Talk:Meister Mephisto

Importance

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

The added links are not above reproach in either reliability or independence. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) and provide reliable references that the band meets a good portion of those criteria, such as coverage in mainstream media, winning important awards, etc. A bunch of links to reviews that are essentially industry promotional material do not really cover it. Reliable references on album sales, concert ticket sales etc would help. - Taxman ^Talk 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you're asking is impossible. Sturmgeist is an undergroung heavy metal band, so there are not going to be album sales numbers readily available on the internet, and concert ticket sales are impossible for a band that does not play concerts. The fact of the matter is Sturmgeist is signed to a very highly recognized record label in the heavy metal world, Is fronted by a musician who has been involved in the heavy metal music scene since 1995 and is very well known. It is a notable band, and Meister Mephisto is notable album, being the first album of the band, and the first release by Cornelius Jakhelln under a band name that is not Solefald. This article does not act as a fan page, or promotional page. It is an encyclopedia article for people to research this artist and his work. It seems to me that you are judging this article by your personal subjective judgements, (Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective but if you search nearly any cohesive music database, or read any appropriately dated heavy metal magazine, you will find Sturmgeist mentioned, reviewed, promoted, etc. I will admit Sturmgeist and their albums are not hugely famous, but they are certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. Also read Arguments#Obscure_content_isn.27t_harmful, because this is a solid article, and has many external links to further research the band.Karpsmöm 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That the band is notable does not mean the individual album is. If what I am asking for is impossible that is proof that this article needs to be merged into the band's. That's no loss of verifiable information and it removes what otherwise does yes does amount to a promotional article for the band. The facts you mention seem to support the band being notable, not the album. - Taxman ^Talk 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The point of Wikipedia is to be an organized source of information. Sturmgeist already has two albums released. Merging the albums information into the band's article would make the band article unnessacarily cluttered. having a seperate article keeps Wikipedia consistently structured. If Sturmgeist had one album, and planned to only release that one album for their whole career merging the two articles might make sense, but this does not. Every band article I have ever seen on Wikipedia has had seperate articles for the band's albums. What you are asking to be done is pointless.Karpsmöm 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

But we've specifically chosen to limit the information we cover to what can meet WP:ATT. Almost nothing in this article can, except what's already in the band's article. The rest can be merged in without clutter. Yes, we have lots of articles that don't meet our policies, but that's just because there are a lot of people that don't understand them, and because the project is a work in progress. We can't fix everything at once. All albums need to be merged into the band article unless there is enough material about the album that meets WP:ATT to support all material in the article. This is an encyclopedia project, not a music promotion one. - Taxman ^Talk 01:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what WP:ATT really has to do with this? Can you please explain? Honestly I just don't see a point in merging them. That would result in an article that is a description of the band being tagged with tags designed for albums. Keeping articles for albums keeps Wikipedia more organized, Wikipedia isn't paper, and it's not running out of space. Merging everything into one article would just result in a long winded article rather than a network of smaller, subject specific articles. I would like to know what kind of information you would want to show on this page.

You've requested coverage in mainstream media, which isn't going to happen because it is not a mainstream band or mainstream album. Wikipedia was never about covering only mainstream culture, and the underground heavy metal culture has become a huge music scene in and of itself regardless. I've given you coverage in various media outlets, such as online heavy metal magazines and websites and two online music database album pages. I could also give you interviews for magazines with Cornelius Jakhelln regarding the band and this album.

You also asked for awards won, which is pretty unfair. There are countless notable and article worthy topics that are not award winning topics. There are thousands upon thousands of music albums that have never won awards. I don't think an award is a fair judge because it limits things to a very small margin.

You asked for album sales figures. Those are difficult to come by for most albums, and most underground music is even harder to garner sales figures from.

You lastly asked for concert ticket sales, which I don't see as relevant to an article about an album. And that's an unfair thing to ask for to begin with. There are many bands that are strictly studio bands are just as notable as touring bands. Sturmgeist is not a touring band generally.

If you can give me a list of some things you feel would justify this article in your opinion. Feel free. I'd be glad to have it and work on including it.Karpsmöm 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

WP:ATT applies because we've specifically chosen to only include material that has been published in reliable third party sources. Really nothing about this album has been that justifies an article on it. You've said there is no information available about the things an album article should talk about. So since there's not enough reliable third party material to justify an article, we simple write a few sentences in the article on Sturmgeist in the section on releases. There's no value to the encyclopedia to have a track listing (it's potential copyright violation anyway if there's no discussion of the tracks, and discussion of the tracks would require reliable third party references), and other than who was involved in the album and it's release date, there is literally no material in the article that justifies inclusion. Everything else only justifies including a mention of the fact that this group released this album. That should be covered in the group's article. Look I understand people want to have an article about their favorite band/album, but if we don't enforce a content policy then we end up with articles about Joe's garage band that's never played for anyone, and what his three friends think about it. We've intentionally set the bar at WP:ATT and it's higher than this for very good reasons. I don't really think I can re-explain the entire attribution policy at this point, but suffice it to say it's a non negotiable policy (in that we can't choose to ignore it) and that this article doesn't meet it. - Taxman ^Talk 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, fair enough, I will make it meet it then. I don't remember off hand, but there was a recent Wikipedia rules related article that listed discog.com and allmusic.com to be reliable sources for referencing albums, I listed both of them as external links, so listing the track list is certainly not copyright violation because both sites refer to the tracklist, as well as the official record label website itself. It's also an unfair comparison to say this is comparable to "Joe's garage band", Sturmgeist has gone on one European tour already since they formed in 2002, and the band is full of notable musicians who have been involved with bands that have sold albums worldwide for years. I am willing to expand on this album article to fulfill the standards you are pushing, but you are not offering any constructive assistance. Offering me a link to WP:ATT is obviously not helping me since I don't even see how it correlates. Wikipedia should be a building process.Karpsmöm 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oy vey. I didn't compare this band to Joe's garage band, I used that to point out we need standards. And the standards are higher than this from what you've told me. You keep (4-5 times so far) telling me reasons the band is notable, not that this album is. Here's why I keep bring up WP:ATT: every fact in the article needs to be attributable to a reliable, third party source. Metal magazines are marginal since they are essentially promotional material. To justify an article there has to be enough material covered in third party sources about the album that couldn't simply be described in the band's article. You'll have to look at other band articles to see the types of things they should cover, but the things I told you above are definitely part of it. Sales info, other info on the influence or importance of the album such as airplay, awards, downloads, description of it's musical style, and it's production, etc. But none of that descriptive stuff is important if you can't show that the album is important beyond just the band that created it. - Taxman ^Talk 05:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I haven't given constructive assistance because so far you haven't made any effort to establish the importance of the album beyond the band. - Taxman ^Talk 05:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's most important because it's the debut album of the band, and more importantly it's the first solo album by Cornelius Jakhelln, who is an important figure in the Norwegian heavy metal scene, and since 1995 up until the release of this album has only worked in the band format with Solefald or as a guest on other artists albums. Karpsmöm 05:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nothing about the above justifies anything more than mentioning that in the band's article. - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Meistermephisto.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:Meistermephisto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Meister Mephisto. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic