Jump to content

Talk:Deadmau5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDeadmau5 was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 12, 2019Good article nomineeListed
April 29, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 5, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article


Controversy Section

[edit]

9 hours ago, Thebiguglyalien placed a criticism template to the body of the "controversies" section. Normally, I would completely commit to reorganizing information like this into the career body, but it seems like some information would be better suited to remove if it could not be included in the section. I think that the Disney lawsuit should largely remain where it is, but the other information that should be included (and how) is up to consensus.

Also, question for Thebiguglyalien; what content gave you the leaning that there is undue weight therein? ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 11:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what type of coverage there is and how it affected the subject. My reading of policy is that is it was just a fleeting comment or isolated incident, then it doesn't need to be covered as part of the person's biography. WP:BALASP says a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The "offensive remarks" section is what stands out most immediately. I would only include this sort of thing if it had a lasting effect on his career or if it's something he's become known for and is often referenced in coverage of him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interpretation of policy here and guidance, I have removed some vast sections of the body text. I hope that this moves us closer remedying the situation. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 11:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm a little frustrated with the feeling of getting tagged like that, trying to help, being reverted and than having been failed in a few lines after having tried for about a fourth of this year, all without any other significant content revisions from other editors. I think I am through with this for a while. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, would you care to weigh in? This seems like the exact type of recency-cruft that's discouraged by WP:BALASP and the aptly-named WP:FART. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Deadmau5/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GoatLordServant (talk · contribs) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give this a quick fail: this has been open for months, and the article is undergoing constant revision, and there is some dispute in the history. At any rate it's simply not good enough now in terms of sourcing, formatting, and structure, before we even get to the writing. Hint: start weeding out poor sources, standardize all citations with the proper templates. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, User:Thebiguglyalien--which bit are we talking about? In the chunk that I restored I think there's some relevant/encyclopedic material (and I want you to know that I'm partly responsible for FART, haha), but that editor has so many edits here that I don't know exactly what we're talking about. You saw I quick-failed the GA nomination, of course, precisely for those reasons. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Deadmau5

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help it reclaim its Good Article status. I figure it must have many of the qualities that make it due for the accolade, but me being unfamiliar with many of the conventions that come with that had previously troubled me. I need help making sure that these recent stable revisions are ready to go, or if there's anything that can better suit it before we ship it out.

Thank you! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 12:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment(s) from Dxneo

[edit]

First glance at the references, I noticed that some are wiki linked and some aren't. Some references use their website domain name, and some use URLs. Some use |publisher=, most use |website=. First source, Mixmag is a magazine, you should use |magazine=. Consistency is key, either use domain name or URLs, you cannot use both. Clean-up is highly recommended. dxneo (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the new direction @Dxneo: I will start to hack at that mess. Looks like a lot! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 03:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you are done. I'll drop more constructive suggestions, and if you don't agree with some, let me know. Goodluck! dxneo (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Dxneo :) It has been some time now since I have hashed out many of the reference issues and I don't know if I missed any. If I'm in the clear, or even if I'm not, I would love to hear more criticisms on this article. Thank you, Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First thing first, run this script to remove all the redlinks. Also run the WP:IABot to archive all the refs simultaneously.

  • I see there are still a lot .com's around here, you might have a problem at GA if you get a strict reviewer.
  • ref14 and 15 are missing author
  • ref22 is missing a lot of information
  • ref22, author
  • ref32 is missing access-date

Please lookout for those kind of things 'cause most are either missing access-date, date or author.

Oh, if you get time, please look at this PR. Thanks in advance. dxneo (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Trademark dispute timeline correction

[edit]

Request: Correcting timeline in “Meowingtons” trademark dispute section

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the current paragraph about the “Meowingtons” trademark dispute seems to skip an important step in the timeline. After Zimmerman’s trademark application was refused in 2016, he filed a petition with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) seeking cancellation of the existing MEOWINGTONS registration. This occurred *before* the March 2017 lawsuit filed by Meowingtons LLC, and several reliable sources confirm this order of events.

Here are supporting sources:

To reflect the full timeline accurately, I suggest replacing the current paragraph with the following updated and sourced version:

In 2015, Zimmerman sought to register a U.S. trademark for “Prof. Meowingtons,” the name of his cat adopted in 2010 and used in merchandise and branding since 2011. The application was refused in 2016 due to an existing trademark registration for “MEOWINGTONS,” held by Meowingtons LLC, an online retailer founded in 2014 that sells cat-themed apparel and accessories. Following the refusal, Zimmerman filed a petition with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 2016 seeking cancellation of the Meowingtons LLC registration, arguing prior commercial use of the name. In March 2017, Meowingtons LLC owner Emma Bassiri filed a federal lawsuit against Zimmerman for trademark infringement and unfair competition. On May 15, 2017, Zimmerman filed a countersuit seeking cancellation of the registration and forfeiture of the Meowingtons.com domain. In March 2018, the World Intellectual Property Review reported that the parties had reached a confidential settlement resolving the dispute.

Thanks for reviewing! ~2025-35803-40 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadmau5&oldid=1323944719"