Jump to content

Talk:Jvke

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Richard3120 (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 30 November 2022 (Discography: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pronounced Jake not Juke

JVKE task force

I have created a new task force for this article for everyone who has been improving and participating to give me some support and help me give this article more text, sources and other articles for his music

  • Join link: Wikipedia:WikiProject JVKE or search it up

NYMan6 (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture/JVKE task force, but have to question whether this is really necessary as discussion on this talk page can cover this. Other editors may opt to redirect that to here. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 01:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm requesting MFD on it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture/JVKE task force AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 01:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes that page was a accidental mistake, I know the talk page is needed but there are some problems with this article, and I'm trying to build up a force to end it, There are many steps I added that will take time, that's why I made the page but it is not the JVKE task force it is Wikipedia:WikiProject JVKE.
NYMan6 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is definitely necessary for now NYMan6 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

I would like to know about the stub, as well as this article is way bigger than most stub articles on the Wikipedia site, and there are new sources appearing. NYMan6 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the stub tag because another editor just rated this page as start-class article. The size of a page isn't always the best criteria to measure development. This page is well underway towards what we would call B-class, but here's the thing: you have a (growing) number of sources and only a few meet the criteria of WP:Reliable sources. Some certainly do. The subject meets WP:Verifiability. The question remains: does the subject meet policies of WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Notability? I am impressed with the work you've put into this so far, and since the page is new, I've been reluctant to interrupt your steady progress. I will ask you boldly, do you have some association with the subject? I can see other accounts have tried to create this page recently. BusterD (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you right now, I don't but I have been following his career closely. 2022 seems like the year, enough sources came in to make the article, I can see that other accounts have tried to make this, but were unsucessful.Yes, thank you very much, I actually am impressed myself, but I think this article was one that needed to enter. Thank you very much, Yes, this article is going towards B-Class which I'll say is amazing! Yes, I'll work on the sources. This morning I'll add more songs to the article, as well as probably some more text. He does meet Verifability, which is great! I find it not only impressing for me but for the people also working on this article, I love the amount of progress I've made, I don't mean to be recognized by the actual singer (JVKE) but I hope this article will be notable like other's
Thank you
NYMan6 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'll accept your answer in good faith. As opposed to adding more detail (again, it isn't the size of your article...) I'd focus on finding some really high quality sources, which will be available soon, based on the recent coverage. Perhaps there's some resonance on the recent television appearance. Talk shows often have fan pages or blogs which themselves would not be acceptable sources, but the chatter on which might lead you to these links. The standard is: significant coverage directly detailing the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. We need three or four to prevent the page from facing deletion process. I'm seeing Eggerton at Billboard, Zellner at Billboard, Renezeder at CelebSecrets, and Doby at The Hype as your best four. The last two aren't awesome, and while Billboard is money, all of these links are routine entertainment news and you are looking for diverse sources as well. The Mwenesi is cool but I wouldn't count that towards the minimum. It's arguable. Dougray at Cranston Herald is local coverage, and mostly interview so arguable, and not counting towards notability. Howabout this from Variety? This page indicates the Mwenesi was not an isolated incident, it's word for word. Broadway World is nice. Daily Illini is a college newspaper but a good one. Once you've anchored a page with RS, then you can use lesser sources like interviews to help detail.
Remember, you are writing about a human being, not merely the image of a human being. You are wise to look at the BLP link I gave you above and read about the risks in covering a person without protecting them appropriately. Tread carefully. I'm going to mark this page as reviewed, but I'm trusting you to be careful and ask for help. Deal? BusterD (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and obviously deal! NYMan6 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

From what I can tell, the moniker seems to be universally printed in all caps as JVKE. Are there compelling reasons to ignore this yet maintain the v? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use stylizations such as all caps or all lower case, either for artists or for records. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The substitution of A for V is a stylization, and one that only makes sense capitalized (v does not by any stretch resemble an upside-down lowercase a). Again I ask, are there any compelling reasons to retain that and insist on lowercase? Edit: MOS:TM says to use standard capitalization rules as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one. As far as I can tell, Jvke is a new style invented here. Please correct me if I’m mistaken. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the rules here are a mess and contradictory, I've wanted clarification on this for years. I'm just telling you why all caps have been ignored. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources use "Jvke". The CelebVogue source used on the article does (no comment on its reliability, I'm simply saying Wikipedia didn't "invent" it). That being said, there would be no point in pointing out the all caps stylization in the lead if we already capitalize it, e.g. "JVKE (stylized in all caps)", and the article text should match where the article is located at the moment, which is at "Jvke". Please stop changing it to all caps until the article is located at JVKE. Start a move request, and then you'll have a compelling argument for maintaining the all caps in article prose. Ss112 06:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that source. Would be great to see some more-clearly reliable sources using it, if it’s a stylization we want to stick with. Otherwise the page should be moved. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2022

JvkeJVKE – As far as I can tell, every source that is more reliable than Wikipedia itself refers to the subject exclusively as JVKE, and we should defer to common usage per MOS:TM. Additionally, the V in the name represents an upside-down A in the name Jake, a substitution which only works with capital letters; an upside-down a looks nothing like a v. If we reject the letter-case stylization, it would make more sense for us to reject any stylization whatsoever and insist on calling the subject by his legal name. Since we haven't done so, we should follow reliable sources. 151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. See MOS:ALLCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 162—blindlynx 18:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section itself defers to MOS:TM on the subject of trademarks, which reads in part: When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that use the Jvke stylization, I’ll support it. However, I’ve only seen one such source, and of dubious quality.

      Edit: The most relevant bit would be: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: (emphasis added) —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Page naming policy suggests the proper outcome may be move to Jacob Lawson, which is now a redirect to this page. I'm not suggesting a change in this RM at this time. We should address the allcaps issue first. In this process, I'd oppose move per MOS:ALLCAPS. BusterD (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 162 Not an initialism or acronym. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. Wikipedia didn't "invent" the lower-case iteration and I think decapitalising this, like we've decapitalised most other all-caps musician names in the past, should trump the amount of sources that do capitalise it. If the page is moved, I have nothing against actually printing the all-caps JVKE in the lead to show that the V is intended to be an upside-down A rather than just noting "stylized in all caps". Ss112 10:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

I want to know about a vote or poll between our editors for a new discography article 73.17.35.238 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one album and three singles is enough for a separate article just yet. Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a lot more singles we haven´t put NYMan6 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But are they actually singles, or just YouTube videos and TikToks that he has put out on his own channel? Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Far too little to split off. Ss112 07:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]