Talk:Noisecreep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Reliable source[edit]

There's a genre war going on right now on Alesana's page, so i've been finding sources to support the genres already listed and saw that noisecreep was calling Alesana metalcore. Is this website reliable? --71.222.136.7 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure this is the most appropriate place to discuss this, but I would say yes. It's owned by AOL, which is a major media company. It's both third-party and published, two major criteria at WP:RS. It also has a clear and defined staff, many of which have published articles for other reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, Revolver, Alternative Press, etc. (as seen on their page of editors). Fezmar9 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

There seems to be a minor dispute about which logo to use. Personally, I have never seen the two lined logo anywhere on the website. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I assumed that it was the more common version because in a Google search the first three results are all of the two lined logo. - EdoDodo talk 21:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. Maybe it was their old logo? It's weird that nowhere (that I could find) on the website is there the two lined version, yet that's the only thing that comes up on a google search. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Anyway if we decide to use the one-line logo we should find a different version, or crop an existing one, so that it has a transparent background and fits in with the infobox. - EdoDodo talk 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it probably should be the one-line version since that's what's currently posted on the official website. I am no good with image editing, or else I would do it myself. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the one-line version to a transparent background, in case you decide to use it, but personally I still believe the two-line version is preferable, because it identifies the site across the web (even though it is not used in the site itself). - EdoDodo talk 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So, which one do you think we should use? I'm fine with either one, but we have to delete the one we don't use, because it doesn't qualify for fair use if it isn't used in the article. - EdoDodo talk 17:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the one-lined version should be used because that's what the website is currently displaying. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, I'll switch to it and tag the other one for deletion. - EdoDodo talk 22:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)