Talk:Puddles Pity Party

Title and scope?

Any thoughts on how things ought to be between the following titles and scopes? Do we have one article or more? Would WP:NOTABILITY support more than one?

• Mike Geier
• Puddles Pity Party
• Kingsized (band)

Whatever happens, we have to keep scope of content and title aligned. Also, if there is a single article, the others will be redirects to here anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good as it is now! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

True Identity

So I think this needs to be cleared up: Who exactly is the talent? Are Mike Geier and Puddles one and the same? Is the story about Geier discovering a clown in some ramshackle bar in the '90s just folklore? Haven't been able to find anything verifiable on that. Needs to be addressed. Hhtesntwr (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder did you read the first sentence of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

YouTube videos

Why are YouTube videos not allowed to support up-to-date claims of the number of video viewer hits? Why is the entire YouTube site described as an "unreliable source" per se? Have these links they been banned, as such, at WT:IRS? Are there examples of other music-related articles where this has occurred? An expmple video is here.Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Good question, YouTube videos have always been treated as fine sources for showing view count. They always have been. I don't know why this other user is removing them and adding ridiculous templates. For a BLP article it most definitely have enough citations to verify this are important. And there are not excessive citations too closely associated with the subject. Every single reference is distant from the subject save for one. I'm not getting into an edit-war over this though, I tried to explain on their talk page but they keep throwing up erroneous templates. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think 11 good references, for a small article like this one, is not really a huge problem. More are always welcome. of course. I've removed the "notability" template as I thought it was a joke. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's the second time that template was added without reason then. I already removed it. There was a GNG template on there earlier today which also made no sense. The references being deleted today were actually all decent, I don't know what the rationale was behind their removal. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that these edits have been made by new editor User:Lacypaperclip. And I also see that there is quite a bit of discussion about this article at their Talk page. Perhaps they will post some kind of explanatory response here before too long and not just engage in an edit war. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I posted on her talk page about this but it doesn't seem that my words are meeting their mark, so I've stopped trying. I noticed she is new as well so I'm assuming good faith that she doesn't know all the rules entirely yet. In any case, i'll work more on this page at a later date, but I'll continue to check this talk page for how this plays out. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources too closely associated with the subject?

Where is the evidence for that {{third-party|date=September 2017}} template? Is this meant to refer to YouTube videos, from Geier's own YT site, which have now been deemed to be no longer suitable, or to something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence, I'd like to get another person in here because this page is starting to look laughably atrocious. It should be reverted to before today's edits as there is nothing wrong with half the references that are currently being deleted and replaced with "citation needed." SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't revert my recent edits! As they add a correction and a good source! And I don't see what was wrong with the YT source that I added, which lasted all of 4 minutes. I found that revert quite annoying actually. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I added a few good refs, as did you. I don't know why the other editor is removing them and adding citation needed everwhere. I've never seen an issue with YouTube sources for view count - ever. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Mike Geier → Puddles Pity Party – per WP:STAGENAME Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Mvcg66b3r: Better keep his official legal name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Totally agree, Geier has performed under a variety of names. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. We can have Puddles as a section within this, with a targeted redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Andy Dingley. Lacypaperclip (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. I do think a dedicated section for Puddles would be appropriate so we don't conflate the act with the actor. -- Netoholic @ 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent changes

Hey, thanks for the message regarding my changes at Mike Geier. I did explain them in the edit summary section. In short: it was unneccesary detailed and contained what I call also-ism: he did ... he also did ... he also did ... I shortened it without leaving neccessary facts and resources out for sakes of coherence and style. While I think it debatable, to list every tv-show-appearance, but not neccessary wrong to do so, I think to recount them in great detail is, if the appearences weren't of greater importance, simply too much information. WP is not a fanpage! 95.90.115.121 (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Thelost byte that your edit was made it good faith but was unnecessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)