Talk:Electronic press kit

Just out of curiosity, why is the Sonicbids link considered spam? For quite some time now, there have been several edits that either include or delete references to the Sonicbids site. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No indication that there's anything notable about Sonicbids over any other company doing the same thing. There isn't even an article for the company. Also, a previous edit had replaced a different link with Sonicbids for no clear reason.

Although there are at least three separate groups of edits where it is included, two of those are from the same IP and the IP on the third is very close (almost certainly the same person after getting a new DHCP lease). They haven't justified or explained the inclusion. Fourohfour 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I will reply since I added the Sonicbids link. It's interesting that Movieset is allowed to stay, even though their site is in beta, while Sonicbids is considered SPAM. Sonicbids is a hosting site for musicians EPKs and has been in business for over six years. They work with many of the major music festivals, conferences and events around the world. I know many bands that use that site to host their EPK, and was simply adding it for informational purposes. It's pretty much the standard EPK site in the music industry right now. It's certainly got the most musicians using it, and most events using it to accept EPK submissions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.58.44 (talk • contribs).

The other additions may be spam, but either I missed them or they weren't being added as aggressively.

The manner in which Sonicbids was being added (and in one case overwriting another entry) repeatedly by the same person, without edit summaries or justification made it look like a spam attempt. Given the evidence available to me, I came to the reasonable conclusion that this was a spamming attempt. Have you anything to do with the company? Fourohfour 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but I know bands, and been in a band, that has used it before. I thought anyone could edit this page, so I put in my two cents, I didn't think it would be that big of a deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.58.44 (talk • contribs).

I put it back in for now, although I can't guarantee that someone else won't remove it. Fourohfour 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Sonicbids owns the trademark on "EPK." They mark the term with a "TM" on their site and in their promotional materials. --Benjybenjybenjy 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I'm confused by the request for citation for Sonicbids. There was no internal link for Sonicbids (apparently at least one wiki listing for Sonicbids had been removed), so I cited the addition about Sonicbids being the trademark holder for "EPK" here in the discussion. Then a citation has been requested, so I've added the link in the listing itself. So if the editors of the page are not allowing for Sonicbids to be listed, how are we supposed to provide proper citation? I thought I did so by listing it here. And in the end all I did was add the link in.--Benjybenjybenjy 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't clear that it was supposed to be a citation; the inclusion of trademark info in the main text followed by a link in that style looked more like a contrived inclusion of Sonicbids. Also, the link to Sonicbids' main page doesn't back up the claimed fact anyway. Not that I actually removed your link after I requested the citation anyway, so I don't understand what the issue is. (Last edit prior to this comment was by you).

You're quite free to include Sonicbids links for citation, so long as it doesn't come across as an excuse to include that link prominently. Fourohfour 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What I wanted to do in updating the entry for "EPK" was to indicate the fact that Sonicbids marks mentions of the term with a symbol that indicates a trademark. You have moved the mention to a footnote, which is totally fine (although I might contend that "prominence" is a totally arbitrary assignment and is subject to opinion), and you have asked again for a citation. I've already provided the link as a citation now on multiple occasions since I don't personally have access to trademark records because I am neither the trademark applicant nor a representative of the trademark office, so just go ahead and do with that information what you will.--Benjybenjybenjy 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple. You linked to the page [1] as a reference, but there is nothing on that page backing up the claimed fact that EPK is a trademark of the company.

If you meant that the fact is mentioned *somewhere* on the website, link to that specific page. Fourohfour 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed this dubious statement after more than two months during which people had the opportunity to provide a valid reference. I agree; two months is more than enough leeway.

Any re-insertions without a valid reference (as happened today) will be removed immediately. Expecting another two months leeway is simply gaming the system. Fourohfour 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there any independent verification that Andre Gray or Aaron Hall (the reference to AMG fails) actually exist? Everything seems to cross-refer and even a web-wide on "search appears to refer back primarily to Wikipedia as the fount of all knowledge about the pair. The section in Hall's entry about the EPK appears unnecessarily prominent, too. And there seems to be no reference anywhere to "Johannes Gutenberg Inventor Prize" other than regarding it being award to Mr Gray. Obviously a great honour. I'm lead by this to the conclusion that it's mythology creation through Wikipedia, rather than fact. pljones 2010-10-09Z11:31