Talk:Luigi Porto
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Ilghibellinfuggiasco in topic WP:THREE
 | Articles for creation  | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Newspapers
editHi there, I cannot find anything about the use of non-Internet sources such as books or newspapers. Is there a way to link this content by uploading scans? Thank you a lot in advance. Ilghibellinfuggiasco (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:THREE
edithttps://www.ondarock.it/interviste/luigiporto.htm
https://rumoremag.com/2021/05/04/luigi-porto-video-anteprima-family/?amp=1
https://www.distorsioni.net/canali/dischi/dischi-it/scimmie [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ilghibellinfuggiasco: thank you for listing these! I can't get the distorsioni link to work. The Rumore mag sources looks like it might be reliable but the ondarock article is an interview which some editors think don't contribute to notability (I disagree with that usually but I think I'm in the minority). BuySomeApples (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @BuySomeApples, and thank you. Strange about the Distorsioni link, it works fine for me if I copy and paste it in the browser. [1]http://www.distorsioni.net/canali/dischi/dischi-it/scimmie The page was declined for now because of too many primary sources and interviews that are "non independent" I am not sure what "non independent" means (don't think the journalists are involved with the artists they interview on these magazines) but maybe you open my eyes on the fact that interviews themselves are considered primary and non independent by some editors. Is this correct? I was actually preferring interviews to reviews, but if it is so I can change that. I can therefore reconsider the best three sources. [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, probably the problem was in the "https", it seems to work with the "http". Can you please tell me if that is considered a reliable source? Thanks again! [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ilghibellinfuggiasco: thank you for fixing the link! Yeah, reviews are actually better for meeting notability guidelines. Interviews are useful (and I think they can be good indicators of notability) but that's debated more. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks! Here are a couple possible replacements instead of the interview. When you have time, can you tell me which one you think is better? So I can have a clear idea of what "best sources" means. Thanks a lot in advance.
- Musical magazine:
- [2]https://www.sentireascoltare.com/recensioni/luigi-porto-scimmie/
- General press:
- [3]https://calabria.gazzettadelsud.it/articoli/cultura/2021/04/30/musica-luigi-porto-cantautore-calabrese-racconta-lamerica-invisibile-381c86b2-080b-4a04-9d71-e825c787a26e/
- Plus - what about scanned paper references? I have planned articles for deceased musical artists where the sources are mostly on paper. Are those acceptable if uploaded on archive.org independently?
- Best, B [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ilghibellinfuggiasco: thank you for fixing the link! Yeah, reviews are actually better for meeting notability guidelines. Interviews are useful (and I think they can be good indicators of notability) but that's debated more. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, probably the problem was in the "https", it seems to work with the "http". Can you please tell me if that is considered a reliable source? Thanks again! [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @BuySomeApples, and thank you. Strange about the Distorsioni link, it works fine for me if I copy and paste it in the browser. [1]http://www.distorsioni.net/canali/dischi/dischi-it/scimmie The page was declined for now because of too many primary sources and interviews that are "non independent" I am not sure what "non independent" means (don't think the journalists are involved with the artists they interview on these magazines) but maybe you open my eyes on the fact that interviews themselves are considered primary and non independent by some editors. Is this correct? I was actually preferring interviews to reviews, but if it is so I can change that. I can therefore reconsider the best three sources. [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)