Talk:Gravity Noir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notabiliy[edit]

Gravity Noir album discography at AllMusic, two Gravity noir albums are mentioned, "Handmade" and "Liberation". Music genre described as Pop/Rock.[1]

ASCAP, the world leader in performing rights and advocacy for music creators, launched a redesigned version of ACE, its public repertory database. Here you can find the complete and official registered repertory of Gravity Noir. ACE (“ASCAP Clearance Express”) is a searchable database that contains information relating to musical works in the ASCAP Repertory, and is updated weekly by ASCAP. The new, mobile-friendly ACE interface has a responsive design that manages and displays information from ASCAP’s vast repertory of 10 million works, including title, writer, publisher, performer and ISWC codes. It enables music creator members, publishers, licensees and the public to easily search, share and download repertory information. Including Gravity Noir repertory information.[2]

Gravity Noir participation in 2016 at the annual medieval festival "Medieval Ter Apel", Ter Apel, Netherlands. Allthough the page is written in both Dutch and German, the webpage gives an independent and autonomous description of the collaboration and cooperation between the two parties (Gravity Noir and the official organization for Medieval Ter Apel). Topic is the making of the music video for Gravity Noir's single "Mystery knight".[3]--Trix18365 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Trix18365:, please have another look at WP:RS. We want to see coverage in the independent press. Allmusic is an all-inclusive directory so inclusion there doesn't indicate they're important. ASCAP represents artists and publishers and so is not WP:INDEPENDENT. I can't exactly make out what #3 is but it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. ~Kvng (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kvng:, Up till this day, all I can find as coverage in the independent press are 4 articles in 4 different newpapers. But because they are Belgian newspapers, all 4 press articles are written in Dutch. Also they are archived and only a small transcription is open for the public, the full coverage of these articles can only be accesed by member login at the public library[4], except for one[5] The coverage of some of these independent press articles can be found on the Gravity Noir website.[6]--Trix18365 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Trix18365: Thanks, that's the sort of stuff we're looking for. The coverage you've cited is all about the one song and so raises a WP:BLP1E issue. This is a marginal case but I have to decide one way or the other. The well-developed article on the Dutch Wikipedia is helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ AllMusic, Discography (2016-11-30). "Gravity Noir". Retrieved 2019-11-22.
  2. ^ Gravity Noir, Patrick Knight (7 April 2016). "ACE repertory". ASCAP. Retrieved 2019-11-22.
  3. ^ Ter Apel, Middeleeuws (13 September 2016). "Music Video Gravity Noir". Middeleeuws Ter Apel. Archived from the original on 13 September 2016. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
  4. ^ Streekkrant, De (14 September 2016). "Song about dementia". Library Putte & Beerzel. Retrieved 2019-11-08.
  5. ^ Conaerts, Ben (15 August 2016). "Most personal song ever". HLN. Archived from the original on 18 August 2016. Retrieved 2019-05-01.
  6. ^ De Beuckeleer, Koen (12 August 2016). "Published Press". Gravity Noir. Retrieved 2019-10-04.

Translation[edit]

@Kvng:, Hi there Kvng, I could use your help once more. So if you could please look into the way I can follow the advice, to add the template to the talk page. Without creating a flagged note? Could you also please have a look if I done it right in the article (You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation.) Thanks in advance.--Trix18365 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the {{Translated page}} template. I've adjusted that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng:, Thanks again for your help, much appreciated.--Trix18365 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

@Kvng:, Hi there Kvng. If you have some spare time, could you please have a look if the citation needed tags in the article can now be removed? I've added citations and explained the relevance of the quote hoping this will help to get the tags removed? Thanks in advance Kvng. Stay safe. Trix18365 (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed a couple but the sources provided are not WP:RELIABLE so I have marked that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kvng:, Thanks Kvng. I will try my very best to find more reliable sources. Thanks for the help and advice. Take care. Trix18365 (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Reasonably fixed the issues[edit]

@Lord Belbury:, Dear Lord Belbury, A year has passed since you have added a tag to the article Gravity Noir. I've been trying my very best to improve it and believe that I reasonably fixed the issues. Plenty of primary sources were added. On the issue of and if this article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. I would like to challenge several articles due to the fact that they originated with a page started and written by someone with an interest in the topic. For me, the reason isn't much different. I noticed that the 90's group Gravity Noir didn't have a page yet. I only discovered them a few years ago. I wouldn't call myself a fan, but rather someone who shows a lot of interest. Perhaps it would have been better if several people would contribute to the further development of the article. But no doubt the same applies to them, above all, the person in question must be interested in the subject. Otherwise they will not accept the challenge to do so. So hoping the tag may be removed? Thanks in advance. Kind regards and best wishes, Trix18365 (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Later years and up to present days" could still use some work (do many bands deliberately deny their members the chance to "showcase their individual talents and creativity"?), but sure, that's looking a lot better than it was when I tagged it in February. I've removed the tag. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury:, Thanks for your help and advice. I will continue trying to add improvements. Take care. --Trix18365 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury:, Dear Lord Belbury, In the contents of the topic Science, technology, and medicine is cited: 'A book review that contains the judgment of the reviewer about the book is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion, and a secondary source for the contents of the book. A summary of the book within a review is a secondary source'. Therefore I am wondering if the reviews of albums included in the article Gravity Noir can be considered as secondary sources?

Professional ratings
Review scores
SourceRating
AllMusic5/5 stars[1]

[2] Thanks again, --Trix18365 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Published reviews in newspapers and music magazines are fine as secondary sources, but Amazon or similar customer reviews wouldn't be. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lord Belbury:, Thanks for the quick reply, much appreciated, Trix18365 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ AllMusic Review by Robert Shepard (24 October 2020). "Liberation – Gravity Noir Reviews, Credits". AllMusic. Retrieved 4 November 2020. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  2. ^ Reviews, Customer (2020-05-30). "Fantastic album". Archived from the original on 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2019-11-22.

Question about the removal of album pages in an approved Wiki category[edit]

@Lord Belbury: and @Kvng:, Dear Lord Belbury and Kvng, I was just informed by email that three out of four wiki pages, collected in a wiki category labeled 'Gravity Noir albums' have been deleted. I haven't even had the chance to defend myself or to challenge this deletion. I am very sorry that the hard work I have put into compiling these pages is wiped out in seconds. It took me several days and hours to gather all the information. I am convinced that these pages added value to the already existing article about 'Gravity Noir'. I do my very best to keep improving and supplementing the current article, but I get the feeling that I am being worked against. It undermines my courage to put any more time into it. Once again I hope for your help and perhaps just an explanation of why these pages were removed?

Thanks again in advance, Kind regards and best wishes for 2021 --Trix18365 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

They haven't been deleted, just redirected: you can see the page histories at [2], [3] and [4]. The histories show that User:Richard3120 redirected them with the explanation that the albums were "not notable and no reliable independent sources online". WP:NALBUM gives the standard list of the criteria that an album must meet at least one of, for it to have a full article at Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't automatically permit an article for every album, even from the biggest bands. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Lord Belbury: ,thanks for the quick reply and fair explanation. However, I am of the opinion that the page Future Days (Gravity Noir album) should not have been deleted with three independent reviews. One of them even published in a physical printed magazine.[1] Kind regards, Trix18365 (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Afraid I don't know enough about the music press to know what is and isn't considered a reliable review source. I'd suggest asking User:Richard3120, who redirected the articles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Trix18365 (and Lord Belbury, for info), the problem is that even if the reviews were in three reliable sources (which I don't believe they all are), they are in fact all the same review, either syndicated or republished across three different websites. So the condition of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" detailed in WP:NALBUMS is not met. I have no idea what the LGBTQ chart you were using to make the case that these albums charted, but it certainly wasn't a recognised official national chart. The existence in an albums database such as Discogs, or the fact the albums are available on iTunes/Apple Music/Amazon Music/Spotify do not make them notable, it just means they exist and are available for downloading or streaming. If you can show how they meet any of the criteria at WP:NALBUM, I will happily reconsider. But I have to say that even the article for the band doesn't display much in the way of notability – once you take out the WP:PRIMARY sources such as the band's official website and Bandcamp webpage, the unacceptable charts, unreliable sources (blogs, social media pages), and the listings which only prove the existence of the songs (links to YouTube videos, Spotify playlists, ASCAP credits, etc.), there is almost nothing which passes WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References