Talk:WOMADelaide

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WOMADelaide. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090103084140/http://www.fasterlouder.com.au:80/festivalawards/2008/results/winners/ to http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/festivalawards/2008/results/winners/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081021071438/http://www.helpmannawards.com.au/default.aspx?s=winners&year=2008 to http://www.helpmannawards.com.au/default.aspx?s=winners&year=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lineups

Template:Ping I removed the lineups for the reasons that I mentioned in the edit summaries, [1][2]: they are contrary to:

• WP:SOURCELIST - they are unsourced
• WP:NOTDIRECTORY - they are not historically significant

I also ask that you read WP:REVONLY, as you seem to have reverted multiple other edits that I made that were unrelated to the lineup. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. The only other edit I could see was you changing “invitation” to “invite” and back again. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tqq Template:Mdash [3][4][5][6]. I've re-applied these where applicable. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There's 76 featured acts in 2025 alone. As bulleted lists they'd definitely overwhelm the article, and with over 30 years of listings, even a compact (and rather unreadable) form would be too bulky for NOTDIRECTORY to be handwaved. What could be done would be a table for each year which lists (say) the dates, the limited subset of headline acts, and which has an link to the site's yearly lineup listing (see under https://www.womadelaide.com.au/archive) - there's a potential benefit to the reader in having that easily accessible (particularly since it's 5 levels down in the website and not visible directly from their menu) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Go and have a look at the official Glastonbury page and then both the Glastonbury lineup article that links to the Glastonbury festivals page. It’s not overhanging, it’s preserving data!! the impending collapse of it all (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tqq Template:Mdash Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details". There may be merit in keeping the complete list on a separate page (like Glastonbury Festival line-ups), but even Template:Section link is way too much detail for the main article. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

In your opinion. I think is invaluable information and amazing for research purposes. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Why clone data into Wikipedia when it not just MAY but OUGHT to be either (1) cited only or (2) identified for further reading? At best it belongs into Wikidata, where researchers can also find it and probably find it more useful to be there. Elrondil (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s not cloning data. It’s preserving data and valuing the artists who have played there. I am sorting into tables over the next few days too including links. Again other festivals have this sort of info on here. Not sure why this one should be any different. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

To preserve data, use Internet Archive, rather than dumping it into Wikipedia. Or import it into Wikidata. But bloating an article with unencyclopaedic material is not appropriate, here or elsewhere. Elrondil (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s not “dumping” data at all. It’s expanding an article to enrich it! As it’s time consuming and I’m still working on it I would prefer help rather than criticism. I am going to make the data easier to digest over the coming days by adding tables as per other festival articles. Unencycolpedic! Pah! Elsewhere? Nonsense! the impending collapse of it all (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not enriched by adding indiscriminate collections of information or catalogues of unencyclopedic listenings, especially when such material may just be cited or identified for further reading, and not every individual involved in a subject needs to be mentioned.

That isn't criticism, that is from the MOS. Elrondil (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

However the artists mentioned the majority have Wikipedia articles so links are important and otherwise they aren’t being respected and will be lost to the archives of the internet. I’m working on it when not a t work(a reply is quicker than an edit) which will look a lot better and I will remove erroneous and repetitive information. Please be patient and thanks for the suggestions. I note no comments made on Womad, Glastonbury, Reading, Coachella etc. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply to you have three people (myself, Template:U, Template:U) saying that the lineup list ought not be in this article, and no-one agreeing with you that they should be. I ask that you defer to the clear majority and move the lineup lists out of this article, and the equally badly formatted World of Music, Arts and Dance (which I see you are currently working on). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tqq Template:Mdash I've boldly collapsed the table in Glastonbury Festival. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m working on it but I have a life outside of Wikipedia.

Please add talk pages to Glastonbury festival, Glastonbury festival lineups (which you’re almost saying shouldn’t even exist despite its cultural significance much like Womadelaide and the artists it has hosted over the last 30 years) and WOMAD’s main page. Also, what’s your opinion on WOMAD, Charlton Park then? the impending collapse of it all (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, whatever the outcome as to the volume of these lists (which do seem excessive to me), it needs to cited. That's a core policy. Kerry (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

None of the Glastonbury lineups are cited.

im citing the lineups from the physical programs. Its an ongoing process as its not a quick thing and last night took five hours.

the lists aren’t excessive. They are encyclopaedic. When ive searched for countless bands and read up on their history there is usually a discography section. This section includes track listings for each album and sometimes singles too, Including special editions (one example is the French band Air, particularly their debut album Moon Safari). Is this excessive information?

it is all a great service for reading up the history of the artists and growth of the festival and I might add I’m not affiliated with the festival or getting paid to do this either. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You now have four editors saying it is excessive. I also want to add that the citations have to be independent. Even if none of us here trim it down, someone else is bound to in future.

There are lots of pages for Australia alone that need work, and the energy and commitment you're clearly investing in this one page here might be futile. Elrondil (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not interested in Australia. Is that what the issue is?? I’m editing a festival page not a page about a country. I’m considering transferring the information to its own article much like the Glastonbury Festivals Lineup page. I’ve also added over 20 citations to that page! the impending collapse of it all (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the clear majority opinion above, I've moved the line-ups out of this article and into a separate article WOMADelaide line-ups. Note that I'm doing this as a compromise, not because I think the line-up should be in Wikipedia at all. I would support deletion of WOMADelaide line-ups if it were proposed. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the article and non-deletion. I’m spending hours on this as you can see. Is there a place where I can try to garner support for my efforts rather than users with lots of edits (as you can also see I’m not new to the site, about the same length of time as you) coming along saying they support deletion? With the edits I’ve done so far as you yourself proposed (and as I intended to do from the start as said) and following previous articles that have existed for years on this site I fail to see why this information shouldn’t exist on this site and it is invaluable since Wikipedia is one of the first sites that appear on google searches usually as a bio for said searched query and is very encyclopedic being in tables. It is by far non comprehensive though. Reading the talks section on Glastonbury festival lineups (as one of MANY examples of articles that have existed for decades on here) people users wanted times as well, which I felt was far too detailed. the impending collapse of it all (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)