Talk:Disc jockey

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbreezy237.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links

I just removed an external link as useless. My reasoning is, per WP:ELNO, that the link "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I see no reason why a very short webpage with two-sentence definitions should be appended to this much longer and more thorough article. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

gamimena paidia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.131.82 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

C or K?

Is it "disk jockey" or "disc jockey"? And why? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the statement about it "originally" being spelled "disk jockey" and then changing because of compact discs. As far as I'm concerned, it has always been spelled "disc jockey".

There may be differences in American vs. British, Canadian, etc., spellings. Also I do agree that the computer "floppy disk" was normally spelled with a k, while the cd-rom disc with a c. But I don't agree that the same thing is true with phonograph records. IamNotU (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

'Disc' is the UK spelling, 'Disk' was the US spelling. The 'disc' in CD was spelled that way because the medium was a co-production between Sony (Japanese) and Philips (European), both of whom spell it that way. Although I have no personal knowledge of this, I believe the US has now adopted 'Disc' for music media and 'Disk' for computer media, leading to some confusion over how to spell the word on the Hi-MD format, which uses the same media for both. 80.229.236.30 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, this should say "DJ", which is the term literally everyone uses. You wouldn't find a single person who likes DJ's use that term, ever.

No. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This article seems old

The mobile DJs I've seen just have a laptop and music gear. Haven't seen discs for 5+ years. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know of several who still use CDs, and some who lug heavy crates of vinyl. Not everybody sees the need to stay current with technology, especially if what they have is working for them. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

HIGHEST AWARDED DISC JOCKEY

Hi Everyone

I am trying to find out who ias the world highest awarded D.J He/She must be voted on by the entertainment industry in general not by a company.. He/She is NOT a radio Disc Jockey and must be either a club or function D.J.

Has your country got awards for D.J's ( Not Radio ) Here is Australia we have the Entertainer of the Year Awards where votes are taken from every area of the Industry ( Entertainment Industry )

I would love you to email me please prior to the end of Febuary

At aussiemagic2007@hotmail.com with as much info as you can

Regards

paul J. Tyler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.109.53 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC) deadmau5 is the sickes dj in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.173.198 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This website I think provides the best metrics for DJ popularity: https://topdeejays.com/ I wonder it's appropriate to include this in the article, and if so how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HungryJoeBell (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Add a 2000s subselection

With the changes in technology in the 2000s, the article could be improved by adding a "2000s" subsection.69.181.118.225 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help to improve my article

Hello, I just made article about clubbing subculture. In order to attract some new editors, I was a bit violent last night in editing this one, sorry. I would be glad if you can somehow link my article Clubbing here, and help me improve mine. --Nemanjanede (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite your sources and you'll have more luck bringing something about clubbing to this article. If you're short on reliable ones, try the books Last night a dj saved my life: the history of the disc jockey, Subcultures: cultural histories and social practice, Beyond subculture: pop, youth and identity in a postcolonial world, Digital diversions: youth culture in the age of multimedia and Music and youth culture. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Narrow focus

This article has almost no mention of the radio history of DJs. No mention of their hit-making power in the '50s and '60s via airplay. And no mention of Wolfman Jack? I mean, I know it's only Wikipedia but come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.209.61 (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true. Radio station DJ's were around long before club DJs. I'll see if I can dig up some relevant historical material to add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I did add some material to the 50s section, but I notice the article was originally written to favor club DJs over radio DJs. That's understandable since modern radio DJs are all but extinct and many people only know of club DJs. Maybe a solution is two separate sections giving a short history of each? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, they are two different careers (although I do know of at least one radio engineer who used radio equipment (carts) when he moonlighted as a club DJ in the early '70s, and surely there were others). Thanks for what historical info there is on radio DJs, but as the article stands now, it would seem that the job died out in 1960. The careers of many then-famous "personality" DJs peaked into the late '60s (when FM album formats took hold, still featuring DJs of a different sort). The decline of DJs on U.S. radio actually came around 1980 (only my impression), when talk radio began to take over AM airwaves. There is so much material to be added, that this really should be TWO different articles. But how to differentiate their titles? Club Disk Jockey vs. Radio Disk Jockey? Suggestions? Eplater (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

At this date their is a fair amount of history on Radio DJs.(my thoughts from just reading. AS I look at both article and the talk page- radio DJ versus Club DJ- enough material for some day two separate articles. I came to page with interest in FCC and government involvement with broadcast radio and regulations. Radio stations must obtain and renew license from the FCC (broadcast radio- I expect an internet only radion station might be exempt). But what of the radion station employees. Do (did?) the DJ ever have to get a license from the FCC? If this has changed over time when by year and why? Wfoj2 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a separate article with a title like "Radio disc jockey" might be warranted. And to answer your question, at one time, radio DJ's in the US who operated any of the transmission equipment (this could include a DJ from a small local station turning off the transmitter on Sunday night) had to have a third class General radiotelephone operator license, as did taxi, police and fire dispatchers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely a separate article for radio DJs is warranted. This article smacks of historical ignorance in its current format. The argument above that most people mean the term the way it is used here is not only irrelevant, it is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Unschool 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Long since taken care of. See History of radio disc jockeys. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like a good article. I still would like this article to do a better job of clarifying the origin of the term, but it's not a big deal. Unschool 05:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

airforce dj

do we really need the airforce to illustrate what is a DJ ? personnaly i am shocked american army invaded enought territory(vietnam,afghanistan,irak) so i suggest that wikipedia, as a "neutral" ressource base, should keep "at least" the arts away from the american army influence...

i think the intention with this image was to provide a copyright free ressource but i don't agree with that choice..

i'd be looking for a replacement image soon or reverse this change.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.127.76 (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Images created by the US Government are copyright free, and since the DJ is actually a civilian entertainer and there's nothing in the photo that identifies it as military, my opinion is that it's a benefit to this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the photo and I think it is good for the article. No need to change it. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, really. I think 81.240.127.76 is overreacting a bit. Just because German-based DJ Blaze happened to get his picture taken by an Air Force photographer doesn't mean this article has come under "american army influence." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry LuckyLouie and Binksternet, but your arguments did not convinced me either and i replaced the armylicensed picture with another copyright free image of another 'civilian' DJ, that i found in another article, don't take it personally, that's simply the way wikipedia is intended to work, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "intended to work" by consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

guys you mst be kidding right? everytime i remove this military referenced image (see original is here: http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090925-F-1239W-510.jpg) you always find a new reason to add it again.. you have to explain why this so called dj blaze is SO important in Dj history and what exactly you intend by "global scope" ... what are your criteria? explain please.. my guess is you intensionally want to add a reference to us military, one way or another (edit history proves your intentionality at least). this is not what can be call consensus yet.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand how the image of a German civilian DJ who happened to be an entertainer for an Air Force base event is "a reference to the U.S. military" and why this is not appropriate for the article. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy that discourages use of images taken by U.S. Government employees. Do you have any reasonable explanation for your repeated removal of the image and vandalism of the Wikimedia file info? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

this is preposterous! first of all i never commited any act of vandalism. i just suggested illustration to enhance the article, so quite the opposite,isn't it? you did not explain why dj blaze(i have nothing against him) is so crucial in dj history(in your eyes). in my case i just proposed important figure of musical history and dj scene (dj spooky and jeff mills) ... so if your intention is to propose 'amateur' dj or less famous guys, i can understand that, cause it's part of the story, and i'm sure we can find a copyright free image of a less famous dj wich is not related to a party in an airforce base, because in my opinion this kind of party doesn't have a primary link with DJ history, or maybe you can explain me how you relate an airforce ball to dj history? and why is dj blaze so important? please answer for the community here.. i mean if editing an article to suggest brillant figure that illustrate the subject of an article is an act of vandalism, then wikipedia is no more what it says it is: a free encyclopedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble following your explanation. Can you clarify why photos taken by Air Force photographers are not appropriate for this particular article and must be removed? I could understand if it showed someone dressed in cammo and holding a rifle or there was a US flag in the photo. But no, all this particluar photo shows is a German civilian named DJ Blaze on a neutral grey background. Maybe you have something against Germans?- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo in question is perfectly okay to use. It shows the showmanship of the DJ. It is appropriate for the top of the article where a general DJ photo should go, rather than a photo of a specific 'star' DJ. The photo puts DJ Blaze facing into the article from the right hand side which is ideal for a top photo. On the other hand, the DJ Spooky photo has Spooky facing to the right which means the photo is best placed on the left border. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So true. DJ Blaze ain't invading no countries or representin' US imperialism. He's merely shown rockin' his turntables on a neutral gray background spreading peace and tolerance and pumpin' out the tunes for his audience regardless of race, color, creed or nationality. :) - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

let's make it clear (again) i have nothing against dj blaze or German citizens.. the issue here is that the top image of the article about disc jockey is doing a reference to a 'party' in a us airforce base ( http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil )... the dj 'culture' is all about sharing good moment, dancing, having fun, listening music with friends, spreading peace and tolerance (as LuckyLouie mentioned it), and those values are not primarily associated with the US Air force values( http://www.airforce.com/learn-about/our-values/ ).. there is obviously other link and reference that should come first to illustrate this article. again this is my opinion i feel concerned by the subject so let's find a consensus. why do you insist so much to publish this particular image ? there is no discussion here since you never answer to my simple questions.. so it seems to me that your only concern is to promote the values of the us air force through wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone other than yourself thinks that the photo of DJ Blaze (no guns, no planes, no insignias, no flags, no uniforms, etc. it's just a DJ on a grey background) is "promoting the values of the U.S. Air Force". You are alone in that rather strange belief. The picture is perfectly acceptable for use here. That it's less dark and blurry than the other DJ pictures makes it highly suitable for a featured position. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

dear LuckyLouie, the problem is you arbitrary choosed this image and you seem to think that you are the only one able to decide what is good or not here. so you unilaterally keep publishing this image again and again.. so again i'm asking: why do you keep publishing this image ? my concern is not the image itself, its color background, or the dj, or the german citizen, the internet is full of image of this kind i could find 20 similar in 5 minutes . my concern comes from the image title and the meta, that are a clear reference to an event occuring in a us air force base. so when you edit the article you see clearly the first line is mentionning the air force ( "Club Eifel's DJ Blaze performing at the 2009 Air Force Ball."). Again i don't see other explanation for publishing this particular image other than promoting an image from the us air force in an article concerning an entertainment practice. so this make me think that it's an infiltration of the us air force values in a cultural article. this lacks neutrality in my opinion, so i propose to remove or replace this image,since modifying the meta would not be correct.

comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

I still don't get it. How does the caption mentioning the DJ is performing at an Air Force ball promote "us air force values"???? "Infiltration"??? How does it violate WP:NPOV???- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

i allready answered that.. we are not discussing around a military related article, so why do you keep publishing a us air force image of a DJ ? now please answer this: why another picture featuring a dj at work(not related to any military event) is not suitable in your eyes? and why do you feel offensed(calling vandalism my intervention) when i simply find replacement image which are fair enough suitable . i've proposed different version from other articles and wikimedia base which you apparently can't help removing... how to find a consensus in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No one but yourself shares your view that the image is unsuitable. The best thing you could do at this point is to gain some support for your views from other, more established editors. The NPOV Noticeboard is one of many places you could try. In the meantime, I've requested page protection for the article to prevent further edit warring on your part. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

this is still not an answer.. i am not a vandal, never pushed any offensive image, only tried to enhance the content of an article, this should not be an offense..

->why another picture of a dj at work would not make it? (answer is awaited) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your answer has been given, several times: the only one who feels the DJ Blaze image must be removed and replaced with "another picture of a dj at work" is yourself. Your theory that the DJ Blaze picture "promotes US Air Force values" (or other nonsense) is neither understood nor shared by established editors who frequent this page. And since no one but yourself objects to the picture, there's no good reason to remove it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

apart from you LuckyLouie,(who uploaded this image on 2nd of October) the other "established editors who frequent this page" i see is Binksternet, who apparently (following his logged intervention) is a great fan of us air force and other military or war topics... this does not help to convince me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

the original image was uploaded from this source : http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=dj&page=2 . As anyone can see the topic of this gallery is not specialized in musical events or entertainment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the situation one more time, but I can't promise I'll engage you further since your actions and comments are beginning to verge on disruption of the encyclopedia. I can't speak for Binksternet, but I honestly don't have any special love for the US military nor do I have any personal prejudice against it, but more to the point, editors personal feelings aren't relevant to the job of improving Wikipedia articles and should not be a topic of Talk page discussion. I originally added the image in question because it was a well-framed, high resolution image of a DJ that came from a copyright-free source. After considering your objections, myself and another established editor agreed that the image was appropriate and suitable for inclusion. The fact that DJ Blaze's photo happened to be taken at an Air Force base party in Germany is no more relevant than the fact that DJ Spooky's photo was taken at the Sundance Film Festival. There is no Wikipedia policy I know of that restricts locations where images were photographed. That really is the long and short of it. Again, I suggest you find wider support for your views rather than continuing your disruptive behavior here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for answering my question. So now we have a fairly rational base to debate here as you admit your intention in publishing this image was to find a "well-framed, high resolution image of a DJ that came from a copyright-free source".. fair enough! then in my opinion i agree the picture you choosed totally match these requirements, but i think it could be a better choice. I still don't understand something, it would not come to my mind to look into military copyright free stock image to find a good picture of a DJ!!?? i would go (for example) to flickr.com which has a huge stock of copyright free picture made by amateur or professional photographer. we could find tons of better picture very easily.I find very depressing the way i was threated here just because my intention was to enhance the quality and the beauty of an article. I mean ok this picture is well framed and it is high resolution but it's also more than that : it was taken during a military event in a military base occuring in front of professional military and even the photo was taken by a member of the us army, so in my opinion this picture is more related to a specific military event than the average musical event. I'm sure it won't come to your mind to search a picture at a counter-culture website to illustrate an article about a general of the navy or any kind of military topic.. That's the reason why i advocate that WE could find a better image and enhance the quality of this article. Now that the edit is locked it's the good time to choose in plain serenity the best image among several proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you looking for another image, perhaps of a counterculture DJ. However you frame your position, though, it sounds like you don't want the USAF DJ because he was working for a military service arm. I'm sorry, but that is one of the many possibilities of the career of a DJ. The DJ's customer is a typical one; other DJs will run into the same type of gig.

The photo is well-composed and it is dramatic. I like it a lot. If you find a counterculture DJ photo, place it elsewhere in the article. Don't replace the USAF DJ just because of his customer. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Like you said Binksternet for a professional DJ, mixing for the us air force is a very singular event in a career if not extremely rare or never happening, probably because partying is not a primary mission of the USAF. Indeed it is so specific it makes even less reasonable to illustrate an article with such a picture... we're talking about semiotics. I still don't see no serious reason not to replace this strange picture even though Binksternet likes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

one more thing Binksternet: to quote LuckyLouie "editors personal feelings aren't relevant to the job of improving Wikipedia articles and should not be a topic of Talk " . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Following Binksternet logic, it seems that the USAF DJ picture could appear in the article, but should not be the top illustration of this article, as it represents a minor event.

I remark that the protection of the article is abusive, considering this statement : «  Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users, nor to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. »

Looking at my edits in history clearly shows NO vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.36.58 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Date inaccuracies

The caption for the bottom-most picture is almost certainly inaccurate. It claims "DJ Hazel in the late 1990s", however it appears to show a DJ with a pair of Pioneer CDJ-1000, which weren't released until 2001. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you're right, the metadata for the photo says it was taken 13 June 2008 (!). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a terrible photo either way, and should probably be dropped in its entirety. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I just moved it to the gallery in case anyone really loves it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

1960

the wore tigh short dresses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.171.160 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes due to advances in DJ Technology

I have published an additional paragraph in the Techniques section to reflect the changes in DJ methodology/skills as a result of new technologies found in DJ hardware and software.

Discussion on these points welcomed, particularly from user 58.111.64.68 who has conducted multiple reverts without any explanation. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyiliev (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I have found that even though there has been a large shift in the technique used by DJ's , the technology used is a matter of preference. The place I work at alone Supersonic Speakerhire has a wide variety of DJ decks , scratch kits and mixers as well as speakers. This is mainly due to each DJ preferring to use his own specific gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.23.72 (talk • contribs)

Good additions, but they need a citation to some published source. Wikipedia operates under a WP:No original research policy, meaning that personal experience should not be the whole basis for editing additions. Something should be found in, say, a guide to DJing, about new technologies. I can help you with citing sources. Read up on WP:CITE if you want to jump in and get going. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what citations would be relevant - the paragraph above doesn't include any citations when explaining the existing/traditional techniques so I didn't have anything as a guide. I avoided linking to specific DJ software for not wanting to appear as though it was advertising or promotion. Would linking to the specifications of the hardware/software in question, where the features described are outlined, satisfy the need for citation? Jeremyiliev (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The additions just got reverted for a 3rd time by user 58.111.64.68, what is my best option moving forward? I saw there is a dispute resolution method for 3RRs, should I follow that and make a report? Jeremyiliev (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That IP editor is headed for a block because of unreasonable reversions. The IP geolocates to Brisbane, Australia, which is a seacoast town in what is now their midwinter. I am guessing that the IP editor is angry from recent lack of work, and will settle down when the crowds return to the beaches.

Regarding your addition, I think we can find some decent DJ guides that support some or all of it. I'm not very worried, and I don't think you should be. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I looked around and did not find any kind of guide that talks about new technology without concentrating on a particular manufacturer's gear. The technology choices are pretty specific, not very general. I will continue to look. By the way, there are some fun short videos to watch at Rane's website, one of the places I was looking for a general guide. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo should be removed

DJ whatever performing at an AIR FORCE ball?! Wikipedia should not promote a military agenda!! Please choose a CIVILIAN DJ performing at a civilian festival. Thank you. 93.219.166.236 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Feel free to provide an appropriately licensed, high quality picture of a civilian DJ. Editors often choose the most visually appealing images for articles, not necessarily for pushing certain agendas. As the US military's images are all PD, it means there will be a lot of military images available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The DJ is actually a civilian entertainer. Previously discussed here. Consensus was to keep the photo. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't refer to this discussion regarding any consensus, there was not a consensus since the 2 editors (both specialist on military topics) refused to change the photo after several propositions.. which constitute a clear abuse of their hierarchical power as veteran editors of this "particiipative" encyclopdia.. This photo and its caption are a non sense for this encyclopedy.. really sorry to see this has not been solved 3 years later.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.64.16.211 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the image on the page. It is up to you to discuss deletion of this image if you so choose.Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

do radio dj's select the music they play?

It seems to me something should be said in this article about what radio DJ's do to select the music they play, both in the past and presently. At least for a while, although I haven't heard as much about it for a year or two, this was a somewhat controversial topic, with commentators saying the music on radio had become bland because it is mostly selected by corporations, and that in the past it was better because it was selected by the DJ's themselves. There's probably someone who knows about this topic and could add more solid info to the article than I could. Someone reading this article might likely be interested in this topic.Greg Dahlen (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2015

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: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both sides, but pretty clearly there is no consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Disc jockey → DJ – The term "disc jockey" is outdated, sort of like saying "weblog" for "blog". It is not really representative of the article, since it mostly refers only to radio announcers playing music; I don't think this term is used at all to refer to a person controlling the music in a club or rave. Google ngrams shows a sharp rise and it is now about twenty times more used than either "deejay" or "disc jockey". Some of this might be due to the use of "DJ" in individual DJ's stage names, but in a way this also proves the point. P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per google trends. I appreciate that people may search on "dj" in conjunction with other terms but this clearly shows common real world usage. The article will still appear on search list for Disk Jockey of DJ but, either way, DJ strikes me to have more integrity. Search listings would present as follows:

DJ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ

A disc jockey (abbreviated DJ, D.J. or deejay) is a person who plays recorded music

for an audience, either a radio audience if the mix is broadcast or the ...

GregKaye 20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Long before the club DJ even existed, the term "DJ" or "Disc Jockey" referred to radio DJs. Per the discussion at Talk:Disc_jockey#Narrow_focus, I encourage a move of the historical radio DJ content to Disc jockey (radio). This article is mainly about club DJs as the term is popularly known now.- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• Split per LuckyLouie. ONR (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "DJ" is also used as a moniker for rappers, who do not spin discs, and are clearly not just disc flingers. And these are even more likely than any deejay -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

But this is actually an argument for the change, because the content of the article is mostly about the modern kind of DJ who rarely handles vinyl discs or CDs. The term DJ originated from the term "disc jockey", but the original term has now become obsolescent. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not, because rappers do not do playlists. They make new music instead. They are not disc jockeys / playlist operators, they are rappers who use DJ as a moniker -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

70.51.202.113 I would be interested to hear about the use of DJ terminology to rapping. Historically the reference from rap seems to be to music sequencing DJs - as in DJ Jazzy Jeff as in DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince who, among their other outputs, produced, He's the DJ, I'm the Rapper.

Its no biggie but there is no relevant content to rap presented at DJ (disambiguation). Several songs are mentioned: DJ (Alphabeat song), DJ (David Bowie song), DJ (H & Claire song), DJ (Jamelia song) and DJ (Marianta Pieridi song) and, at this stage and without other clarification being given, I'm working on the presumption that the DJ is used in connection to music sequencing "disk jockeys". GregKaye 08:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Original "disc jockey" term is still in wide use. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "DJ" can just as commonly be used as a person's nickname or given name. The current situation is preferable since the current title has natural disambiguation and a proper hatnote explaining to editors that "DJ redirects here" and presents them with the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (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.

Disk Jockey Description

just some basic and historical adage that seems to be missing from the Wiki description of a DJ, Disk Jockey as referred to.

Primarily the term was originally given to 'Announcers' in the 1940's and popularised in the 50's rock n Roll era .

The title is that of 'riding' the Vynil or Shellac disks that were pressed as 'records' that were commonly 10" or 7" .

the usage describes that the Announcer 'rode' the music with a flow and expression giving at least the Artist and title of what was about to, had been, and sometimes talked over instrumental parts of the track.

Most in the 40's also read out sponsor announcements between the music played, this was paer of their agreement.

so 'Disk' = the Vynil audio hardcopy . 'Jockey' = to ride between or over .

this also applies to any person playing whatever other music format in this case since the 1940's / 50's providing they speak.

after that, you get 'Presenter' on many stations, on particular FM & DAB which insist they their operatives are not DJ's.

On Rockabilly Radio we have DJ's, we don't read News, Weather or have sports announcements.

However We do have 'announcements' that our DJ's make .

please add to the description before this important issue gets lost in history

Regards

Dave Brighton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.83.148 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. The term disc jockey was exclusively used to describe a radio DJ for at least 50 years before it was superseded by the club DJ. I recommend moving the radio DJ material to a new article, such as Disc jockey (radio), and leaving a disambiguation link at the top of this article. See the section of this Talk page Talk:Disc_jockey#Narrow_focus for details. The beginnings of a draft for this new article are located located here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved Y at Radio_personality#Radio_disc_jockey_history. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Famous Female DJ's

Female DJ's that are famous for their craft should be mentioned in this article. Such as DJ Tatiana, DJ Sandra Collins, DJ Chassis, DJ Maya Jane Coles, just to name a few. Sage Cadence (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disc jockey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815205546/http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/life-style/your-face-here/mitch-lee-and-sandro-petrillo-beat-drop-11934/ to http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/life-style/your-face-here/mitch-lee-and-sandro-petrillo-beat-drop-11934/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

DJ's "Miming"

I see that it is apparently notable: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)\

Disputed content relocated here:OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Miming

While miming in instrumental performance, that is, pretending to play the instruments while a pre-recorded backing track sounds over the loudspeakers, is mostly associated with traditional instruments (e.g., guitar, piano, etc.), there is evidence that some DJs are miming the motions of mixing onstage while a pre-recorded mix plays over the speakers. Magnetic magazine states that there are "[c]onstant battles of button pushing and pre-recorded sets [in the DJ world], along with in depth arguments on whether or not cords were plugged in." The 2015 article states that a model/DJ was "twisting nobs and touching buttons" at a DJ set, but the CDJs were not being used and all the audience was hearing was a "pre-recorded set being played through the speakers." <ref> {{cite web |url=https://www.magneticmag.com/2015/05/this-most-fake-dj-set-ever-seen/ |title=THIS IS THE MOST FAKE DJ SET YOU HAVE EVER SEEN |last=Calvano |first=Jordan |date= 11 May 2015|website=www.magneticmag.com|publisher=Magnetic Magazine |access-date=30 June 2017 |quote=}}</ref>

I'm suggesting removing this section completely as Miming isn't substantial topic and doesn't represent a consistent technique. Individual cases with famous listed artists generally include TV broadcasting, where it's often impossible to arrange a live performance. And, of course, these facts don't make them fake DJs.Iiiked (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Full text grab

"The idea behind the modern DJ has shifted radically in the past five years. Constant battles of button pushing and pre-recorded sets, along with in depth arguments on whether or not cords were plugged in. It's an ongoing debate, but in this recently surfaced video of Colombian DJ and model Natalia Paris, there is no question what is going on.

From the front this would have looked like any other DJ set, music blaring and Natalia twisting nobs and touching buttons, but an arial view reveals that this DJ set is completely fake. There is absolutely nothing going on with the CDJ's, and it's no more than pre-recorded set being played through the speakers.

Unfortunately, this type of stuff is happening more often than not. DJ Natalia gets paid $10k per gig, but it's not so much her accolades behind the decks that get her booked. Promoters understand that people will come watch a celebrity or model perform, so they pay extra to book them when there are countless other talented artists looking for gigs.

This was the reason Deadmau5 said he wouldn't be playing in Ibiza this year, after hearing about Kim Kardashian getting a residency there, and we've witnessed with our own eyes Paris Hilton clearing a dance floor at her own party with an atrocious DJ set. At least she was attempting to perform, but this didn't prevent the train wreck.

This trend doesn't seem to be slowing down but actually speeding up, and a time where being a DJ is more reliant on your social status than talent seems to be upon us."<ref> {{cite web |url=https://www.magneticmag.com/2015/05/this-most-fake-dj-set-ever-seen/ |title=THIS IS THE MOST FAKE DJ SET YOU HAVE EVER SEEN |last=Calvano |first=Jordan |date= 11 May 2015|website=www.magneticmag.com|publisher=Magnetic Magazine |access-date=30 June 2017 |quote=}}</ref>

I tried to use a mix of quotes and paraphrasing to provide key points from Jordan Calvano's article in Magnetic. In the article, he says a DJ did a set that was "completely fake", and which was only a pre-recorded set.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems notable enough for a few sentences in the Techniques section, citing the Digital DJ Masterclass, and Empire of Dirt books to define what "miming" is (it's not a new thing), and the billboard.com article with the example about Disclosure (duo) miming that also mentions David Guetta miming. The magneticmag.com is probably a WP:RS as well, although it's best to avoid the sensational angle ("so and so did a set that was completely fake!") and go for a more encyclopedic "just the facts" tone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So....something like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi User talk:LuckyLouie, thanks for the good suggestions. Yeah, you are right. We need to tone down the sensational writing. Some journalists writing about pop music topics can be a bit dramatic (every 20 year old who can play 2 notes on guitar called a "legendary prodigy who is revolutionizing rock guitar"!)...It's good to cool down the sensationalism for WP.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:OnBeyondZebrax: Your edits are great! Thank you for taking the time to do this. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Remove the "role of women" bit

Gendre has nothing to do with DJing. So it shouldn't be mentioned. It looks like somebody obsessed with hip hop and social justice splooged all over the page. 2607:FEA8:9920:10F4:50FB:E558:1926:622C (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree. Reading through the section I don't understand what's the actual 'role'. Iiiked (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 154.5.234.189 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disc jockey. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219181927/http://www.urb.com/permalink/4148/Justice-Unplugged.html to http://www.urb.com/permalink/4148/Justice-Unplugged.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303093403/http://www.genderandeducation.com/resources/subjects/music/ to http://www.genderandeducation.com/resources/subjects/music/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

First DJ claim

Jimmy Savile claimed to be the first DJ and the first to mix two turntables (a claim repeated on this page) but the use of two turntables and a mixer was already common in radio stations. See the second picture on http://www.orbem.co.uk/women/women.htm which refers to August 1941. The RCA Type 81-A mixer in the 1939 catalogue (page 31 on http://bh.hallikainen.org//wiki/uploads/HaroldHallikainen/RCA-1939-Catalog.pdf) has 'an input key for switching between two turntables'. Manufacturers had been making twin deck gramophones since at least the Chronophone in 1910 http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/auxetophone/auxetoph.htm#gau Danieljames (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe Savile's claim is as the first person to use two turntables "to keep music in continuous play" in a live setting. Just being in possession of a twin deck gramophone or a broadcast console with two turntables and a control board mixer does not mean it was being used to present a seamless flow of music in a club. In fact, most radio DJ studios in the 40s, 50s, 60s etc. were equipped with two or three turntables with switched inputs. This was used to cue up and play records quickly, not to mix an uninterrupted stream of music. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The egoic now famous typical "fronting" DJ.

It seems this article lacks a certain part. DJs weren´t really the typical "famous" character one sees today, before a certain person was known, for "fronting" or more negatively "posing" as if he was special for playing other peoples music. DJ Tiesto for instance, droppped the "DJ" name from his stagename for the same reasons, since such people was outmost hated in the culture after. "Some within the DJ community" as it already says in places in this article, identifies him as DJ Smack. He basically is who the crossfader was for. (Nobody else used that.) Sensible people actually used separate faders, for mixing segments into eachother. The whole mixing DJ thing or legend at its core became really that.. Before DJ was simply a disc jockey who did´t not mix segments at all. - A note about this extremely unpopular but wellknown character belongs in there somewhere. SkyBlueness (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change Equipment > CDJs to Equipment > CD players

CDJ is the name of the line of CD players (now called Multi Players) by Pioneer DJ. They were industry standard for more than 10 years and it partly describes why the term 'CDJ' almost became a common noun and we see misleading articles like this one: CDJ. However, other manufacturers of DJ equipment and Pioneer DJ itself refer to their players as a CD Player, or recently Multi Player. Iiiked (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Do DJs produce music?

Okey, I'm really new to Wikipedia and still learning a lot of stuff, for example, that I shouldn't contribute to the articles that describe the field I'm considered to be an expert in - I partly get it, so in turn, I would like to start this talk. My question is very simple, do you think that DJs are musicians? And here's my (possibly biased) story on this topic. I have two friends that are graduated geologists and it happened to be that they both are also very good music producers. Does it mean that geologists produce music? Answer: yes, apparently some of them! But does Geologist produce music? Of course not, right? I really encourage volunteers to make a research on this, because as an expert in the field I regret to say that DJs are not musicians and do not produce music, it just happened to be that a lot of us are musicians at the same time. Iiiked (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Iiiked and welcome. The way Wikipedia works is that editors use reliable sources for content they use to build articles, rather than their own personal experience or opinion (which is why we we call our users editors and not "writers"). See more at WP:WHYCITE. If a reliable source A says something-something, we would write "According to A, something-something", and if multiple reliable sources say it, we would just write "something-something". And to avoid plagiarism and intellectual property lawsuits, we summarize what a source says in our own words, or use short quotes from the source. As you may have already picked up, blogs or some guy's self published website or Youtube videos are not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources. See more at WP:RS. All this is to say, we don't generate content via our own research findings or having a discussion among editors about their own personal experiences. It really is all about the sources here at WP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro LuckyLouie. I hope you understand that in a real-world scenario of narrow subjects like DJing there is no such thing as a credible source. It might work in science and for articles about actual events only. I'm just a few days here and I quickly can see why and how Wikipedia is not a 'directory of all existing things' and this article easily falls under this statement. My opinion that this article has misleading information remains and it's up to editors to choose whether they want to take my claim into consideration, do some research and try to find sources that either refute my claim or confirm it. I believe this is what Talk pages are about.Iiiked (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I get what you mean about reliable sourcing in the DJ field as compared to science or history, but the encyclopedia does need some standards, otherwise, it's just the Internet where anyone can put anything and the loudest voice wins. And look, it's not that hard to come up with a decent source like I did here, when sourcing one of your additions. Of course, it takes some effort. But I hope you'll decide to work within the existing policies to improve articles. Best, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

New photo relevant?

I removed a new photo of an unknown person with a caption of info that was unsourced. It was at the top of the article. A few hours later my removal was reverted here with no edit summary and nothing here on talk. After a couple of minutes the photo was relocated farther down in the article. Because the person shown is unknown and the info is unsourced I do not believe it is relevant here, so I am removing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

To SergeWoodzing Regarding your deletion of my photo of a DJ performing at an event, you stated you deleted it because it does not belong here. Are actually publically stating that a High-quality photo of a Disc-jockey does not belong on an article titled "Disc jockey"? Seriously?! I can't imagine anyone even thinking of such a thing, let alone actually saying it on a public forum. "Unknown person" What??? What does that mean?

It just so happens that 'person' is quite well known and known as a celebrity DJ, even though that is something totally irrelevant. The title of this article is: "Disc jockey", which I presume means the “profession” of being a disc jockey. The title is NOT "Known Disc Jockey". (of which none of the current poor-quality photos are).

You further state as your reason: “alleged unsourced info”. What is “alleged unsourced info on a photo? For your information, the "source" of the photo is a digital camera. If you click on the thumbnail, it will take you to the description page and it will inform you of this.

I have replaced the photo back into the article where it belongs since trying to discuss a non-existent photo would be just as ridiculous as your reasons for deleting it. Please do not delete it again. Thank You. Glenn Francis (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

At least this page is being used this time.

Deeming from missing indentations (which I now have fixed) as well as disregard of fundamental Wikimedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Verifiabilty and WP:TPYES one could assume that a new user, not an account that has been active since the beginning of last year, was doing these reversals.

We are not supposed to:

1. Reverse anything in an article without discussing it first on the talk page, letting other users chime in and reaching consensus.
2. Add any information which cannot be verified by reliable sources such as third party mentions in books or mainstream media.
3. Focus our article talk page comments on other users, but comment mainly on article content.

In this case the latest reversal should not have been done while there is a discussion going on. That discussion was going on until the reverser’s comments were removed by same a few hours later. Those comments were focused on me, not in any relevant way on content, and claimed that the person in the photo is famous.

The allegation that the attractive woman in the photo is a DJ cannot be verified. Anyone could get behind some turntables to be photographed and get into Wikipedia. This time her name was removed, whereas she was previously identified as DJ Bad Ash. It cannot be verified that that is the woman’s name, nor that that woman is a DJ. There are Wikipedia articles about other DJs in some of the article's other photos.

Ergo: the image is still not Wikipedia material as per Wikipedia verifiability guidelines, and I will be removing it again in a day or two, unless information given can be verified reliably. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To Sergewoodzing: Here are your verifications:

www.instagram.com/djbadash

https://www.facebook.com/ashleewilliss

https://www.facebook.com/itsDJBadAsh/

https://twitter.com/djbadash?lang=en

Just type Ashlee Williss or DJ Bad Ash into any search engine and you will get hundreds of articles about her. Glenn Francis (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As per guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Facebook and Twitter have never been considered acceptable sources/references for Wikipedia articles. People write anything they choose about themselves and their friends there. there, not journalistically but as private persons. At least one reference that is an independent mainstream media article needs to be provided if this is to be kept. --SergeWoodz ing(talk) 21:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Here you go SergeWoodz ing!. Enjoy! (if this isn’t enough there is About 19,900,000 results more on Google)

https://foursquare.com/v/dj-bad-ash/56cc80d1cd10f4e133b8acc1/photos

https://radiodjs.com/djs/bad-ash/

https://www.citizine.tv/article/nightclub-it-with-dj-bad-ash

https://www.mix1005.fm/catching-up-with-dj-bad-ash-at-stagecoach/

https://www.hawtcelebs.com/category/dj-bad-ash/

https://celebmafia.com/dj-bad-ash/

Link:

https://radiodjs.com/djs/bad-ash/ Glenn Francis (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The photo’s placement as the lead image to the article and the link to the individual’s promotional bio could be interpreted as contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I am removing it again. We do not consider someone notable just because h agency published a promo on h. The contributor does not seem to wish to learn (after 1½ year here!) what is meant by reliable sources, i.e. that such sources cannot be from anywhere that is connected to the subject person, including promotional material from a blog or an agency. If/when the photo can be referenced to a reliable source (e.g. mainstream media article with no connection to the woman) it could be included again. There is no burden on anyone here to provide or cite sources in the article or photo caption to that end, except on whomever wants the photo in the article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn’t really sourcing, there are a number of independent sources given above. It’s WP:CONSENSUS. A majority of editors have to agree that something is suitable for inclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@ LuckyLouie The photo of DJ Bad Ash is an exceptionally good photo - unlike yours, which is exceptionally bad and out-of-focus in violation of IMAGE QUALITY - WIKIPEDIA

The problem is sourcing as long as the independent sources are only on this page and not in the article, and as long as the only source given is clearly promotional.

The problem is also that the image in question keeps getting added over and over without consensus in what amounts to edit warring.

The relevant image I added of Avicii better illustrates the article and is by no means of such poor quality that it cannot be used on Wikipedia. All free images are not top quality. As per guideline we need to use what we have to illustrate articles as well as possible.

There are several more problems here, but that will suffice for now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The composition and photographic content of this page is already a disaster as it is without you coming along and making it worse by posting a photo that blatantly violates every rule of photography that exits and in Wikipedia's photo requirements. You are obviously trying to B.S. your way into posting your crap out-of-focus photo in violation of Wikipedia's stated policies.

WP:IMGDD

MOS:IMAGES

Especially this heading states:

Image quality Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous, and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn Francis (talk • contribs)

@User:Toglenn: Not sure what you're talking about, I didn't post any photo or delete any photo. You may have me confused with another editor. But again, I'll emphasize that WP: CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia operates. In this case, the burden is on the editor adding material to the article to get agreement for adding it, something which you don't seem to have, at this point. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@If you didn’t post any photos – then my apologies. It was meant for whoever posted that last blurry out-of-focus photo in violation of Wikipedia’s policies. on posting images (of which I posted links to).

Glenn, would you still be fighting for this particular photo if it wasn't one you took and uploaded yourself? Seems more like you're trying to promote your own photo rather than a general improvement of the article. It's getting hard to assume good faith when you make misleading edits like this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If Glen was paid to take the photo, and even if he wasn’t, there is the problem of WP:COI, as there is promotion of his own work and his client. Insisting it be at the lead of the article and include an inline link to her D.J. booking agency bio just makes it worse. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this article needs more than 1 photo. Additional photos of random people turning knobs does not help the user understand the topic. And this isn't an article on famous DJs. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• (Notified at c:COM:VP.) This is a supremely silly content dispute. The previous photo used in the article is just god awful. As has been pointed out, most of the other photos on the article are equally terrible quality. If I found File:DJ Bad Ash 2018 by Glenn Francis.jpg randomly on Commons, I would have added it here too, because it is replacing a "bad" photo with a "good" one.

Why in God's name are we having a debate about reliable sources, on whether a person in a picture with giant pink letters saying "DJ Bad Ash", is a person named DJ Bad Ash? Do we think they're lying about their name? And if they were, and this were an entirely staged photo meant to represent a hypothetical DJ, it wouldn't matter anyway. A person does not need to be notable in order to be the subject of an image that is higher quality than other available images, and adequately illustrates the subject of the article. The people in this image aren't notable, nor are the people in this image, or this image, this one, this one, or this one. Besides the fact that it's easily verifiable and could have been resolved with a 30 second google search rather than a page of meandering debate.

This all a bunch of arguing that we should apparently be preferring crappy images because of some WP:ALPHABETSOUP. If you have a better image, then suggest a better image. If you don't then Wikipedia:Readers first, and we don't work to make article crappier out of some abstract principle, especially where 99% of readers don't know enough to click through to the file description on Commons anyway, nor to care two cents about what it says. GMG^talk 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that all this was not really necessary. It would have taken only a few seconds for the uploader to add a reliable source (as per what is meant on Wikipedia) to the photo caption, rather than resorting to edit war spiced with numerous insults. Lots of people want to get their faces into Wikipedia articles, often through Commons, and it's becoming more and more important to verify that everybody really is who they appear to be. That's all I wanted. Absolutely not any major conflict. (Note the question mark at the end of the section heading here.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: the quality of images, I am not convinced that our Wikipedia guidelines should be interpreted as a justification for adding any and all high-quality images to Wikipedia articles just because their quality is high. The guideline states that images that are "dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on" should not be used. That does not mean that a sufficiently clear free image that well illustrates an article is not to be used. We have not (yet) been graced with access to high quality free images in most cases. That shouldn't stop us from illustrating with what we do have, upgrading as per eventual availabilty of better quality (which I have often done myself). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you should have serious doubt that the person in the image...with the big pink letters telling you their name, is somehow other than the person it takes 30 seconds to verify they are. But no, we do not require that every image of a firefighter, police officer, doctor, and nurse, on the articles for firefighter, police officer, doctor, and nurse include an inline citation verifying that they are actually a firefighter, police officer, doctor, and nurse. It is sufficient for our purposes that it is a quality image that appears to illustrate the subject of the article, and does so in a way that is educationally useful for readers. You are being obtuse in a manner that is not at all compliant with either our practices or our policy. GMG^talk 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not impossible for a person to pose falsely as a disc jockey, even to pose as a named one, just to get into Wikipedia, and, as I said, "obtuse" or not, more and more of that kind of thing is going on. We need to be aware of such problems, not ignore them as if they don't exist. Quick solution: reliable source. Tedious solution: googling and checking Commons to try to keep a new image which on the surface looked dubious and inappropriate. Justifiable action: removal of photo & civil, constructive discussion on this page. Asking for a reliable source, to be added to article space, should not be discouraged. I have not initially criticised anyone personally here, and I see no constructive need for more of that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point. According to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, it doesn't matter whether the image is authentic or not. It doesn't matter if the person in File:Jordmor jim- oslo.jpeg actually is a midwife, or is just a person posed as a mid wife in a quality image that is convincing and educationally useful. The effect for readers is the same. If you want to adjust policy to account for a possible conspiracy of people posing in high quality, educationally useful images in order to sneak their way onto Wikipedia, then you can start an RfC. Until you do so, you are the one that is not in compliance with policy on the issue. GMG^talk 20:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Our opinions are at odds as to whether or not the cupcake mentioned in the guideline is relevant to my concern about people wanting to be seen in Wikipedia articles, especially in high-profile articles about very high-profile subjects. As an OTRS volunteer you are probably aware, actually, of at least a few shenanigans like that. Note: I haven't said that happened here, only that it looked risky at first glance and needed attention. I try very hard never to get personal on article talk pages, because that's not what we're here for, and I will not criticise you because I respect your opinion. How about you? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not being personal at all. I'm simply telling you that you are wrong according to policy. GMG^talk 20:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

And I don't agree, because the cupcake, to me, is not relevant here. Tellng me that I'm wrong does nothing to improve this article. What I meant is "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." It's one of Wikipedia's most constructive guidelines that I wish more people would take in, and it's very clear (no cupcake). If you'd like to keep arguing about me, please use my talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The plain language in guidance is Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. It is also noted that multiple times thus far, you appear to enjoy deflecting to WP:TPYES, rather than addressing substance, while yourself making sarcastic condescending attacks. Alas as you so eloquently put, the contributor does not seem to wish to learn even when the relevant guidance is pointed out for them plainly. Unfortunately, saying that it is "your opinion" that the guidance on image usage does not apply to image usage does not actually fix the problem of being completely wrong. GMG^talk 21:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There's also "For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake ..." right after that MOS sentence you quoted. The exampple is irrelevant to what I mean and says nothing about the problem (people) that you choose not to acknowledge. OK. If you'd care to specify my "sarcastic condescending attacks" on anyone in particular I'd be happy to apologize sincerely. What I quoted from WP:TPYES is important to me, and we're not adhering. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I already did. feel free to apologize sincerely to User:Toglenn.

The exact wording you used was The allegation that the attractive woman in the photo is a DJ cannot be verified and the exact wording of the relevant guidance is Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic.

How do we know exactly that this image is actually of Avicii? The source for the photo is only Flickr. People write anything they choose about themselves and their friends there. there, not journalistically but as private persons. It could be someone who looks like him. It is not impossible for a person to pose falsely as a disc jockey, even to pose as a named one, just to get into Wikipedia. We should clearly remove the photo until we have at least one reference that is an independent mainstream media article telling us that this is actually a photo of Avicii and not an impostor. In fact, we probably should remove basically all of the images on the article for Avicii until such a source can be provided.

Do you see, maybe even a tiny bit how what you are so confidently demanding runs not only counter to our normal practices, and to policy, but also what you yourself have done only in the past few hours. GM

G^talk 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Hi, just so everyone knows for sure, this photo was not staged for promotional purposes. I go to a lot of night clubs and all DJ's have their name/Logos on their laptop computers. Here is a link to the event. You can see for yourself she is DJ-ing for real. http://www.prphotos.com/store/category.cgi?&category=search&query=%5Eevents%2Esql&q2=4th%20Annual%20%22Team%20Up%20for%20Tourettes%22%20Fundraiser%20%2D%20Arrivals&x-start=0&ps=5&xgrouped=1&results_per_page=100&start=96

Photo(s) for article lead (Arbitrary break)

OK. I think we've had enough foolishness. This article now lacks a lead image because one editor here has strange ideas about sourcing for images that don't apply and have never applied on Wikipedia. They have edit warred repeatedly to remove the image. Repeatedly removing the lead image from an article is disruptive and may lead to a block. The image offered by Toglenn is of high quality and amply illustrates the article topic. The image currently highest up the article is blurred crap that any professional photographer would delete from their memory card, let alone upload to Wikipedia. Some of the comments here about self-promotion are baseless as already explained at AN/I. Unless anyone has a valid argument against Toglenn's photo, I shall restore the image and hope that is an end to this embarrassing mess. SergeWoodzing is advised to educate themselves on the norms for images on Wikipedia and to refrain from edit warring. -- Colin°^Talk 08:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin. If we are choosing a lead photo based on image quality, aesthetic composition, and verifiability, I prefer this one. It is much more dynamically framed and dramatically lit than the one of Ashlee Williss, and clearly shows a DJ in action, rather than in a staged pose, and, as someone pointed out, "this isn't an article on famous DJs" it's about the entire concept of DJing, so a non-celebrity is ideal for the lead image. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Something something. Some type of description of what type of equipment they are using.

I don't see why we can't use both. Using multi-images can be very useful for illustrating generic concepts. Compare the lead images I put together for Humour, Poverty, and Famine. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE also advises us to strive for variety, with a global perspective in mind. We could do something like this. Using this crop of the Bad Ash image at the same ratio as the other, also effectively anonymizes it, so that we're showing generic images of DJs operating DJ equipment, rather than trying to select one named individual to single out for the lead. (I would prefer that one of them was something other than a white American, but image quality has to be balanced with the need for diversity.) GMG^talk 13:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The four-image comps you did for Humour, Poverty, and Famine are interesting. If diversity is an issue, maybe cropping and adding two more such as [5] and [6] could be a good solution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The second one is pretty good. The first one is pretty bad though. GMG^talk 14:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t have to be those exact images, but you get the idea. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think I would use these two images for the lead. The flow pretty well together as far as lighting and composition goes. I would replace the horribly blurry DJ Spooky image with the main image used by Wikidata. Probably replace the blurry Avicii image with this image, that gives a nice view of the equipment itself. Then remove the generic gallery, because it's arbitrary, and all the images are pretty low quality. GMG^talk 14:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the File:DJ SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE.jpg image has some problems. The wide-angle lens & nearby hand makes it proportionally large, and the white hand & black top background gives the effect of a disembodied hand, especially in thumbnail. The upper-left of the image is dull grey space. The File:Pete Rock @ The Brookyln Bowl in 2016.jpg photo has good lighting, though the angle-of-view means we don't really see what he is doing, and the image size (0.6MP) is tiny. I agree with GMG's approach and may be a good compromise for a generic topic that could best be illustrated by a variety of styles of DJ. -- Colin°^Talk 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Good discussion so far. No time at the moment, but hope others will join in, in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: The only problem is that the subject of the photo is so stretched out horizontally that you can't crop it similarly, in the way that we anonymize the photo of Bad Ash. Admittedly, the Commons category for DJs is just 80% garbage that should probably be deleted F10. So it doesn't make finding quality photos particularly easy. GMG^talk 21:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Had a few minutes over the weekend to scour Wikimedia Commons. Here's some images of DJ diversity:

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

And here's some hands-only images that suit the broad topic of DJ’ing:

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

FWIW, I don’t agree that "subject looking at the photographer" poses or "absolutely flat, even lighting" are required must-haves for the lead image of an article about the concept of DJing. IMO, action shots, varied backgrounds, and atmospheric lighting better represent the DJ in their environment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

All of the suggested images suffer from WP:RECENTISM, as does the article. Club DJs and turntablists have only been around since the 1980s (about forty years at best), while radio DJs and announcers who spun discs have been around since the 1930s.: fifty years before they started to become popular in clubs. To that end I offer the following from commons. File:Bassoradio2.jpg, File:Luis López durante el programa World Dance Music..png and File:Aron Rcm.jpg. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We should get something up there as a lead image. If you're going to have an edit war it should be swapping one picture for another. There are a lot of good candidates here. There's no reason why we shouldn't have some lead image on display. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Walter has made a point that I totally agree with – all these photos are of club DJs, and there is still a huge number of people in the world (possibly even the majority, still) for whom the words "disc jockey" will automatically be associated with a radio presenter who plays music on his/her program. I would be happier with two lead images, with the captions "radio DJ (left); club DJ (right)" or something to that effect. Richard3120 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, and we might also use at least one historical image (60s or 70s), if there is any free one (very hard to find) - whether or not it may be of superduper "quality" - to illustrate & educate that the occupation is not a new one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Club DJ (left); Radio DJ (right)

I notice that Wikipedia tends to favor lead images that depict the contemporary thing rather than the historical one. A historical DJ image would definitely be appropriate for the "History" section though. As far as addressing the article's RECENTISM, that would certainly take a major rewrite, which may not stick, given that radio DJs are now a smaller segment of the DJ profession thanks to broadcast station playlist automation. There has been some consensus in the past affirming the modern popular notion of a DJ as a club DJ, which led to the creation of a sub-article, History of radio disc jockeys to clarify the historical evolution of the term. Anyway, I for one, agree that a pair of lead images depicting Club and Radio DJs would be a good solution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I really like the air base DJ photo with the big hand in the foreground, because it shows the typical action of many DJs rather than showing off a glamour photo of a particular DJ. I don't like the idea of pairing the big hand photo with the female DJ in a red dress because that image looks posed, and because the pairing would put too many Caucasian DJs into the article. We should show a DJ with darker skin color. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Disc_jockey#Software be split into a separate page called DJ software. DJ softwares are highly used nowdays (eg VirtualDJ (software), Mixx, etc) and this section is large enough to make its own page. Saunderson Anreef (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's notable on its own and there are enough sources to carry a stand alone article, it could certainly be split. Someone has to write the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If further information is added to expand on the topic it may be split. Anyways it also depends also on the consensus of editors and contributors. Cheers EpicSnek ^{Talk to me here} 03:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with split once there is some extra content. Gusfriend (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Grand Wizzard Theodore

The image in the "Techniques" section shows Grand Wizard Theodore on the right. He is posing with an unknown person. The sentence in the caption about Grandmaster Flash was unnecessarily confusing, so I removed it. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary choice of photos / promos?

This kind of article must only have photos of people who in some way or another have had profound influence on the subject. Looks like we now (again) have various promo photos which do not rise to such a standard. Anyone with better knowledge than mine who'd like to delete a photo or two or three? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Be bold and make the common sense edits you feel are appropriate. If someone feels strongly, they will revert, and that will lead to a discussion here on Talk to find the best solution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)