This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
bloggy sources that are borderline fanzine and sources like Amazon. With the way these sources are used to justify dropping big names in a way like "has been compared to A, B, C..." suggests notability masking Graywalls (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Graywalls the comparisons were sonic comparisons, and that's commonplace in reviews and band articles for discussion of the band's style. The Amazon source is for a release by the artist, it's not meant for notability but to verify that the song was released. Look at how sources are used. The Phantom Tollbooth was a long-running website of good reputation with an established staff and editorial team.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reliable sources issue should be resolved, as I switched to primary sources (digital listing via Apple Music for the one compilation, and I added info about the same song being on the 2005 re-release of Sonrise supported by the album liner notes themselves).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Graywalls, Chronicles of Chaos is listed at WP:A/S as a reliable source. Additionally, if it's one specific source, and it's not used throughout the article, you can tag that specific source with an inline tag, you don't need to slap it on the whole article. But in this case, not even that is warranted since it is listed as a reliable source. If you don't think it is reliable, then have that conversation at the WikiProject Albums talk page or RSN. But right now that consensus overrides your personal consensus here on this obscure article page.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 26 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Per WP:PSTS, primary sourced contents should be minimal. I've also just reviewed WP:RSPRIMARY. @3family6:, you commented CoC is reliable. Is this based on one of those lists where you're the sole or the main curator? I'm seeing nothing other than a persuasive essay you have written and a comment from one commentator saying "I agree". So, hardly a confirmed WP:RS, but probably WP:QS. Sourcing to interviews conducted by some amateurs create problems, because the interviewers directs the flow of conversation and affects the contents in the interview. If the interviewee is allowed to go on and on and on and on and on about what they wish to express and we use that, it causes excessive voice to be given to the interview subject, which then would be like citing the interviewed subject's own blog. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Graywalls the statements by Börud are primary. The interviewer's description of the band as doom metal is secondary. And a citation of the band as that when it's not controversial is not undue. As to the source, it's explicitly noted by another RS as reliable. It's notably reliable. But the reliability of that specific source should be discussed there, per WP:CONLEVEL.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
When there is a reliably published by a publishing house confirming something as straight forward as genre, we don't stack up sources. If two reliable books disagrees on genre and they're both reliable, then we say that sources disagree and include both versions. What exactly was the point to have multiple sources for something that's not even disputed in the first place? Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
