Talk:The Nightowls

Notability flag
I was editing an article - "The Nightowls" - an Austin based music band. I'm getting this flag:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. (August 2015)

I dont understand - I created this page based on other bands which have the same sections i.e. Members, Discography; Awards & Nominations and History? Please Help - Thanks David R AustinTx (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi David, I think that some Wikipedians try to look out for non-notable Articles, and are often quick to label something "non notable" even though it may be a very good an important and notable article. Wikipedia has some new users who are "flyby" editors and might mark something non-notable even when it is a very good article.  I saw your article early on and saw that someone had vandalized it so I reverted it back to it's previous form.


 * I think you should look at re-writing the Lead in a way that speaks right away to the notability of this subject. There are articles on Wikipedia about ways to write a lead so that the notability of the subject jumps right out. See WP:LEAD.  For example it seems very unusual that a local band such as this has achieved such accolades and success in a short amount of time.  The band may be very unusual in this regard and therefore could warrant an encyclopedia article.  Don't panic if you see various editor's comments or a suggestion for deletion, these are how good articles survive and make it into history.


 * Finally I suggest you visit the Wikipedia Tea house the Teahouse, where you will find seasoned users ready and willing to help you, and who will give you more information about this and many other topics.   Cityside189 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "I try to stay away and it keeps pulling me back in".... normally attributed to the mobster movie the Godfather, I use the phrase to illustrate how addictive wikipedia is!!


 * Another idea I had was to consider a separate page for Ryan Harkrider, there seems to be a lot of news about him from third party sources, yes/no? I saw that he did something very notable with the Austin theme song.   .  Seems like he's fairly notable even before The Nightowls?  Again I approach this from a neutral academic perspective and realize that Wikipedia is not an avenue for advertising.


 * And another reference that is relevant to this article (which seems to meet wikipedia guidelines) is here, but I'll leave it up to you if the reference adds a meaningful contribution to the article, and if so, how.


 * I also thought that it might be good for a legal official from the band or it's producers to post a picture of the band on the Wikipedia Commons, which then can be linked to this article.  Not for the purpose of advertising but to add a visual image to better describe the band.  All pictures have to be freely licensed, basically "free-to-use-by-anybody-for-any-reason-forever-and-ever".   The official policy is here.  While I think, personally speaking, that an image of the band would help the article, I also am concerned that an image could be misinterpreted by other Wikipedians as more advertising.  On the other hand, official Wikipedia writing says to be bold, wp:bold so maybe it would be OK.?   Cityside189 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Cityside189 Thanks - I added the references you suggested - which were really good. I'm seeing Ryan later today at of their 2 standing weekly shows - which is unusual for an Austin band - and will discuss & show him all the great work you've been doing with the article. You should go to their Facebook page & look at a post from 8/19. I has their new tour trailer - which was made at their recent Stubbs show where they performed in front of a couple thousand people - opening for The Gin Blossoms. This is the premier venue in Austin where big named bands from around the world perform. Also in that post, you'll see all the cities on their upcoming tour. I don't know if you live in or near any - but let me know if can go to any, the band would to meet you. Thanks again (P.S. I can't figure out what the symbols are that allow you to indent these responses) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David R AustinTx (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

wow it's coming along
Wow, this is really coming along! I'm still looking for secondary sources to add... pretty amazing...--Cityside189 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

what are the red-linked references, do they need to be fixed, syntax?

--Cityside189 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cityside189 (talk) Yes it is - thanks as always for your help (I fixed those red-links - had brackets they shouldn't have) . Someone did a lot of major editing today - bringing it closer to what bands articles usually follow. As a big contributor to the article - I always make sure it's strictly objective info - keeping with Wiki's NPOV. The only flag now is about needing secondary sources - which you mentioned. Not sure exactly what those are. Their tour starts next wk & CD comes out - so there's going to be articles & reviews coming out soon. BTW do you know what it means when someones "patrolled" you? David R AustinTx (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again, David R AustinTx, I think the article is really great, great job on it. The secondary sources are what WP:RS sources are saying about the subject... vs. what the subject itself is saying about the subject.   Wikipedia is OK with being "behind the times", reporting on past events as they are covered in reliable sources.  This is because in articles with varying (or opposing) points of view, it prevents Wikipedia from becoming an Opinion website.  While secondary sources don't always agree, the Wikipedia article would then reflect those opposing points of view in a neutral way.  So if five musical review magazines said The Nightowls were the best thing since sliced bread, but five other (reliable) sources said that they have poor musical style and never tune their instruments, then our article here would be expected to reflect that controversy in a neutral way (without giving too much weight to any "outlier" WP:weight.)


 * Thus if a pharmaceutical company writes a Wikipedia article, carefully constructing it to seem like it's neutral, for example that their new drug "B-Young-adryl" is the best way to eliminate baldness and wrinkles, then Wikipedia would object.  There's a lot of false science on the internet and Wikipedia doesn't want to get caught up in repeating internet rumors.


 * I thought we did a good job answering the article maintenance tag someone else put on saying that the article looked like an advertisement for the band, so after our work I deleted that tag in good faith, but didn't want to seem like a know-it-all, so I put the secondary sources tag as a lesser-concerning maintenance issue. Most articles need more secondary sources anyway.


 * New users have their page "patrolled" (looked over) by a seasoned, veteran user who volunteers to make sure new user pages aren't objectionable... click on WP:NPP


 * --Cityside189 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Cityside189 (talk) as always! I hadn't taken the tutorial at 1st - but did a few days ago - should have done so sooner! Look at my Talk page - you'll some back & forth with a user in the UK about whether I had a conflict of interest. He eventually agreed I was OK, but I'd misunderstood what his concerns were based on. I'd been having problems loading an image - it was the standard one they use that I got from their website & it wouldn't load cause it said one with that 1 with that content had already been put in commons & delete, so I posted a ques on this in help. I then realized I should have just used one of my own pics & it was fine. In that post i may have said "I maintain an article for a band..." & thought that was causing his concern. After he said "thanks for clarifying", I realized that it was my profile that said that - so I deleted that part. After that he "patrolled me" - which from my research can be used to indicate to other editors that the issue has been resolved with this user - so they don't need to keep looking at that issue.


 * I guess they've just sent out promo CD's to radio stations - because within the last day or 2 - I've seem them tweet out thanks to over 15 stations that played their new CD - as far away as Hawaii. Some have been retweets from stations letting them know they played it on the air - so I think there's about to be many articles & interviews coming - especially when their tour starts next week - they're playing big markets like Chicago & NYC - so I think there'll be stuff at the national level coming. I think I have to be selective in which I choose - it's a thin line between highlighting all the positive reviews & not sounding like it's all PR. The problem is also that I've never seen anyone say anything negative about them - so there's not any "2 sides" of the issue to balance.


 * I've been doing lots of research on other musician sites. They often break up their history sections into A) Chronical Time spans if they've been around awhile - or B) by album releases. Which is what I want to do. 1st there was Gold as Gold CD & everything that's happened so far started then. Now the 2nd album is coming out - it's a defining moment for them & all these things are going to happen as a result of that. So it makes sense to start a new section. I'm just going to wait until some interviews, concert & CD reviews etc. start coming. David R AustinTx (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

last maintenance tag
Hi, David R AustinTx and Fylbecatulous, so do you think the last article maintenance tag can be removed? I think there's a lot of secondary sources...?? I would take it out but do you think that's OK? --Cityside189 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) --Cityside189 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, and, I have done a bit more work on obtaining complete citations and adding to the template format the actual radio station, Southern Living, Allmusic, SXSW, Houston Press that published these. These are already indeed secondary sources. I wikilinked to articles where we have them. Y'all had way more reliable sources than it seemed. They were just not identified as such earlier in the additions to the article. I have personally checked every reference this evening and they all verify what they cite. I moved around a few words in the article (the source has to directly follow the factual statement). * So final analysis: you have 20 different sources to cover a large variety of information. Only three are still primary sources. Please go ahead and remove the remaining maintenance tag. We are all watching the article and I know as soon as something is published in the way of reviews and news by other notable media than the band, we will make sure it gets updated.  Just put in your edit summary when you remove the tag something like; removing maintenance tag; issue has been resolved: please see article talk page for discussion, That way no one can think it is a unilateral decision and revert.  Happy, happy!  Fylbecatulous talk 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cityside189 (talk) & Fylbecatulous talk !!!  As I'm sure you noticed, their CD comes out this week & they begin their tour - which will take them to places like Chicago, Boston, NYC, DC etc & then Nov to LA, San Deigo etc. So they are going to be getting lots of interviews etc. I've been looking at many band & as they grow -  break their history section by  A) Chronology or B) Album releases. I was thinking that everything that has happened so far is after their 1st CD Good as Gold came out. Now that Fame Sessions is being released - everything from now on will be a result of that CD - reviews, interviews etc. So I think as we begin to come across enough - break the history accordingly? Thanks both of you for your help - past & especially going forward. Now that this article is in pretty good shape except for enhancing with additional information & now that I'm more familiar with articles - especially ones on musicians - I'm going to turn my attention to creating articles on other Austin bands without one. I'm very active in the Austin music scene - we're  known as "The Live Music Capital of the World" - there are several articles built around this topic. Some list the various venues & musicians/bands. I've updated some of these - which also have lists of active musicians - but some require an article to exist. There are a lot of great bands here that should have at least a basic article - which I'm gonna tackle. Eventually when I get more experience I'll be able to join as an editor to music articles. Thanks again - I know The Nightowls really appreciate all your work & are extremely happy with their article!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by David R AustinTx (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)