Talk:Iamsound

	This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's record labels 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.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . Jacobmcpherson (talk · contribs) has been paid by Cement Media Inc. on behalf of IAMSOUND. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declaration

My addition of

Alright, hang on, it looks like somebody knocked the Lord Huron article off while I was asleep...hang on while I get that back. Chubbles (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetized artist list and added a couple of news articles, hopefully that's a good start. The Lord Huron article's back up and needs admin review for the A7, shouldn't be a problem. I'll keep looking... Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621233623/http://www.iamsoundrecords.com/artists to http://www.iamsoundrecords.com/artists/

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.

• 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) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple problems with the recent spate of edits, but I'll start with this one. The artist list has been removed several times on the basis that it no longer accurately reflects what the company does. But this is not a promotional press piece for the label's 2021 activities; it is an encyclopedia article, whose job is to explain the organization's history in addition to its current status. One of the principal things a label's encyclopedia article should do is inform the reader of what musical artists have released albums on that label - it's perhaps the most basic of tasks we have to provide to our readers about a record label. I have no problem whatsoever if we want to change the structure of the list so that current and former artists are separated, or if sections need to be split out for musical and visual artists. But I simply don't understand the insistence that it be dynamited entirely. What gives? Chubbles (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the artists in the list were moved to the appropriate sections (separated by visual and music). Similarly, I don't understand why information which was directly sourced from external publications was removed, while the list of artists (which I can't find sourced anywhere) remains. How else do you propose representing this information as a historical reference than the list which may not even be factually correct? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be added that IAMSOUND as an entity doesn't appear to be strictly a label, and so the revisions were made to reflect that aspect as well (while acknowledging it began as label) Jacobmcpherson (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using this source - https://www.discogs.com/label/126854-IAmSound-Records, I think it makes more sense to depict the list as "Albums" (in chronological order) and not Artists. What do you think? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you say that some of the artists were moved to the appropriate sections, by which I take it you mean the prose sections labeled "record label" and "creative & marketing studio". But not nearly all of them were (for example,

hidebound devotion to the rules

rather than fostering genuine improvement of the articles. Can you tell me if there is a specific band on the list you believe was added in error? If there's some genuine concern that the list is not factually correct - and I do want to indicate that I take it seriously if you believe we have erroneous entries to the list - then I will absolutely look for sources for that artist on your behalf. But the blanket removal of the list, multiple times, is not a good solution here.

I accept that the label has expanded to other operations; I'm no longer contesting the removal of the "records" from the article title, for instance. Again, I'm fine splitting out into sections the artist list into record label and visual subsections if you like. None of that contravenes the changes I made and that you reverted more than once.

I don't in principle object to the artist list being expanded into a table with each album release being listed, but it's not work I plan to do myself. But if we provided neither an artist list nor an album discography, the article would be missing essential encyclopedic information. Chubbles (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That table of album releases from the company seems most factual and relevant to its business operations. I also looked above and saw you've been involved in the development of this Wikipedia entry since 2013. In no way did I mean to diminish the work already done, but am really trying to bring more accuracy to the organisation's activities as a whole Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point with showing a comprehensive list, and maybe for now, it doesn't have to be a full table (to save time), but a bulleted list of "Releases" with Album Name, Artist Name, and Year? Also, I wasn't aware of the album itself being a source Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning fellow editors. Noted the 3O request, and also the suggestion below that Jacobmcpherson has an undeclared COI. This rather torpedoes the chance of a helpful 3O so I deleted it. Please resolve that question first; then resubmit a clear question for a 3O if wished. With all good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem; I have removed the renewed 3O request.

WP:CLEANHANDS, but that policy is relevant. Jacobmcpherson added material, which was removed, and subsequently had a discussion on here with another editor. Jacobmcpherson then asked for a 3O. I removed the request because of the suggestion - which appears to be correct - of an undeclared COI. Now Jacobmcpherson is (I think quite properly) disengaging, but has renewed the 3O request. IVO the history and the COI I have removed the renewed request for a 3O. Jacobmcpherson has disengaged so there is nothing to mediate. Springnuts (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I placed a COI tag on this page because edits recently added by the user Jacobmcpherson appeared to be

FYI, I went back at the COI template instruction's talk page archives, and it seems that wording was the result of an RfC following a protracted edit-war of the template instructions involving a paid editor. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful to have cleared that up. I began my discussions on this page with the artist list, because I thought it would be the easiest of the several problems to resolve (since it involves neutral and non-promotional content), but that is proving not to be the case, so perhaps I will move on in a new section to discuss the content I believe is not neutral and is promotional. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added (and aggressively reinserted after I removed it for being promotional in nature) in the recent activity on this article, and remains in the article as of this writing: the phrase "Additionally, they work with brands like

I agree that the one-sentence paragraph beginning Additionally, they work with brands like should be removed or greatly reworked. It's unsourced, it's promotional name-dropping without a purpose, and the "like" makes it ambiguous and encyclopedically meaningless. Are they brands 'similar to' those named, or are they brands 'including' those named? The article could benefit from copy edit for peacock language, but content should be sourced and stabilized first. I'm not sure what is meant earlier by "creative studio". Is there such a thing as a non-creative studio? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When this article was written, the Billboard source - https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8461189/iamsound-niki-roberton-creative-directors-spotlight-interview/ wasn't behind a paywall - but it does list the brands Top Shop, Soylent, Pitchfork, Adult Swim, Spotify, and Vans in the third paragraph. This list is followed by the word "like" (in the Billboard article). Would the sentence, "They've also worked with Top Shop, Soylent, Adult Swim, and Vans," meet your interpretation of the Wikipedia stance? I don't see how the brand list itself is considered promotion, when it's a reflection of the businesses activities. Similarly, "creative studio," is how the company defines the department and I don't see how a department of a company is promotional in nature? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the full article through Outline, and I can see it mentions these brands. But why are they being mentioned here in an encyclopedia article? Marketing partnerships are

generally promotional in content by definition and they don't tell us anything of enduring value (unless and until some journalist or scholar makes the case that they are reflective of some important point about how or why people did business the way they did in this era, which I don't get from that Billboard piece). "Creative studio" is meaningless company jargon - we should avoid it and instead report what types of creation are going on (music making, filming, art installation designing, or what have you). Chubbles (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Added the archive url for that source. Unless using a direct quotation, be careful about using the same wording as the source which can represent a copyright violation. We should generally paraphrase and summarize the sources. The fourth paragraph of the source describes it as a "visual art studio" which is a little more understandable in my opinion, maybe following with 'for in-house music video production', possibly noting that Robertson was directing music videos when she founded the company. If you're going to use 'creative studio' it might be best to explain to the reader what that means: music videos, stage design, and other creative direction/support/branding for artists. They've also worked is better for tone, but I'm still not sure if it belongs, and what follows seems like industry buzzwords and should probably be presented more plainly. We're writing for a general audience. I agree with Chubbles, stating what they do is more important and informative than stating who they are doing it for. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morning all. I simplified that phrase taking the puffery and jargon out. Appreciate you may between you wish to revert, but it is perhaps a better starting point for something encyclopedic. With respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and regarding the department naming / company activities discussion, these links weren’t included - but may help - https://iamsound.zora.co/ https://www.iamsound.com/studio While I understand the company's own website isn't enough of a reference (as a standalone), it's still useful when combined with external sources for accurately representing activities.

Jacobmcpherson (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this link mentions the company - https://d21buns5ku92am.cloudfront.net/17491/pdf/campaigns/191994-20200929130006000000000-wetransfer-pro-partners-with-wales-bonner.pdf Jacobmcpherson (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobmcpherson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared paid contributions to the article here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]