

- Critical reception to the label as a whole?

- What makes the following reliable sources: The DJ List, Twitch Blog via Medium, raverrafting.com, Rapid TV News, mymetmedia, thissongslaps, The Bangin Beats, Vents Magazine, EDMTunes, etc, etc.

- Link sources to their respective Wikipedia articles

- No unnecessary stylisations (Uppercase/lowercase titles/names)

- Potential expansion of single-sentence/generally small sections/bits.

- Removal of anything seemingly biased (especially the "notable artists" bit)

- Reliably source the "alias of" bits

- Potential Expansion of the "Monstercat has supported prominent artists such as---" bit?

- Could the Discography section's readability/formatting be improved? Remove anything not notable?

- Any notable additions to the already existing "Accolades and awards" section?

- Should request a copy-edit after completely satisfied with all improvements, probably during the GA review.

Micro (Talk) 00:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See the About page for Vents. Seems like they know what they're doing. As for The DJ List, I am unsure. I will have to verify with a Wiki user I know knows their way around reliable sources. For this, I will courtesy ping to this discussion.  Jalen Folf   (talk)  20:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * When talking about the references, I pretty much mean you have to be prepared to prove the reliability of EVERY source, with the only exceptions being the ones listed over at wp:EDM. The ones I listed here were just examples of sketchy looking sources. Micro (Talk) 23:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'm on holiday at the moment, so I won't be able to have a good look at this for another week or so. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Catstep" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catstep. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen Folf  (talk)  00:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Soulji" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Soulji. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen Folf  (talk)  05:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Standalone artists list and sourcing a label's website
I'm starting to think this article is suffering from a bit of WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY issues, mostly centered around the sourcing of this article's artist list and yearly resetting based on how Monstercat splits their artist lists on their website. I have also created a standalone list which currently only uses WP:SECONDARY sources to source each artist's connection to Monstercat, which has already proven to be sufficient. So my question is whether we should remove the "Current artists" section in favor of maintaining the well-sourced standalone list.


 * Reasons for issues
 * WP:ROUTINE: When clicking on Artists on Monstercat's website, the page automatically points to the list for the current year. This resets after January 1 every year, with the previous year's list getting its own page.
 * WP:PRIMARY: The Monstercat website itself is considered a primary source in this case, mostly falling under WP:SPS. When maintaining this list, it appears that this source is only used when no other source describing an artist's connection exists.


 * Reasons in favour of using the standalone list
 * Currently the standalone list only uses WP:SECONDARY sources; therefore Monstercat's website is not used to source each entry. Every artist that has been added to this list so far is backed by such sources.
 * No yearly requirement for inclusion, thus avoiding relying on routine coverage.

So the question: should the Current artists section in this page be removed in favour of the standalone list? Jalen Folf  (talk)  21:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, seeing as WP:SECONDARY sources have shown to be sufficient enough. Idealigic (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to note that, because this label's operating strategy is so unusual, this RfC should not be taken as indicating anything generally about consensus on standalone lists in record label articles. I am neutral on the substance of the RfC itself. Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes following merger
Following the announcement of a new imprint, Monstercat Silk, I'd propose that some things be changed in the article. I've decided not to make these edits myself as there don't seem to be any independent news sources other than what is coming from Silk Music and Monstercat.
 * Add Silk to channels, years active, subscribers, total views and creator awards sections of the Infobox.
 * Make a reference to the Silk merger in the main article.

Things to look at whilst we wait for better sources:
 * Monstercat Silk webpage
 * 1001 Tracklists
 * COTW Silk Takeover in January 2021
 * Tweet, announcing distribution partnership in Aug 2020
 * MC Silk Soundcloud
 * YouTube channel trailer

Alongside this, do we also want to include Monstercat's partnership with Nifty Giveaway Gateway? (I'm just leaving these here, I don't know if they're reputable sources or not.)
 * EDM.com Article
 * Cointelegraph post
 * Criptomagazine
 * Elevenews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthowells200130 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ...and also how the release schedule has now gone from 4 tracks a week to 6. Mthowells200130 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made to mention Silk, thank you editors! Mthowells200130 (Matthew) &#124; Talk &#124; COI 20:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Varien
A quick change made to the grammar used to highlight the albums of Varien: It appeared that the a majority of the albums labeled with artists were labeled with quotations, but the albums labeled for Varien where not labeled with quotations but instead italicized, so this was changed.Bwooddell (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please see MOS:ALBUM, namely the section on Formatting. Albums titles must be italicized. Jalen Folf   (talk)  05:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)