User talk:Sad Porcupine
September 2018[edit]
Hello, I'm Lwarrenwiki. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Music journalism have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sad Porcupine: Also consider where your content fits best. Another possibly suitable location may be at Film score#Artistic merit. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I was trying to share new information relevant to music journalism with links for people to explore. Not sure what was promotional about it. Please advise @Lwarrenwiki: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad Porcupine (talk • contribs) 02:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sad Porcupine: It's not a bad start on Wikipedia! But you should read the linked policies to understand why it wasn't allowed into a Wikipedia article. What you wrote looked like this:
Multimedia Music Criticism
Multimedia music criticism refers to the evaluation of "original music specially composed for film, television, and video games." [1] The International Film Music Critics Association [2] is the largest professional organization in this field, bringing together print, radio, and podcast journalists who specialize in discussing and evaluating music in multimedia. - The quoted content in the first sentence is supported by the reference... except that the reference isn't a WP:RS (reliable source) for a definition. It does give a definition of "multimedia music criticism", but it's only an opinion piece from a WP:SELFPUB (self-published) source, and the writer is making an argument that this term should be adopted in place of "film music criticism". That means it hasn't been adopted more generally in place of "film music criticism".
- Notice how the second sentence uses WP:PUFFERY like "largest", and reads as if it came from marketing written by the organization. And yet... "largest" isn't even supported by the cited source. It's not on the page you linked. It's not on the "About Us" page, either. When I go to that page (rather than the page you linked!), there's a statement of what the organization is, but it's not quite the same as what you wrote. Their self-description (which is reliable, under WP:ABOUTSELF) begins: "The International Film Music Critics Association (IFMCA) is an association of online, print and radio journalists who specialize in writing and broadcasting about original film and television music."
- You paraphrased, but you actually changed their meaning and their emphasis to "multimedia", which isn't how they describe themselves. I don't see them referring to themselves as specialists in multimedia. (They also don't mention "podcast" journalism – "online journalism" more often means blogs, or online versions of traditional media outlets.)
- The upshot is that, rather than being WP:PROMOTION in the sense of spamming, the problem is another kind of promotion. The section you added gives the appearance of promoting a WP:POV (point of view), rather than describing facts. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sad Porcupine: It's not a bad start on Wikipedia! But you should read the linked policies to understand why it wasn't allowed into a Wikipedia article. What you wrote looked like this:
References
- ^ Erickson, Ben. "Defining Film Music Criticism". The Click Track. August 16, 2018.
- ^ [1] International Film Music Critics Association
Welcome[edit]
|
