Talk:DJ Mag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow...[edit]

A very bad article indeed. Has almost no content at all except for a list and POV content about how renowned the magazine is. Very strange title (doubt if it should be called this way), and doesn't even have a lead introduction. Salaskan 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV flaws removed (where possible). --Buch 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usrbuchfeld (talk • contribs)

Top 100?[edit]

Do we really need the top 100 on this?

The Ronin 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this article *is* crappy as hell. I call deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.174.20 12:26, 4 May 2007 (talk • contribs)

I call improvement. SalaSkan 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose removal of Top 100. Why Top 100 for 2006 and not other years? Either have them all or none. Consider transfer of Top 100 to it's own article if DJ Mag Top 100 is (in itself) notable, or maybe, consider adding the each individual Top 100 accolade to each individual DJ's article (where they exist. --Buch 12:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The top 100 area is very intrusive, difficult to read, and really goes against several sections in WP:NOT. I suggest shortening it to the top 20 for each year, and simply link to the site that the full list can be found. Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 23:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not fit for purpose[edit]

In the state that has been retrieved and expanded, this article is no longer fit for purpose. It is so subjective and so poorly referenced, it is now unusable and (it should be noted) it is factually unsafe. I propose deletion.--Buch 12:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moderated the edit by IvoShandor somewhat. __meco 15:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Article[edit]

A lot of articles pertaining to electronic music DJs and whatnot seem to be pretty crap too, but this one is especially bad. What the hell is this? "Year 2005, finally Paul van Dyk reached number one." There are random phrases like this everywhere on the page. In fact, they make up the majority of the article's content. I don't even see the point in keeping this article, unless someone drastically improves it. Edited - Forgot to log in the first time, sorry. I've done that a couple times. Sandwiches99 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 81.149.160.203[edit]

I have reverted the edits by 81.149.160.203 for the follwing reasons:

  • No citation for claimed "award winning" status of magazine
  • Removal of properly-cited circulation figures (now updated)
  • Removal of properly-cited reference (to the magazine's own website!) to cheating in Top 100 DJ poll
  • No citation for claimed status of Top 100 DJ poll

Nick Cooper (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improved notability and controversy section added[edit]

Have added the pre-public vote list that the magazine's internal staff voted on the top 100 DJ's from 1991-96 and will continue to try and find the other missing entries I have also included a controversy section that discusses a number of claims for inclusion on the Top 100 List's.--Navops47 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing controversy section without consensus[edit]

I manually re-added the whole section that was removed by User:0x38 the controvery section is included because there is notable media coverage surrounding the list's selection criteria, the influence of big business on it this is also covered in the electronic dance music article here: Electronic_dance_music#Criticism please do not remove the section again without stating your objections for it's removal on here.--Navops47 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the controversy section again but placed a NPOV dispute tag on it to allow editors to discuss first before just deleting it for the record I am not POV pushing instead the inclusion of the section is just trying to follow Wikipedia:NPOV Balancing different views. The opinions given in the section follow this guideline "When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.[1]". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it". All the opinions provided through journalist interviews have been correctly named and cited.--Navops47 (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think if two separate editors have removed it, there's the embryo of a consensus. We endeavour to write neutral articles; even where opinions are quoted, they still cause an imbalance which in this article hasn't been corrected. Now I'll hold my hands up and say I'm one of the worst for removing sections which are just plain ugly but WP:QUOTE stipulates that quotes of 40 words of more must be encased in <blockquote>...</blockquote>s and that any quote should be encased in double apostrophes (", there is a technical name for them which has slipped my mind) not italics. And in any event, that section contains nearly two thirds of the total character count for the page, which is utterly WP:UNDUE.--Launchballer 08:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken I'm fine with the reduced version you have now put on place just was not happy with the the whole section being removed.--Navops47 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different point perhaps is, how notable is this award when the process of awarding attracted this amount of controversy? Karst (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DJ Magazine. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 not Top 150 not Top250 not Top 550 not Top 1050[edit]

Please stick to Top 100 as that's the poll that brings up the most multiple sources and otherwise if we are including Top150 the sections dealing with Top100 need to be re-written including the section on criticisms of the Top100 and provided reliable press coverage to support.--Navops47 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a publication primarily.[edit]

Firstly this article is primarily about a Magazine the annual list it produces is an annual one off poll the publication writes all year about all aspects of dance or edm related musicians, dj's, producers, re-mixers reviews singles, albums and so on. It is more famously known for its Top 100 list poll and has extensive coverage in relation to available reliable sources on that topic. The current inclusion of the most recent poll should be included however inserting a Top30 list which is just a cut down version of the list should not be included as you cant find sources stating just Top30. My suggestion is if editors want one then create one like I did for the DJ Awards article and a separate List of DJ Awards winners and nominees otherwise this article will be to large and it ends just being an article of lists.--Navops47 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. - TheMagnificentist 10:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, some possible suggestions List of DJ Magazines Top 100 DJ's Poll winners and nominees I think it should have two distinct parts the public vote period e.g DJ Magazine Top Lists Public vote then each year Top 100 DJs 2016 and so on and this is important the period before it became a public e.g. DJ Magazine Top Lists Staff vote, Top 100 DJs 1996, 1995 and so on although there was only a Top 3 for the first few years. I say this for how its evolved I don't agree as some people have being doing wiping out references before 1997 obviously finding a Top 100 list back to the very first one might be problematic unless you have sources etc anyway keep me updated with your drafting.--Navops47 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2017[edit]

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: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 07:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Magazine → DJ Mag – https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=DJ%20Mag,DJ%20Magazine Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tim Deluxe[edit]

This article redirects from Tim Deluxe, but doesn't mention him at all as far as I can tell although Wiki NL has a page for him. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Deluxe — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarpoHarks (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DJ_Mag&oldid=1195123638"