Talk:Live and Unsigned

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

Most of the citations and references are either directly lifted from press released from the company that runs Live and Unsigned, or from the companies website itself, making this entire article suspect.

replaced all first party citations in intro with third party substitutes Sloggerbum (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality[edit]

Whilst I'm well aware of the wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source, I'm concerned that the internet is full of blog entrys and forum posts about how many bands feel that from their experiences with live and unsigned, this competition is basically a massive con to sell loads of gig tickets and make the organisers as much money as possible. What would happen if we were to add a controversy section that quoted from some of these blogs or fanzines and perhaps quoted the bands directly? Eg "The singer in Band X stated that he felt etc etc". I might have a go and just see what happens. Coolug (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About controversy[edit]

Here's my thoughts on the controversy section: if the Detours did get bilked out of their prize, I feel that counts as a notable controversy. I'm a little squeamish giving the facts much prominence, though; if you read the article, it was just posted by one guy in a facebook post. Why hasn't the band as a whole made a bigger deal about this, if it's true? Maybe there's a delayed prize thing, or something? More facts are needed. I'm going to leave the section about Michael Smith in for now, though I'd really like to see that backed up somewhere else than a facebook quote.

About the cost of the show, I don't feel that counts as a controversy. For one, I did a shitload of OCD research (you can tell with the bloated reference section), and I couldn't find any actual publications making any complaints whatsoever about the cost. I read the pop cop article: which told a story of people paying what, like $20 bucks to compete in the first round, and after being informed of the costs to move to the next round, can choose to decline (which the subject in question did). If some sort of controversy about the cost ever seeps into reliable sources in the media (not just a pop blog quoting some random participant's online ramble) then I say we consider adding it in. Sloggerbum (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked out some other talent show pages, and couldn't find any inclusion of participant's feelings about the show (Survivor doesn't have any sort of paragraph on the losing participant's bitterness, etc.). The Eurovision article had a section on controversies, but none of the included information was based on blogs, fanzines, or forums, and were instead all established publications. (see Survivor_(TV_series), Must Be the Music (TV series), and Eurovision Song Contest). Sloggerbum (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got curious and looked up Self published sources, which reads Self-published and questionable sources [Facebook comments] may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as it does not involve claims about third parties. Ok, so trying to interpret this - his claim about the prize is making a statement about himself, I suppose (i.e. he didn't receive the investment), but it's also making a statement about a third party (i.e. the assertion that they didn't pay). Thoughts on this? Also, we don't have a link to the original facebook quote. Ok, I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that if the existence of the facebook quote was in a reliable publication like, say, The Wall Street Journal or even a small regional newspaper, then it might be admissable. But the The Pop Cop seems to be a popular music blog operated by a anonymous single person. That takes us back to the problem with using blogs. Between confusion about the facebook quote and the unknown source, and I'm going to take the safe route and take the quote down. God, I confused myself. (for posterity sake, here is the article and quote in question. Sloggerbum (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there definitely needs to be a controversy section - personally I don't feel that Live and Unsigned is more disreputable than the music industry in general but a google search for Live and Unsigned returns so many "scam" results it's far from encyclopaedic to ignore them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.79.221 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

There are a lot of sources used on this article that really shouldn't be used on a Wikipedia article. I'm removing some that are not suitable (mostly because they don't exist any more!) but I could do with some advice on one source from the rest of the community. This source [1] seems to be nothing more than a tickets link with no information other than the copy that the promoters supplied to the ticket site. Can this be used or should I remove it? Coolug (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this article in general, overall it's pretty clear that the article is terribly written and includes a lot of fluff. It seems like almost any minor point from any source whatsoever has been added in order to try and prove notibilty of the contest and therefore justify it having an article. Seeing as there are now some articles from the BBC and other more well known publications (mostly due to the ASA action) I'm going to have a bit of a clear up and get rid of some of the fluff. I really don't think the article needs every local news article ever written about some band no-ones every heard of or never will hear of just because they got into some regional final. So I'm going to be bold and have a mess around. Any help would very much be appreciated. cya Coolug (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice cleanup, good job :) OceanHoney (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Live and Unsigned. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Live and Unsigned. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Live_and_Unsigned&oldid=1208528017"