I start from the first page of visible bands, and saw that every band biography is messed. Most bio's were from wikipedia and other sites that are not allowed on MS. So I start to edit them and add as much as possible updated bio's and of course from official sources (website, myspace, facebook...). You can see it by opening the first page of bands list and choose whatever band from Iron Maiden to Ensiferum (that is where I currently stoped). You can see that all bio's are really and as much possible arranged, all bands linked, albums and some important things linked also.

So, I just want to know your opinion about this. Is this good or spending the time for nothing. When I edit band I want to edit it from beginning to end with everything set up sa much better I can. When I see some actived bands I want to kill myself. Motley Crue didn't have bio and was actived. I think when someone edit the band need to spend more time to make it right and then request for activation, not just copy paste everything and that is.

So, what do you think.

Chears.

Written by [user id=35732] on 31.01.2013 at 20:53

Well certainly what you do isn't worthless, but my honest opinion is that bios change too much (many of the bands are actually active still) and it's just one edit and your bio might be gone. You know, writers still write stuff about historical events/figures.

And like... I have never read any bio from MS when I've searched information, simply because I know I'll probably get better info from official sources or unofficial but more updated ones.

So what I'm saying is that your work (in my eyes) is admirable, but... some other edits might be more golden. But continuing doing bio edits (especially for older) bands is golden too.

BTW, I use your source date thing nowadays.

Thanks.

About source dates, I think it's important to put that so people can see when something is updated last time ex. bio's

Since when wiki bio is not valuable its riksy but same time I trust more wiki since there is references than I do to MA
Bio is out of date , many bands ha sno home pages anymore and so on, you do good job, but IMO wiki is good enough if there is no better place

I never ever have read bio in MS either but i do read when I submit, add line ups, or accept/reject line ups amnd bio, otherwise Im not so interested at reading, I know a lot already

Bios are worthless here anyways. Not a characteristic of MS unlike reviews, album scores, trivia, related/similar bands, etc. Chances are bands on MS are either too new/unknown to have a legit bio or already have one on their site/Wiki/FB that you can read there easily.

Written by [user id=101272] on 01.02.2013 at 00:00

Bios are worthless here anyways. Not a characteristic of MS unlike reviews, album scores, trivia, related/similar bands, etc. Chances are bands on MS are either too new/unknown to have a legit bio or already have one on their site/Wiki/FB that you can read there easily.

yes I agree but to change all is huge job,,,, I try addit I men plit big mess text in paragfs

Written by Bad English on 31.01.2013 at 22:14

Since when wiki bio is not valuable its riksy but same time I trust more wiki since there is references than I do to MA
Bio is out of date , many bands ha sno home pages anymore and so on, you do good job, but IMO wiki is good enough if there is no better place

I never ever have read bio in MS either but i do read when I submit, add line ups, or accept/reject line ups amnd bio, otherwise Im not so interested at reading, I know a lot already

Wiki bio is not valuable since the day I joined MS that is what is written in notes on adding bands but nevermin....
I also know a lot of bands bios but a few months ago bends profiles were much more better. Bio were better links, pictures. Today when I see some actived bands they are edite like in 15 minutes copy this paste this and active it. Come on, try to make band as much as it's better....that is why I try to set some things, for start only for this greatest bands, later who knows. I don't even like In Flames but I spent hour on adding their biography and also editing it...

Written by nicaZe on 01.02.2013 at 01:10

Written by Bad English on 31.01.2013 at 22:14

Since when wiki bio is not valuable its riksy but same time I trust more wiki since there is references than I do to MA
Bio is out of date , many bands ha sno home pages anymore and so on, you do good job, but IMO wiki is good enough if there is no better place

I never ever have read bio in MS either but i do read when I submit, add line ups, or accept/reject line ups amnd bio, otherwise Im not so interested at reading, I know a lot already

Wiki bio is not valuable since the day I joined MS that is what is written in notes on adding bands but nevermin....
I also know a lot of bands bios but a few months ago bends profiles were much more better. Bio were better links, pictures. Today when I see some actived bands they are edite like in 15 minutes copy this paste this and active it. Come on, try to make band as much as it's better....that is why I try to set some things, for start only for this greatest bands, later who knows. I don't even like In Flames but I spent hour on adding their biography and also editing it...

Users who subm it bio shood do it, I try do it when I did submit at old days I searched, read it , nowdays when I accept/reject I do read and look at source + correct what I can but most bands has weird bio like band name all in CAPS and so on
you need years to fix each band at MS bio ... but feel free fix, correct you're wellcome

Written by Bad English on 01.02.2013 at 01:13

Written by nicaZe on 01.02.2013 at 01:10

Written by Bad English on 31.01.2013 at 22:14

Since when wiki bio is not valuable its riksy but same time I trust more wiki since there is references than I do to MA
Bio is out of date , many bands ha sno home pages anymore and so on, you do good job, but IMO wiki is good enough if there is no better place

I never ever have read bio in MS either but i do read when I submit, add line ups, or accept/reject line ups amnd bio, otherwise Im not so interested at reading, I know a lot already

Wiki bio is not valuable since the day I joined MS that is what is written in notes on adding bands but nevermin....
I also know a lot of bands bios but a few months ago bends profiles were much more better. Bio were better links, pictures. Today when I see some actived bands they are edite like in 15 minutes copy this paste this and active it. Come on, try to make band as much as it's better....that is why I try to set some things, for start only for this greatest bands, later who knows. I don't even like In Flames but I spent hour on adding their biography and also editing it...

Users who subm it bio shood do it, I try do it when I did submit at old days I searched, read it , nowdays when I accept/reject I do read and look at source + correct what I can but most bands has weird bio like band name all in CAPS and so on
you need years to fix each band at MS bio ... but feel free fix, correct you're wellcome

Yes I know that, and don't really want to fix all bio and it's not just about bios....I start from bios I think that a lot of bend profiles on MS are really messed...start from bio to links then to videos, members and trivia...Don't want to waste my time on all of that...but need to start with something...

Videos are OK, I never ever had accept non prom video, and as far I remeber I havnt add 1057 :p
videos är OK, no mess there

Keep doing the bios. I like them.