Talk:Icon for Hire

What exactly is her last name?

I'm a little confused as to the lead singer's full name. The reviewer at JFH calls her Ariel Bloomer, but the AMG review used to refer to her as Ariel Jump (the current page and every other piece I've seen on them just calls her Ariel). I've heard some people online claim that she's married to their guitarist Shawn Jump, which would explain the changes, BUT this is only hearsay I've seen in a few comments sections, nothing from a professional journalist or even the band themselves, and thus doesn't even come close to meeting WP:RS. Does anyone know what the story is with this (preferably backed up with some sort of WP:RS)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, how should we identify her in the article?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, found a few sources and added them to the lead.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Member naming

I'm not sure why Ariel's name is listed as "Ariel Bloomer" in the band members section but nowhere else. Anon continues to correctly change it to her stage name and in the most recent edit states that it's a mononym. Th4n3r continues to restore it to her full name without providing any reason. Time to discuss. I'm in favour of the mononym. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I had a talk page section about it here before, but anon seems to have removed it. I'm also in favor of the mononym, mainly because most of the band's press info, as well as articles about the band, refer to her by the stage name. I'm starting to think we should have this article semi-protected like her article was.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Having talked to her a couple of times, her legal name is Ariel Bloomer but professionally she prefers Ariel. So while either is technically correct I would recommend that this page only refer to her as "Ariel" since this is her professional endeavor.Jmarshak (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Religious affiliation" section because the sources are "not reliable"

That's wrong. WP:RS describes what constitutes reliable sources. Here are the sources:

• Rueff, Ashley (July 2009). "Icon for Hire". Herald & Review (video interview). Retrieved August 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• http://www.jesusrock.net/album-review-icon-for-hire
• "pizzamachine" (Contributor). "Scripted". Sputnikmusic. Retrieved July 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
• Jamie Maxwell (Nov 2011). "Scripted". Cross Rhythms. Retrieved January 14, 2012.
• Matthews, Kent (September 1, 2011). "Music: Icon For Hire strives to be worth looking up to". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved August 17, 2012. Christian contemporary band Icon for Hire has a new CD out, Scripted. (photo caption)</ref> and some critics have noted references to the members' Christian faith in their lyrics. David Jeffries pointed out that "Christian ideals are the driving force" in the lyrics on Scripted, though he acknowledged that "you could look at this as a secular rebellion against the mopey 'scene' bands and still thrill at Icon for Hire’s fresh attitude and sense of purpose."
• Jeffries, David. "Scripted". AllMusic. Rovi Corporation. Retrieved February 6, 2012.
• Schexnayder, Nathaniel (August 2011). "Scripted". Jesus Freak Hideout. Retrieved February 6, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Jones, Kim. "Icon For Hire". About.com. The New York Times Company. Retrieved August 17, 2012.

Which sources are unreliable and for which reason. The usual practice would be to mark a particular source rather than blank an entire section so you'll understand my concern. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

Is there a direct email I can communicate with to discuss the changes that are continually being reversed on the Icon For Hire page? 2601:5:1300:4DB:C01C:5CE5:E593:8D72 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No. This is the place where such changes should be discussed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then whomever locked this page needs to know the subject better. The band member list and test is consistently WRONG and my edits keep getting reveresed. Josh is not a member of the band. He is the tour bassist (and awesome at it) but technically the band only has three members. Just look at all their publicity photos and the bio page on Tooth and Nail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarshak (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to correct it based on the provided URL. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do with Kincheloe as your source didn't support any information on him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Table Formatting

Would anyone be able to fix the table under Discography: Singles for this page? Looking at the code, I can see where everything ought to be, but my knowledge of wiki coding is pretty limited. Louis from VA (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed on music videos?

"Yes, we need to cite the existence, or more importantly, the notability of them."

What does that even mean? I mean, these don't have citations for their existence or notability (of the existence?). The citations there are just the videos reposted by the Seattle Times. Icon for Hire made music videos. They're pretty clearly music videos made by Icon for Hire. We can go to Icon for Hire's Youtube channel and watch them. What else do you want to know? Should I contact the Seattle Times and ask if they want to repost them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.45.58.20 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It means everything needs a reference especially if it could be challenged. Feel free to tag the videos in that other article.

Citing the videos' existence based on individual YouTube videos meets verifiability, but doe snot meet the reliable source criteria, as they are primary sources. The videos are best referenced using a secondary source, one where another individual discusses them. Although that's not necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

But all of this isn't relevant at all! If I claim timecube.com exists and link to it, I don't need a secondary source telling us timecube.com exists! Seriously, this is like asking a source on the colour of grass; readers can step outside and see for themselves. What could a secondary source possibly add to this? 212.45.58.20 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. The isn't about timecube.com though, it's about whether it's encyclopedic to list anything in the article. The question is not about existence but about notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem edits

A series of edits indicated here are problematic.

First, normally, indicating a subject's full name, as was don with "Ariel Bloomer usually simply referred to as 'Ariel'" would be acceptable, but the subject does not want to be referred to by her family name and so we don't. To introduce her family name would require a WP:RS and I would expect her friends, fans or publicist to remove it in short order as they have done in the past.

Second, do not remove dead links. Mark them and editors may yet find an archived version. Adding a different link isn't always the best solution. And when adding reference, don't add punctuation after them.

Third WP:OR . Where in http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Icon_For_Hire_The_rockers_bemused_by_the_Paramore_and_Evanescence_comparisons_/46555/p1/ does it indicate that it was a "crowded audience"?

Fourth, what's "Actual members"? That's not used anywhere on Wikipedia and certainly not on any articles that have been reviewed for food article status. It's redundant and just looks like a high-schooler wrote that section. Current members, present members or just members are all fine. Actual members is weak.

Fifth extra space after former members.

There are other issues, but I just reverted. Perhaps we could get other editors to comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The full name has been appearing in the first section since a long time, and STILL IS.

As I tried to discuss with you on your talk page before you deleted all the discussion without saying anything: This change in the intro is to reflect the fact that Ariel seems to PREFER to be referred to as just "Ariel". User:Jmarshak wrote exactly that on this talk page above as he claims to have spoken to her about it. Now, as said on your talk page too, if you have better informations or if indeed she does not want AT ALL her family name to appear (and hopefully you have a reference about that), write something about it in the article (and delete her name by the same occasion)

We discussed about that on your talk page. I pointed to you that what you wanted to do didn't work and asked you kindly to modify it. Did you ?

"A few months later we played our first show to a *PACKED* club in our hometown"

What do you think the club was packed with ? cows ? (joke)

Nice, just change it please. Thanks for that (I'm not convinced, but it's not the point). I added the section to be able to attach the references that were below by themselves with a "source:".

I was finding it was too packed otherwise. Mistake ? Ok, maybe.

Like you are reverting everything, here or elsewhere. Why not try to be a little constructive ? I asked you on your talk page to do the modifications we discussed (I consider that I tried) the way you wanted. Or you can correct things , but please don't revert everything everywhere all the time. It's discouraging for people willing to add content and help improve articles. Which is what Wikipedia is about, isn't it ?

Would be great. Mevo Wiki (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. We don't reply in-line. I had to grab all your edits into one place.

The fact that it's already mentioned once is a compromise. We don't need to mention the subject's full name every time it's raised.

As for discussion on my talk page, that wasn't successful because when I explained you misrepresented my actions as Wow, all that paragraph to basically say "Yes, it's probably better to have a working link". After I read that, there's nothing to read. You clearly didn't read the edit notice on my talk page either. I was gracious with you once and tried to teach you something but you acted in a childish way and I don't need that crap on my talk page. So the discussion on my talk page is dead, we'll talk about everything here instead.

So as for preferred names, tell that to Ringo Starr, Bono, Sting, Slash and probably a hundred other musicians. If a subject wants to be called by a specific name, we don't get in the way. We will, however, frequently, but not always, impose rules of grammar and capitalize names.

If the club was packed, it wasn't a "crowded audience". First, we don't know how many people the club held. Second, it's immaterial to the prose. There's already enough content about this first show and we don't need to expand it. If needed, we could change the content to indicate that there were many people in attendance, but it was likely primarily family and friends. We don't know. It's still WP:OR. It best to leave it less verbose than more verbose.

And yes, reverting usually means reverting everything, but I didn't. I kept your newly found source. Both times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how anyone can access the new link from the article and not end on the previous dead link.

As said, my intention was to be more accurate to the interview referenced and for the article to be more comprehensible, because maybe it's only me, but I don't really understand the logic beetween "as a member of the local party scene" and "(Jump was six months clean at the time)" the way it's currently written for example.

The article is now worse than before, as it misleads into thinking their first show was good, when Ariel herself said the opposite.

Just one more thing: As all your sources about dead links you provided on your talk page, each and every page about Ringo Starr, Bono, Sting, Slash says the exact opposite of what you write as it STARTS directly by telling their name and after that they are "known as".

Anyway, I throw in the towel (you could just have said something about wanting to discuss here, but I'm the one childish, sure). Mevo Wiki (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone try to access a link that is marked as a dead link?

Accuracy is fine, but if that requires increasing the amount of prose, it's a waste. Keep it short and keep the reference, then anyone can fill in the details. The names do start by giving full names, and that's what this article does as well. But all subsequent mentions of the subject's name use the alias. That's what this article does as well: "The band was formed in Decatur, Illinois by vocalist Ariel Bloomer". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but its difficult to try to discuss with you, as you seem to me to not want to hear anything (and let anyone modify articles you "watch"). About the link: EXACTLY, so why isn't the repaired link, working, with the information, appearing instead (what I tried to do in the first place and kindly asked you after several times) ? This way, anybody wanting to check the reference, can access it ???

You were the one talking of the article not being "encyclopedic" enough. For me, ACCURACY is the MOST important thing. You actually deleted a sentence making the article misleading and now less accurate, which to me is really bad (I agree we don't seem to have the same priorities)

Nobody can't fill any detail, you are reverting any atempt.

Fine, we should specify ONE time Ariel full name at the start, let know she is "KNOWN AS xxx" the exact same way as the artists mentionned as examples before, and then subsequently only mention her Alias. What, again, I was trying to do. Now, I can use "Known as" instead of "referred", and I should have deleted her name in the first paragraph.

The 1000 points question: Can I proceed with the modifications ? Mevo Wiki (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You have always been able to edit the article. Any poor edits will be reverted. As long as you're OK with that. It goes with the territory. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and I'm sure you will give a reason why you revert (what you have always done I have to admit, even if I don't really agree with the reasons), this way I will be able to correct until you run out of arguments (this may take some time ...)

I'm going to do changes slowly and one at a time, this will prevent having everything reverted each time. Mevo Wiki (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar...

There are a lot of glaring grammatical errors in particular sections of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Walter Görlitz

You recently commented on my edit for Icon For Hire, which I did while not logged in. I wasn't trying to change the content, at all, I was attempting to clean up the grammar. That section is poorly written. After it was reverted (for making minor grammatical changes) I get your message telling me not to add original content? Do you even read the changes? I stuck a cleanup header on it and left it be. I think you're being a bit overzealous and you are not thoroughly reading through the kind of changes that are being made. That is not a confrontational statement, it's simply an observation. If you want to inform me for doing something wrong, at least make sure you know what I was doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironywrit (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

These were the edits you made while signed out. It was not about changing grammar, it was about changing the meaning. Adding the conditional, "generally", was the problem. It constituted original research, which isn't allowed. I chose my warning template judiciously. I applied {{uw-nor1}}. Its wording could probably be improved, but it is a general warning. Later versions of the template are much more specific. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry.

Hatnote required?

Is the hatnote (added here) required as the self-titled album is linked in the opening paragraph? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Icon for Hire. 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 https://archive.is/20130119023605/http://breathecast.christianpost.com/Christian.Music.Artist-Icon.For.Hire/Interview-1250_5458.htm to http://breathecast.christianpost.com/Christian.Music.Artist-Icon.For.Hire/Interview-1250_5458.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sparrow Records

@Walter Görlitz: A compilation. Does it count? Icon for Hire#Compilation contributions. Okay, probably it doesn't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No. They were never signed to the label. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To be more precise, at the time, the EMI Christian Music Group included the band's label (Tooth & Nail), Sparrow Records and several other labels. They frequently release compilation recordings that featured artists from all members of the EMI Christian Music Group but it was released under only one label. For instance, see the various labels that released the different albums in the WOW series. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 19:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Icon for Hire → Icon For Hire – The band capitalizes the "For" in their name, including on their official site's "About" page, Twitter, Spotify, and Patreon. MOS:MUSICCAPS offers the following as an exception to normal practice: if the artist has chosen to capitalize short conjunctions, prepositions, etc. then the article title may follow the artist's choice. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:46, 05 June 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:TITLE and MOS:CAPS. This is not a conjunction but a preposition. AllMusic uses the correct capitalization (as they usually do) and I found other sources that do as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The exception I quoted included "preposition", and you haven't shown why lowercase is "the correct capitalization". —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:10, 05 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it? Still oppose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
      • They seem not to follow capitalization rules in general as can be seeon the band's about page where it reads "About The Band", and in the first paragraph, the band is listed as "ICON FOR HIRE" in all caps, and this continues with "YOU CAN’T KILL US" later in the paragraph. Apple Music uses lower case "for". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. The way I see it, usual policy says "disregard what any reliable sources tell you, always lowercase 'for'". So here, MOS:MUSICCAPS is not saying that we should always follow the artist's preference, but if the artist prefers "for" to be capitalized then we allow it as a candidate for the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. I find it to be fairly evenly split, so I am neutral. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.