Talk:Secret Chiefs 3

message: I removed the "citations needed".  This isn't exactly a scholarly article, so I hardly think citations are really required.  Besides which, everything on this page can be easily confirmed on the label website.  Perhaps I'm out of line here, if so I hope older and wiser heads will correct me.  Matheson 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Hmm, google test is quite surprising. I almost vfd'd it. -- Natalinasmpf 20:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  google test 

message: This article seems too heavy into the use of this band's acronym. Though meant to reduce the feeling of redundancy, it seems too lax. Would it be more appropriate to selectively reduce the number of instances in which the band's name must appear and generally use their full name? --Pixel Eater (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I agree wholeheartedly.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of SC3 

message: Where exactly does it say that? The quoted page (http://www.webofmimicry.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=88) merely says that the album should've been released last fall (2010). So far, I haven't heard of a new release date. --Fibbo (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Souls release fall 2011? 

message: The article's been recently deprived of all information concerning "Satellite bands", a very important part of today's identity of SC3 and definitely a unique trait of the band. The reason behind the cancellation of those contents was that the band is allegedly too marginal to deserve such a comprehensive wikipedia entry. I personally don't agree: first of all, the band is quite well-known around the web (see the number of ratings on https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/secret_chiefs_3 ); secondly, information about band members and musical genres is essential for every artist, from the more celebrated to the more obsure one. SC3 has a complex structure of sub-bands with different members covering different musical styles: that's the reason why a level of detail is required which is a bit more deep than most other bands.
A few days after my restoration of the complete article, the information was cancelled again, this time arguing that most information is unsourced. That's definitely a legitimate critique, but if one agrees with the importance of showcasing a comprehensive description of the Satellite Bands substructure one should also make his best to make it more complete and well-referenced. Removing information is not an option: the best viable way is in my opinion specifying what information is unsourced with the [citation needed] mark and work together with other users in order to provide it with the most appropriate references.
Since I have no intention to press the issue further, and believe that keeping on playing a "delete/restore" game'd be pretty much useless, I encourage users to express their opinion and discuss the theme before taking other actions. I'm sure that a most satisfying solution can be found for both sides of the controversy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.123.200 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The given reasons were because the section is unsourced and sources are needed to take the article in that direction, both valid concerns. I would love to see a fleshed-out section on the Satellite bands, just as I would love to see sections on the multi-instrumentalist talents of Trey and others, a history of the band through albums and members, and an expanded section about their musical and philosophical influences. The problem is, sources don't seem to exist on these topics, and we rely on sources to tell us what's important about the subject. I have reverted again, and per WP:BURDEN this level of detail should not be restored until we have reliable, third-party sources. SC3 are one of my favorite bands and I would love to see them get mainstream coverage—though it often seems like they avoid it—but until we have at least reliable independent coverage, we'll have to keep the article rather short. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reviewed the deleted section on the satellite bands, to which I personally added several citations in the beginning of 2012. I found one unsourced paragraph in the section ("Fans have speculated that all songs by Secret Chiefs 3 bearing the "Book T" prefix [...] are the work of UR [..]"). I restored the section with the exception of that paragraph and ask you to review again and tell me where specifically you find sources lacking. By the way, the reasoning behind the original removal of the section ("borderline notability of the band") is not valid in my opinion. As argued by OP the complex structure and philosophy behind the band warrants a more detailed approach in the article. --Fibbo (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't outright reverted, but I did remove the Discogs, Web of Mimicry store, and podcast links. Discogs is user-maintained and not a reliable source. The WoM store is both primary and commercial, so similarly unreliable and unusable. (I have also removed some other sources for the same reasons.) The Sittingnow Podcast is considered primary, so we can't use it for crystal ball claims about an unreleased album. The Westword blog/interview is also a primary source but it's being used to support non-exceptional claims about their current and past musical interests, so it can stay as long as that continues, though we can't let it guide the article. That leaves AllMusic, which is a reliable source, but I'm not sure how much we can pull from it, not to mention the fact that we shouldn't allow a single reliable source to guide the article. I don't think we have to worry about notability concerns, as SC3 meets at least criteria 4-6 of WP:BAND. We just need to find additional reliable sources—if they exist—to support these claims and to show us where the depth of detail needs to be. I agree that that everything about the band warrants more detail, but we need to write the article around the sources. To use a (ridiculous) example: if all we had were dozens of sources all about the robes SC3 often wear playing live, then that is primarily what this article would be about, not their satellite bands or philosophy or instruments. Your and my opinion of what's important doesn't matter, only reliable sources do. Now as I said earlier, I haven't outright reverted, but the article will have to be cut down if there aren't any reliable sources out there. I'll try to find some time to do this soon, but I didn't want to do it before you had time to look for additional sources. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of the section. I saved what I could and incorporated it at the beginning of the section. Hopefully some sources turn up eventually and we can begin to fill it out. Woodroar (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about sub-bands 

message: When I see large chunks of text edited, restored, deleted it tends to catch my eye.  I personally don't add material to, or create an article with few or no references.  Adding a 'citation needed' after every unsourced statement seems pretty useless and actually doesn't accomplish anything except make an article look like it consists of someone's own opinion or possibly fabricated.  Don't write it if you can't cite a reference to back up you think the article should say.  If you can't reference something, then don't write it.  It's wimpy to write something and then assume some other editor is somehow going to come along and research the unsourced statements that you have written.
::Another Musician,
:::  Bfpage |leave a message  21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits