Talk:Stonefield (band)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stonefield (band) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal 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 (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Music Low‑importance

	Australia portal Stonefield (band) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External links Section

WP:ELNO point 10 is very clear about links to be avoided. Any editor wishing to re-add them or add more please make your case why we should ignore this central guideline and await a consensus before you add them. Mtking (talk)

Urm, the note on under the WP:ELNO heading contradicts the points within the policy itself "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", to me seems one should be used rather then all of them. All of the links were official but do think one of the five should only be used. Another point is why do we have these templates if point 10 says otherwise? Bidgee (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO also clearly states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject..." The band does not currently have a dedicated website, so the provided links ARE the official links to their pages. These are the links people follow to get information directly from the band, and therefore they are valid.--Rowie235 (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say at least leave the facebook link. This is their main platform at this time.--Rowie235 (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - The band does not have an official website, that says a lot about the bands management, in that case I think it is ok (until the bands management gets it's act in order) to have either the facebook or myspace one listed, my pref would be for MySpace. Mtking (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown US bands may have sites but Australian bands tend to hold off. Fact is such comment really has no place on the talk page since this should be about the article not whether the band has a website or not and their management. Bidgee (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They only recently started getting a lot of attention. I'm sure a website is on their list. As for the myspace, barely anyone uses myspace anymore, and the band posts on facebook and twitter constantly.--Rowie235 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes about 1 hour to register a domain and get a web page on the net, the reason for MySpace is that it is listed as the "Artist Website" on the Triple J Unearthed profile page. Mtking (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it may be easy to get a domain, but they need to design and test the website first. It won't be pure html. It will take time. And yes, Triple J does list the Myspace as their website but it's all but useless. I believe that adding the link to the facebook page doesn't hurt the integrity of Wikipedia and it can only lead to easier access to the bands official news channels.--Rowie235 (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's to design and test, a one page place holder with links to itunes/facebook/MySpace? Happy to change my mind if you can show a some sources that they use something else over the MySpace page. Mtking (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can point you to are the twitter and facebook accounts. http://www.facebook.com/stonefieldband http://twitter.com/#!/Stonefieldband If you look over the amount of posts there recently you should see where I'm coming from. They are the most reliable sources of information about the bands happenings. They regularly post links to published news articles about or including them.--Rowie235 (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. We do not disambiguate against prospective titles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stonefield (band) → Stonefield (Australian band) – Since there was another band called Stonefield (see here) this page should included the country qualifier. Mtking (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was in the process of creating a page with under that name when this one was created. The page should be called Stonefield (Australian band) with a new page possibly being created for Stonefield (Swiss band) for redirection.--Rowie235 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We don't add extra disambiguation for articles that might be created at some in the future. When (and if) the article on the Swiss band is created, then this article should be moved, but not before then. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So ignore the creation of the swiss band page, but acknowledge that there is one and move Stonefield (band) to Stonefield (Australian band). It can't hurt t would make it easier IF someone decided to make one in the future, AND the Swiss Stonefield were technically first.--Rowie235 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Disambiguation is meant to be short and concise. (band) is appropriate here. Disambiguation is meant to give seperate names to articles with other topics. There is no article for the Swedish band so further disambiguation is not needed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. If an article about the Swedish band is created at some time in the future, the issue of disambiguation can and will be addressed then. – ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this stage until there is a seperate article for the Swedish band there is no need for this article to have its name changed. Dan arndt (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Glastonbury

Maybe a sourcing issue, but the various sources about the performance conflict. Some state they were asked by a booker, some say the booker booked them on the spot, etc. There is no way one booker books every band at every venue for Glastonbury; it's one agency at least, if not one agent per setlist per stage. There's some sensationalism going on, as well; nobody "books on the spot", there's contracts involved for something of that size. In another source I found and did not use, the band says they played in front of 150,000 people, but they were on the fourth stage and played second on the first day of the festival, so I've got some concerns about the validity of any numbers statements about the festival directly from them. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]