Talk:The Foxes

I do not think this page should be deleted

I do not think this page should be deleted, it is not advertising it is stating the band's releases and press and also has some history. I agree it needs some work done but not deletion. Thunderx (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to clean it up. The "references" and such need to be properly formatted, and we need citations from reliable sources, which category does not include blogs, nor does it include the band's own websites. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band's own website is citing an official quote - what is wrong with this; unless you want to email NME? And why does their have to be a citation for "critically acclaimed"? The Magic Numbers are allowed to say this without one. I obviously also think that this page should be kept. Blaze42 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that language in The Magic Numbers has been challenged. Also: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for retention of anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's necessary to have the band's website as a reference; if someone looking at the page wants to look into them more.Thunderx (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree With You Thunderx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.46.131 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only just. And I didn't say it was 'crap', I was instead saying that it was a reliable source, so it should therefore be allowable for that reason. Blaze42 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I repeat: reliable sources is a clear concept. It does not include the subject's own website, blogs, fansites, and the like. IF NME reportedly said something, then we need a direct citation to the issue of New Musical Express where that was said, not a claim from the subject's website that NME said something. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no IF about NME, they said it - simple (perhaps you would like to email NME?) They would NOT be allowed to say so otherwise. And the blog site clearly shows a video with the famous people - standing right there with the band. Therefore, it is a valid citation source. Blaze42 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If NME said it, then give us a cite to the original article, not to the band's website. And there are lots of celebrity lookalikes; a video is not a reliable source for just that reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third party opinions requested

I've requested a third-party opinion on this, because Blaze and I are butting heads and I want to make sure that the band is given a fair chance. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:QS, which covers all your questions. To sum it up, provided that this band is proven notable by outside sources (album reviews, chart positions), you can use the band's own website as a source for background information necessary to properly discuss the notable aspects of the band. See the other requirements in the link provided. User:Krator (t c) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion Krator. The band have lots of album reviews, are number 9 in the indie charts, and can therefore be proven notable; thus I re added the links. Thanks again for your opinion! Blaze42 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

In order to keep the references to the bands website, blogs and other websites, the band must be notable enough. Here are the reasons, as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles.

The Foxes have been the topic of discussion in many magazines and newspapers. They have been featured on many radio stations - national and international - such as the BBC; One or more of these interviews has been half an hour.

Their last single 'Trauma Town' was number 9 in the Official UK Indie charts, and their next Single 'Bill Hicks' in number 1 in the Play.com pre order download charts. Blaze42 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.26.3 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

I have removed the "press" section from the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links; if these are relevant they can be used as references to statements within the text. Mentioning coverage in high-profile press is OK (such as an NME feature) but listing coverage is against WP:EL.

"Press" content removed from article

2008

2007

Cycle~ (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - as discussed above, they can be added per WP:QS. Blaze42 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they have context. A list of external links is pointless without a referenced statement within the article. WP:QS doesn't necessarily encourage the use of questionable sources, only say they are permitted (as sources, not a list of links) in the scope of the main article. Cycle~ (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have removed the references which do not support the article text, and left {{cn}} tags in place so they may be replaced with appropriate references.

Most of the references removed and remaining are primary, when the text was referring to independent sources. These should therefore be referenced directly to the independed sources - so tagged. I42 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Foxes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]