Talk:United Steel Workers of Montreal

Notability? claimed yes. Sourced? no

I see the claims for the below in the article. But, it isn't sourced for verifiability so doesn't the "may not meet" the criteria thing still stand? Especially, since a major part of the tag is that sources need to be provided for the claims. 4.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[3] 5.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A source is already present for the concert statement. And a band's discography does not require any sourcing beyond its own web page, since the titles of released albums are not something a band is easily able to falsify or inflate. Claims about the albums' chart performance or critical reception would require independent sourcing, certainly, but their mere titles don't require any additional sources beyond what's already present. Two albums on Weewerk, therefore, covers #5 and doesn't require any further sourcing. So the bottom line is that while additional references are certainly needed overall, the references that are already present are more than sufficient to cover off removing the notability tag.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the band (I don't dislike them or anything, I'm just not that familiar with them beyond having heard "Tracie Dean" on R3 a few hundred times), I'm just a longtime Wikipedia administrator who's pretty intimately familiar with WP:MUSIC since it's one of the subject areas where I contribute a lot. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see how the source in the article shows verifiability of any of it. The albums on weewerk aren't sourced so that doesn't cover 5 as far as. They may be the most important band in all canada and weewerk maybe the greatest independent producer of albums but, without it being sourced it doesn't mean a whole lot. The tag isn't there for me to be a pain in the ass. I placed it because it should only be removed when the claims of importance/significance are supported with reliable 3rd party sourcing but, I'm definitely not gonna claim to be an expert. Do what you got a do or get others to do it, I'm not gonna fight anymore over it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this again: we don't require any further sources, beyond what's already present in the article, for the existence of the albums. We would require additional sources for further statements about the albums, but the band's own web page is wholly sufficient as a source for the albums' existence. And even if we did require additional sources for the albums' existence, the Ottawa XPress article that's already being cited as a reference confirms them both too. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said I'm not gonna argue. I obviously need to learn WP:MUSIC better and remember that the minimum is all that is required. My opinion is different and says things sourced to a primary source (the band's own webpage) doesn't cut it, just like my opinion says that things sourced just to IMDB doesn't cut it for movies and such but, I'm not gonna get into a fight with an admin over it. I'll just spend more time trying to find sources I think are better than the minimum requirement and include them when and where I can. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying that the article as a whole doesn't require any additional references at all. The article needs more work, no question, but the basic issue of notability is covered sufficiently by what's already present. And for what it's worth, the validity of primary vs. secondary sources depends on what's being sourced. You can cite a band's own web page for basic facts — the names of members, album titles, the actual spelling of their name if anybody ever decides to dispute whether it's "Steel Workers" or "Steelworkers", etc. — that a band would have no opportunity or reason to misrepresent. Beyond the basic facts, you obviously need to go to independent sources, but for the basic details you can take the band's own word for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am. I get some of it but, maybe it works a little both ways. I run across a whole slew of articles at once which all seem to rely on ONLY the one source (maybe 2 if you count the weewerk website) and not being intimately familiar with the subject or the scene I tag them with notability and reference/refimprove. I get the basic facts idea and I'm not disputing that on this article or the others. But, things need to exist that show notability (importance/significance) and should be referenced in the article (and yes maybe I'm overstepping by wanting that sourcing to not be primary source) and maybe misreading the one listed reference in the article in this case). I wasn't debating existence after all (or for that matter even trying to debate notability - If I was gonna do that don't you think I would have taken the artilce to AfD or something). I tag articles not to cause arguments but, to hopefully get people more familiar with the subjects to provide extra information and such. Again, I admit I'm probably wrong and I need to become more familiar with WP:MUSIC but, I'm kinda feeling like our opinions of things like sufficiently covered are decidedly different at this point and until I have a chance to digest all the policies and guidelines it is just gonna boil down to a you are right and I'm wrong scenario and that isn't what I'm looking for. I probably made a hash of all that but, it's the best I can put together at the moment to try to explain myself in this format. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In truth, I don't think we're as far apart on this as it might seem — we're in total agreement that the article needs significant improvement, we're just disagreeing on the appropriateness of one particular improvement tag. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

GNews hits

Here are some Google News hits [1] (unfortunately, I can't read french to work out what may be significant). Maybe someone that can would give them a read and pop them into the article where appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go through those (I can read French) and pull out whatever's useful. Oh, and just as proof of why you can cite the band's own web page for basic details such as album titles, this article gets one of their album titles wrong (Trucks and Bottles, forgot the Broken part.) Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)