Talk:Jagjaguwar

Untitled

In the Godzilla series, it's Jet Jaguar, not Jagjaguwar. I'm gonna remove that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.167 (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Disclosing COI

I'm very familiar with Secretly Group and Jagjaguwar. I plan to update some information here since I've noticed inconsistencies between this and information that has been published or can easily be found on the company websites. Plus they've grown a lot, so generally it looks like most of this info is outdated.

I will do my best to be as objective as I possibly can be and I will cite everything! If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. I'm happy to discuss anything that I may have cited incorrectly or generally seems incorrect.

Appreciate all feedback. Thanks! --SecretlyRAG (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Artist list

Pinging @Masem: as an interested party. Masem, you've argued in other discussions that a list of artists signed to a record label shouldn't be removed entirely. A second editor has just done that here - removed the entire list of artists (as in, all the blue links) with the stated reason that it is spam. I keep being summarily and aggressively reverted here without discussion, so I need input from other minds. I frankly think that a record label article that doesn't at least link to the bands signed to it is failing in providing basic information and navigation functions. Do you believe artist lists are inherently spam, or are they encyclopedically permissible? Chubbles (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You have noted that the list was entirely unsourced? Not a single independent source in sight? The Banner talk 10:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, if there is a list of artists, it must be based on third-party sourcing, otherwise it is overly promotional. — Masem (t) 12:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: Now, hang on, here. That has never been a requirement at label articles, and for good reason; artist lists are based on publication data. A record label is a publisher, just like a book publisher is a publisher. Discographical information is equivalent to bibliographic information - that is, the publication of a book is sufficient to prove its own existence, and it is not necessary to provide a third-party source to prove the existence of a book (you don't need a New York Times review of a book to prove a book exists; you just cite the book). And no one has ever thought it helpful to the project to require citations to a published album for each artist entry in these lists in order to "prove" a group has released with a label; it's footnote-cluttering and a huge amount of effort for something no one would actually ever need. This information is widely understood to be WP:SKYISBLUE, uncontroversial and easily verifiable. WP:LISTPEOPLE, everyone's favorite list guide, doesn't even make the case that entries must be independent in addition to being reliable (WP:ABOUTSELF would hold); that would be akin to asking for third-party reviews of the books listed in someone's bibliography. If the subject is notable (and no one has nominated Jagjaguwar for deletion here; please, by all means, interested parties nominate it and see what happens), the list is part of basic information about the topic, rather than inherently suspect as promotional. Chubbles (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because it was never challenged in the past doesn't meant it's right. The full list of artists for a label, if not supported by third party sources, falls into WP:NOTCATALOG as well as WP:NOTPROMOTION. LISTPEOPLE requires both notability and reliable sourcing, and notability itself is based on independent sources. And because we are talking about commercial interests here, we have to be even more careful with the use of first party sourcing. — Masem (t) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Masem::I think there's a reasonable case here to resist the idea that everyone who edited in music wasn't generally bothered by this alleged problem for twenty years; I have hundreds of labels on my watchlist and I can't think of a single instance where bluelinked artists were removed because we were worried about promotion, until this year. We have an article on Jagjaguwar and an article on, e.g., The Besnard Lakes, but associating these two articles with a navigation link is prima-facie promotion and editors are justified in aggressively removing them? A lot of downstream impacts flow from this reasoning, and a few questions come to mind as a result.

1. Does that mean mention of bluelinked labels should be aggressively removed from the band articles as well, if it is not third-party sourced?
2. Does this apply equally to labels regardless of cultural impact? For instance, List of Motown artists should be cut down to only include the three third-party sourced entries?
3. Does this apply equally to defunct labels? For instance, the list at ABC Records (which went under in 1979) should be entirely removed, as it has no sources and such lists are promotional in nature?
4. We have a Category:Jagjaguwar artists, which is completely unsourced. What do we do with it?

Chubbles (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In all cases, I would reasonably expect that a truly notable band/group would have third-party sourcing to identify the label they have relesaed their songs under. But we do need that sourcing per WP:V. It likely already exists in articles of notable groups and that should be brought over to these articles, but when we are given a unlinked band due to lack of an article, then that means we have failed WP:V and that entry should be removed.
I wouldn't aggressively remove blue links, but clearly non-linked bands w/o direct sourcing to support it should be removed, and if someone actually tries to do the work to source blue-linked ones and fails to demonstrate evidence, that's also reasonable cause to remove.
This would apply to both the Motown and the ABC Records entries.
Categories obviously cannot be sourced, but it expected that a source on the band's page would support inclusion in that category. But if that source doesn't exist, then they should be removed. — Masem (t) 04:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so you note that easily notable artists would likely have third-party sourcing out there, and I agree. You then note that such sourcing is necessary for WP:V, but actually, the standard you're now suggesting here is higher than WP:V. I've already noted that meeting WP:V is generally trivial and uncontroversial, especially in the case of bluelinked artists, but this discussion has moved beyond that, and the emerging consensus among these three editors is that third-party sourcing is required because of PROMO concerns. That means editors can't use Spotify or the label website or even the published albums themselves as sources. No one has been doing any work to source blue-linked artists and failed; the list on this page was summarily removed for WP:PROMO reasons, and not because a good-faith search had been conducted to source the list and been found wanting. In addition to removal of the artist lists, It would follow that this would be a threat to the category as well, since that replicates the information and navigation functions of the list. Chubbles (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that the standing practice on label articles has only recently become an issue given how strong we are have been fighting against COI and SEO/commercial promotion issues. A list of artists for a label falls in a grey area where it could be seen as necessary factual information, but at the same time its a NOTCATALOG issue (we don't list all the authors signed to a given publisher, for example, nor all the products made by a specific company, though in the latter case, notable (as in, blue-linked) products or product lines are given)

I think there should be agreement that immediate removal of the list should be undone, but there should be more care to make sure that these lists are not just splashing down the list of signed artists from the label, and should instead stick to those that are notable and where sourcing in the band's article can be found to affirm the link, or for non-blue linked, third-party sourcng should be added. Otherwise, just the straight up listing without any sources or just using the label's site as a source does fall into being overly promotional. Masem (t) 16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That's more in line with what you had argued at Talk:SharpTone Records, and if I could at least have that agreed upon, and the list restored on those terms, I'd be ready to end the discussion for the time being. Chubbles (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to move on with the restoration if you're also ready. Chubbles (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

With independent sources for the notable artists please. The Banner talk 17:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: You've said that indulging The Banner's request is not necessary. How should we proceed from here? Chubbles (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I oppose restoration Graywalls (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chubbles: Why do you object against providing a list of notable artists backed up with independent sources? We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:V. And with the article tagged for "paid contributions", we need the highest standards for reliability and independent sourcing. The Banner talk 08:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Masem has left the discussion, which is a shame - he was someone I could talk to. But I think I located a simple solution, and I don't know why it eluded me for so long. This neatly avoids the problem of having redlinked artists in the list (I maintain that a full list is encyclopedic, but I at least see the validity of the argument that there is a promotional aspect to having them on the list if we don't already have an article on the band), and it keeps us from wasting volunteers' time unnecessarily cite-stuffing footnotes that aren't actually needed, wanted, or useful. And, at last, it restores this article to basic information and navigation functionality, a service it has not provided its readers for more than a week now. Chubbles (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I found Masem's statement "Otherwise, just the straight up listing without any sources or just using the label's site as a source does fall into being overly promotional." rather interesting. And providing independent sources is never unnecessarily cite-stuffing footnotes that aren't actually needed, wanted, or useful, as you call it. In fact, conform WP:V, it will make the encyclopedia more reliable. The Banner talk 13:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The list was in fact challenged and removed on 5 May 2024 by User:Graywalls twice. Since the first removal Chubbles has restored the unsourced list three times. The Banner talk 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Banner:, I think ALL of these Secretly Group articles need to be merged and redirected into one. Collectively, they seem to have enough coverage to warrant an article, but bulk of the contents is directory and promotional fluff boasting awards by individual artists and the labels/companies themselves are expected to meet WP:NCORP to justify their existence. https://books.google.com/books?id=ERUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=Jagjaguwar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFltXSrsWGAxUzHzQIHWWZCjg4ChDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=Jagjaguwar&f=false

Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chubbles:, reviewing the edit summary in the edit history on this article, there's clearly a disagreement over including the contents. Please show where you have established consensus to include it in accordance with WP:ONUS. Verifiability is the absolute minimum requirements to contents. Verifiability is not unquestioned right of inclusion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING Graywalls (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)