Talk:Ram Narayan discography

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography articles

India: Music Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian music workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Inclusion of sound sample links[edit]

The links to sounds samples that were in the article were recently removed. I reinstated them because being able to check out the sound of recordings, especially of those that are long out of print, is instructive and informative for users that want to learn about a musician's sound. Some links allow listening to whole albums at no cost, which is obviously topical and educational and incompatible with claims of promotion (what the intent would be is unclear, since I'm not affiliated with anyone). I changed the column title, which may have been the source of confusion, to make this clearer. Hekerui (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are a lot more than links to sound samples. They are links to websites that primarily sell the music, and a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:ELNO. Wikipedia has other ways to add sound samples to articles, if you actually went to the trouble to do so. Look at other music-related articles. Also look at the featured lists at WP:DISCOGS. Not one makes such links. And stop edit warring. This is the third time you have restored the links after considerable warning not to do so. Do it again and you can be blocked. Cresix (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly fine to link to copyrighted material that serves a purpose of illustrating an article subject. Listening to albums at no cost is 1) obviously fulfilling that purpose very well, 2) not spam because the links are about the music not the vendor, and 3) since these albums are still non-free and not allowed for posting here under the non-free content criteria, links are proper.

Unless you have a better idea which I haven't seen you articulate, the article revision with the links is the best solution - remember that you removed all the links with a justification that I disputed and you then refused further discussion by deleting an invitation for discussion. Changing an article requires persuasive argument to change previous consensus unless a case is obvious (which it is not here per my argument). "No one does it" is weak because other discographies are from widely different artists so the composition of articles on their work naturally differs, as is normal on Wikipedia, and whose works are often easily physically available or, in the case of classical music, not works by the composer and therefore not of the same educational value.

Lastly, by simply hitting the revert button you removed content I added on one of the albums, which does nothing to improve the article. Hekerui (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not copyright. The issue is WP:SPAM and WP:ELNO, which you obviously haven't bothered to read. And I gave you a better idea. Add sound samples to articles the way it's usually done on Wikipedia. And one more link for you. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I'm not repeating myself over and over here because you you refuse to get the point. This is my final comment on the matter unless another editor provides a better argument. Wait for consensus here to restore the links, or get blocked. And there is no consensus of one person. Cresix (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article in the interest of moving forward, even though you have already checked out after a final threat. Hekerui (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]