Talk:Eternal Decision

This article was nominated for deletion on Jan. 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, therefore keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Christian music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

I took the liberty of removing some irrelevant links that do not provide substantional information, and adding/removing/cleaning up others to comply with

Linking to the reviews on an unreliable website is not appropriate. What is different from them, and me saying on my blog (if I had one) 'I don't like Eternal Decision, their new albums sucks.'? I am removing the links, please discuss them here if you are going to add them again. J Milburn 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a blog page thats the differennce.--E tac 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using 'blog' to mean 'web log', but 'free web space that someone is using to post their writing'. J Milburn 11:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because somone is contributing it to a free site its worthless? You'll have to do better than that.--E tac 11:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't. Please see this policy. J Milburn 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't being used as a source...period--E tac 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Art for the Ears' article that you keep reverting is. Stop reverting that, 'period', and we can discuss the possibility of including the other links. J Milburn 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^This whole conversation is kind of a prime example of how Wikipedia contributors should not interact. Vortiene (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved these two comments because the second was made once the discussion was closed, and I feel I need to repond to it. J Milburn 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is worth noting that I am continually removing the spam links to freeservers and tripod hosted websites- The Whipping Post and Art for the Ears are NOT reliable in any way. J Milburn 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree, the sources cited are all non-biased websites who provide reliably correct information. Eternal Decision is listed on sites like Billboard.com, too. Billboard seems to be a fairly reliable source for MUSIC. Take Nickelback's Wiki page, for example. They've only got eleven cited sources on there, but five of them are chart ranking websites or similar sites (Two of them being AMG and Billboard!), and the rest are award sites or articles on what this discussion would consider 'unreliable'. Clearly Nickelback is notable, but if this article is up for deletion then I suggest Nickelback's article be marked for immediate cleanup and veritability because it is not any more well-sourced than this article is, the only difference is that they're more well-known by mainstream fans. AdmiralTreyDavid 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the two websites hosted at freeservers and tripod. Neither of these can be used as reliable sources. There is an explanation of why that is the case here, and so adding them is basically adding spam, albeit unintentional. J Milburn 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean by that, any regular Geocities page would be very unreliable as a source, but the five references cited are all very reliable sources, I think most people would agree on that. Of the four external links, the third one is very reliable (Metal-archives is a widely-known, highly-respected website in the metal community), and the second one seems pretty reliable. You could make cases against the other two, being a Geocites page and a Myspace page, but Myspace pages are linked from many band page articles on Wiki these days, it has become an easy place for people to learn everything they need to know about a band, and the majority of bands out their have their own official Myspace page, which is reliable as far as the techincal facts involving the band goes. As for the Geocities page, it is, afterall, just an external link, and seems to be provided for readers who are interested to easily find and buy albums if they wish to do so.

Each of the references and external links seem to serve a purpose, and are for the most part really reliable. AdmiralTreyDavid 05:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just formatted your comment to make it easier to follow, please don't take offence. As for what you are saying, yes, all external links and sources are now good. The links and sources that I had an issue with have now been removed. J Milburn 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, one taken, I didn't realize that I had split things up to where looked like the bulk of my comment was unsigned and by itself. And sorry, I hadn't seen any of those so I thought you were talking about the ones listed there now, my bad. AdmiralTreyDavid 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again those are not being used as sources, not every external link is a source and I put the interview back since the other 2 sources confirm what it is being sourced for, but if you want to show everyone how cool you are you can remove that again if you please. --E tac 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in showing everyone how cool I am. As Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to do much for you, how about we use this comparison- I start a blog site, and post a review of the album. I have never heard the album, and I am by no means a music expert. There is no way that, fairly, it would be added to this article. However, that is exactly what has happened here. Someone (it could be ANYONE) has written a 'review' of the album, and so we feel the need to link to it from an encyclopedia? It is plainly ridiculous. Wait there a sec, there is another review that we have to link to, here. We can't be unfair about which reviews we link to and which we don't, can we? J Milburn 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now it is obvious if the site is a site designated for album reviews or not, if you wan't to give an honest review of the album and put it on a site with multiple reviews you have written with many artists and put a link to it here go ahead and do so.--E tac 11:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is designed as a review site, it is counted as unreliable by Wikipedia's policies. The fact that I COULD very easily go ahead and write something of the same quality is the reasoning that it can not be used as a source. The site is maintained by someone as a hobby- they are not a professional music critic. Perhaps they want to be, and perhaps they are good enough to be, but, until then, we cannot accept their writings as a source. I admit that this certainly looks reliable, and I am certain that it is, but we must keep up the interity of the encyclopedia. J Milburn 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placing my 'review' in the article was completely unneeded, and could be interpretted as a violation of this policy. J Milburn 11:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA Are you kidding me? you used it to ilustrate a point in the first place and are now accusing me of violating

By the way I am not going to turn this into an edit war which by the way is aginst policy although you don't seem to mind disobeying that, so you win, congratulations the reviews are gone. Now all of wikipedia can relax.--E tac 11:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the three revert rule, I was already contacting other editors to ask for their opinions on the matter, so as not to violate it myself. As for accusing me of violating the policy, I did not link to it from the article, just the talk page, so no disruption done. J Milburn 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again as I stated on the deletion page you really aren't making much sense anyways, as one of your PRIMARY sources for

In the case of Voltaire's article, I am using it as a primary source, not a secondary one. There is a difference- please see this, which applies to Voltaire's article as apposed to this, which applies to this article. J Milburn 12:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

It says they should not, not that they cannot under any circumstances be used. I think that it was proven by the other sources that it isn't POV nor was there anything controversial on the link which is what I already stated.--E tac 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

this policy. Any policy can be broken, it is just that there is rarely reason to. This is not a case that warrants the policies to be broken. J Milburn 12:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well no and yes, since the article had been put up for deletion I feel I should list as many sources as possible to help verify the information.--E tac 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic, but I think the same could be said in reverse. Because it was put up for deletion, you should be very careful to list only the most reliable of sources. J Milburn 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]