Talk:Ministry of Sound

message: Well it seems the Ministry of Sound Discography is nearing 50 albums, isn't it time that painfully long list is made into it's own discography page?
(btw if you guys haven't heard their compilations they're really good :) just my opinion) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GBobly (talk • contribs) 12:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating the discography into it's own article? 

message: In the sound settings screen there is a symbol of "Ministry of Sound"... Did it mean the tracks were provided by them? Midmaestro 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIFA 2002 Soundtrack 

message: No mention of the failed bomb plot targeting the club?Andycjp 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomb plot

message: The MOS isnt exactly a rave. Raves are (usually) illegal parties set up in warehouses and fields, and are often raided by the police for drugs. I've deleted the project template.  Racooon 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah with all due respect Racoon most of the raves I know of are not illegal.  However I agree with your assertion that MoS is NOT a rave. Fatrb38 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rave? 

message: First of all, all MoS Guide-releases never start with "The" (except the obvious: "The Annual" etc), why I changed to "Clubbers Guide" (note that the correct term is "Clubbers" not "Clubber's".) Also, I see no reason why Anthems 1991-2008 should be placed in this section since it is not in the category of "...compilations which run in a series..." since it's a one-time release. -Fernandicus 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compilations 

message: Two clubs I go to often in Jakarta, Indonesia recently closed because apparently they will be replaced by a massive Ministry of Sound. Can anyone confirm? Guus Hoekman (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jakarta 

message: Article mentions fatal incident. Does not describe incident.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scmdn (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10984673    .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5B9A:E01:FD8C:21E0:E0DC:8DE6 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 2 Fatal incident 

message: An editor, using multiple different IP addresses, has been attempting to add to the article information on a fatal event in some way connected to patrons of the nightclub.  I have reverted these edits on the basis of WP:WEIGHT, which says, in part:
 An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
If there was a pattern of incidents, noted by a reliable source, or the nightclub had a reputation (again, noted by a reliable source) for violent incidents connected with its patrons, then discussion of that aspect of the club would be acceptabale, but a single isolated incident has no place in the article, even if it is sourced (as this one was, by the BBC).  I have warned the editor -- under his or her multiple addresses -- not to continue to attempt to add this information.  He or she may, of course, come here and discuss it in the hope that a consensus of editors will agree that the information should be in the article, but in the absence of such a consensus, the information will continue to be reverted, and if the attempts continue, without discussion, they will be considered to be vandalism, for editing against policy and without consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WEIGHT]]

message: This article is lacking anything on their controversial file-sharing lawsuit campaign.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1723229/ministry-sound-sues-alleged-filesharers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/17/file-sharers-legal-action-music-downloads
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ministry-of-sound-chases-thousands-of-file-sharing-brits-703966
Something so controversial being blatantly left out of the article makes it read like the Ministry of Sound wrote it themselves!
Infernoapple (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's important to have in the article, why not write it up and add it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  P2P Lawsuits 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ministry of Sound logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: It should be noted that  resolves to MSHK Ltd, one of the Ministry of Sound companies owned by James Palumbo. The IP has also been editing the James Palumbo article, and others in the :Category:Ministry of Sound. I have placed a Conflict of Interest warning on the IP's talk page, and shall be keeping an eye on things. I shall also raise the issue at Admin noticeboard. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Conflict of Interest editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ministry of Sound. 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/20140201193902/http://www.brits.co.uk/news/british-breakthrough-the-story-of-london-grammar to http://www.brits.co.uk/news/british-breakthrough-the-story-of-london-grammar
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) 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Just went on to search for some ministry of sound details and found that this page is not linked to some other languages, as is there are completely different pages. 2800:2181:E400:62F:FC71:7EC4:8F79:B5CC (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page language selection separated from the spanish page