Jump to content

Talk:Logan Lynn

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

Overhaul

[edit]

This article needs some serious work. For starters, it looks like a fansite, with so much detail you'd think this guy was a superstar. Then, the sections are too plentiful with overlong titles and individual sections that are too short yet overloaded with excessive detail--just a look at the TOC is headache inducing. That needs to be redone--and all those "main article" links need to be converted to simple in-text wikilinks. All of the article is just seriously over the top. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • IndieQueenPDX, you have made some useful edits, but I wish you'd comment here. A few remarks: I don't think those "main article" links should stay. That's all stuff that's linked, and they're not really "main articles" anyway, since a biography is a different kind of article. (I'll ask Eric Corbett, an MOS expert, if he can have a quick look to see what he thinks--Eric?) Those section headings used to be too long, but now they're really too short: just dates aren't all that informative and you could consider making them more topical--the U2 article does that, to some extent, in an economical fashion, though I've always wondered why such sections are completely determined by album releases. In the case of your guy, there's lots of other interesting things from his life you could use to divvy the article up.

    There's one other thing that needs looking at (really, it does): the many, many "references" to his own website. This one, for instance, is really silly--note that (ref 11) it's titled "Danielle says: " in our article, which is ridiculous. First of all, that's just someone's response (not even that--it's the introduction to a response)--and who the hell is Danielle? Second, such factoids need reliable sources for references. A bigger problem with those links to his website is exemplified here, in this link (currently ref 19). What should be linked is the original, from that magazine. Going through Lynn's website is basically increasing spamminess, but it is also a copyright violation: I see nothing that indicates that he was given the right to copy the text on his own website. (Problem is that the magazine seems to have nothing on him--[1]).

    IndieQueenPDX, you really need to go through all the links and check them out for such possible copyright infringements, and that's even before we check to see if all those linked webzines are even reliable sources (per WP:RS). You can choose not to do it, in which case I'll return to the article and simply chop everything I suspect of being a copyvio or all too spammy/self-referential. I'm sure you don't want that. Thank you for your efforts so far, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies,Hi there. As for section headings, it was based on the article The Dandy Warhols - they have a similar layout and are an affiliated act. It seems to me that these article headings could have more detail - perhaps instead of including all releases, they are just divided up by full length album? The problem there is that many of this artist's most notable releases have been EPs or singles - which is why I re-added links to the release articles in each section. This page has been active since 2009 and both of the references you have called "spam" were links which were already verified many stages ago (in 2009) when this article was first created. A bunch of the refs you hacked have since fallen victim to link rot - the only place some are still around is on the artist's site (from posts from that same time period). Isn't there a way to check that against earlier versions so that information doesn't get lost? I was under the impression that is why that system exists. As for cutting all artist site links all together, that seems drastic. Are we policing copyright violations on 3rd party sites? I'm pretty sure not.
    • Linking to a copyvio is a copyvio--see WP:ELNEVER. So if an artist's site links to them, that's fine, but if it also cites them at length, as in one of the examples I gave, that's not fine. Again, I personally don't think that albums (or EPs, or hits, or whatever) are the only thing that matter in concocting heading titles, but YMMV (it was a suggestion). As for "previously verified", that's not really our concern--that links were in there years ago doesn't mean they are necessarily valid. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the present organisation of the article around album releases makes any sense at all. I was interested to see though that Lynn was born to parents. Is that unusual in the United States? As for copyright violations, linking to a site with copyright violations is just as bad as hosting them ourselves. Eric Corbett 17:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DrmiesSo I guess those weird author names are just coming from comment fields on those sites during the auto-cite feature which took the links from raw links to references. I will see about locating that article from another source, and can do that throughout the article.
    • Probably so, yes. I didn't check all the references, of course. BTW, my comments (and those of Eric, no doubt) really only apply (well, except for the copyvio stuff) if you want this article to be better by Wikipedia's standards, which for the most part will also make it a more readable article. There is much work to do on the four million articles we have, but since you invested heavily in this one, might as well make it better. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric Corbett How would you suggest these sections be titled if not by album releases? I see that The Dandy Warhols U2, and Death Cab for Cutie have it laid out like the Logan Lynn article currently reads. If either of you have an example of a band article for a band that has been releasing work for 15 years that you think better accomplishes capturing that story, please post it here so I can investigate. I thought this was best practices because of other recording artist articles, but if it's not I would like to see what is before I try and correct it again. Thanks.
    The Dandy Warhols is just a poor article, so nothing to be gained from that. U2 is a much better example, which organises the band's career by transitions in their style or significant events in their career. Take a look at the linking sentence that opens the The Unforgettable Fire and Live Aid (1984–85) section for instance: "The band feared that following the overt rock of the War album and tour, they were in danger of becoming another 'shrill', "sloganeering arena-rock band". Eric Corbett 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric Corbett DrmiesThanks for that feedback. Very helpful. I created new sections not related to specific artist releases. Do you guys think this type of grouping is more in line with how this should roll? I can dig into the citations next.
    That's much better I think, but you could improve it even further as I've demonstrated with the first of your new headings. Eric Corbett 11:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

I've started removing content sourced by loganlynnmusic.com, which is not independent of the subject. There's a ton of unnecessary detail in this article, as well as other bad sourcing. I've made a few trims but will leave the rest to others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Logan Lynn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Logan Lynn. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logan Lynn. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Online harassment

[edit]

Unproven claims of harassment are presented as fact, which seems incredibly out of place for Wikipedia. A bunch of he said/she said stuff with incredibly questionable sources. The entire paragraph reads like it was written by the subject of this article to boost his(?) ego. 91.97.119.72 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logan_Lynn&oldid=1208642861"