Talk:The Puppini Sisters

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

U,S Radio airplay[edit]

I did hear their version of "I Will Survive" on a Long Island adult standards type station WHLI over the weekend. Edkollin 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also heard "Panic" on an alternative rock station. This looks like a rare occasion where the a British artist or group becomes popular in the U.S. before they do thier home country. The Police is the biggest instance of this that comes to mind. Edkollin 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Puppini Sisters have been popular in their own country for a while. Their first album hit the UK album top 20 (#17) on release in August 2006. Vauxhall1964 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a citation for the album reaching #17 it belongs in the article. How is the new album one doing in the U.K.? 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaction to the album has been very positive across Europe, but it has not been promoted in the UK. Still, around 20000 have been sold in England thus far, and the album has yet to be officially released in some of the Sisters larger markets in Europe.

Red Pen[edit]

The Puppini Sisters entry has been visited by the Red Pen. This has resulted in the article being made more encyclopaedic, and less like a fan entry - a good thing. But several relevant elements of the article were removed, such as ongoing collaborations the band is having with Vivienne Westwood and The Real Tuesday Weld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.222.136 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC) yourfrienddave has restored the collaborations, but left the rest of the Red Pen changes intact. 6.4.9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.222.136 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) yourfrienddave has once again restored collaborations removed by Red Pen, and given a link to an external website for footage of a documentary in which the collaboration is corroborated - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7b3NJa3G1Y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.222.136 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source, and while "influcences" may be verified currently by MySpace, a place so easily and frequently edited is generally not a great idea to use as a source for an article, either. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Linking to user-submitted video sites

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Just as with the vast majority of web pages in general, most videos hosted on Youtube or similar sites do not meet all of these restrictions, and copyright is of particular concern. Most YouTube videos containing copyrighted material (outside of the official YouTube channels of organizations and entertainment/news media companies) do not have permission of the copyright owners. Each such link must be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. These links must also identify the software necessary for readers to see the content." Yourfrienddave (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above definition is from External Links, which is a different guideline than for sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And after accessing a computer that is able to visit YouTube, I will agree that this particular YouTube video is probably acceptable within the (discouraged) realm of use of primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate that you cannot check every source, Red Pen, I would imagine that it would be better to warn, and give time for researching and footnoting, rather than remove swathes of an article. I'm well aware that you are trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, and I encourage that. I'm also aware that encouraging proper conduct ensures greater long term results. As an editor with Wikipedia, you do have a responsibility to nurture good writing - wouldn't you agree? You have a wealth of knowledge to share - and you've a large audience out there eager to learn more about lexicography. Yourfrienddave (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than YouTube, I do check sources before removing them as non-reliable sources. And even removing all YouTube link without checking I bet I am still at close to 98% accuracty on reliable sources - that is a failure rate that I am willing to live with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest[edit]

This article has been edited by users who may have a potential conflict of interest:

User:Siormarse1 [1]


User talk:92.24.59.210 [2]

-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury Festival appearence is notable not advertising[edit]

If listing touring dates is advertising nearly every Wikipedia every biography article on musicians or groups is allowing this so called advertising. Why should this article be different then the common practice?. While I agree some articles go overboard listing every appearance, the sisters appearance at the Glastonbury Festival is notable. This is a prestigious festival that is televised in many locations around the world. You have produced no evidence that that the Guardian listing is an advertisement. That is because it is not an advertisement, it was printed as a public service. Edkollin (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any actual coverage you might convince me. Simply being listed in the schedule of a puff promotional piece does not suggest that wikipedia should become another promotional venue for the group.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple listing for public service not a puff piece nor an advert. An advert would list dates, where to get tickets etc. But lets assume that you are correct that the intent of the editors of the Guardian is pure promotion. It does not matter, all that matters is it verifiable and reliable. If you have a problem with that take it up with The Guardian or have Wikipedia list The Guardian as a unreliable source. Or best yet lobby to change Wikipedia policy to specifically ban Touring sections or listing of upcoming or previous concerts. I disapprove of lot of Wikipedia consensus. As mentioned above I specifically disapprove of the consensus in many articles to list every performance in a touring section listing every concert (many cited by Actual Adverts). I don't go around every music bio article creating my own consensus of one deleting touring sections.Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, verifiable and reliable are two of the requirements for, but not the only requirements. Advertisements are all verifiable and printed in reliable sources, but they are not encyclopedic and do not belong in articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations[edit]

This is either not notable, or should actually list what contributions were made to each recording. Since nearly none of the albums have their own Wiki page, that puts into question notability; but preferrably, it should be noted what songs are on what. If it is largely the same song, I think it would be fair to structure it as "Walk Like an Egyptian" has appeared on the following compilations, _____________, ______________, and ________________

If it's multiple songs, the format it currently has should suffice, but there's no point in listing the compilations if it doesn't state what the track is. 12.162.122.6 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

          All compilations have now been looked up and tracks added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.32.134 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Made a right meal of trying to insert image, and have run out of time for cleaning up. Will try and return to this asap after reading more on image use. --Yourfrienddave (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Puppini Sisters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 14:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Puppini_Sisters&oldid=1207235643"