Talk:Bracken (band)

Discography

I don't wish to continue in an edit war over the discography formatting. However, the information I keep providing to the discography is useful, germane, and supposed to be there, as per the link I provided previously. I don't see the continued desire to remove it. The truncated name-and-year discographies are for artists who have separate discography pages, where the additional information is more fully provided. You have noted that other Anticon pages do not include this information; I will be happy to fix the discographies of those pages such that they are providing more robust information about record labels and so forth (so far as I have it). Chubbles (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that this information is of particular use for musical artists which are on the margins of notability, as most Anticon artists are. They are likely deletion targets, and making it plain that the band has released two or more albums on a notable label, in the discography, makes it less likely that they will be challenged on WP:MUSIC grounds. The guidelines you've given state that the information I'm restoring is optional; please explain why the option should not be exercised here. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Anticon artists, Doseone, for example, has not released "two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels." (But he is "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.") So the information you provided doesn't work. Why don't you add sources to article about musician or make articles about album? Tasketz Kayo (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's only one of the reasons I gave, which is applicable to some of the articles in question, but not all of them. (And nevertheless, having one album on an important label, and having that information plain in the discography, is more help than having none on an important label.) You still have given no credible reason why the information I had added should be excluded. And I'll thank you to let me decide how my time is best spent here; I've done plenty enough sourcing and article-writing. Once again, I will refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section: "For artists without separate discography pages, relevant discographical information, such as record labels, date(s) of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, may be included in the discography section. The use of a table may be advisable to keep the information readable and organized." Why remove it? Chubbles (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the label and release date information because it looks good when it's written in a simple way. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section says "may be included." It doesn't say "should be included." Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies says "Vital information is the title and year; label and notes are optional." It doesn't say "necessary."

Anyway, if you're familiar with Anticon artists, I want you to create more articles for the albums. Tasketz Kayo (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So perhaps the best solution would be to add tables, which would keep a streamlined presentation while also including relevant information. That really only makes sense for artists with more than one release, however. I don't particularly see the virtue in sacrificing content for aesthetics, and presentation in a simple way is fairly meaningless for single-album discographies; there's barely even a need for a discography section if all that's going to be listed is the release year of their only album. (I am of course not arguing for that section's removal, but for its enhancement.) Chubbles (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. We don't have to use tables. Wikipedia:Manual of Style saying "label and notes are optional" means that it depends on the editors. You had better not be persistent to add label and release date.

But if you still think that label and release date is vital information or the use of a table is necessary, you should discuss about it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works. Because Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style. And even Article guidelines doesn't say that we should use tables. Tasketz Kayo (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we're at an impasse here, and I think I will be persistent. I'm not hearing better reasons from you than "it doesn't say we have to" and "i don't like the way it looks", and I think I've offered better reasons for why they should be allowed to stand as I've expanded them (and should, in fact, be expanded further). I specifically argued for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section precisely because of situations like this; I didn't want people removing worthy information from discography sections simply for the sake of hewing to a formatting convention designed for articles with separate discography pages. I'm restoring my previous edits to the Anticon pages, and may add more; I'll thank you to have the weight of community consensus behind you before reverting me again. Chubbles (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The label info is already written on the album page. Even if there is no album page and you want to add the label info on the artist page, you can write about it like "He released the second album, We Are Rising, on Anticon in 2011." for example, on preface or "History" section of the artist page.

Speaking of community consensus, you had suggested adding "For artists without separate discography pages, relevant discographical information, such as record labels, date(s) of release, chart positions, and sales certifications, should be included in the discography section. The use of a table may be advisable to keep the information readable and organized." at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography change?. But "should be included" is rejected and "may be included" is officially accepted. It is community consensus. Tasketz Kayo (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And having prose summaries is supplementary to all of this! Forcing your readers to fight through the prose summary to get the information they need, when you could present it in a succinct and orderly fashion in a discography, is doing them a disservice. I really can't believe you just reverted all my good-faith efforts to improve those pages, including all the tables! I believe you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you have in no way either affirmed that there is consensus on your behalf nor given any sort of solid justification for removing it other than its not being required. Very little is required, and pages which only present what is required provide very little. I am restoring my edits and will be seeking administrator attention on this matter. Chubbles (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we're at an impasse here, and I think I will be persistent, too. Tasketz Kayo (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm arriving here because I have Bike for Three! on my watchlist, and saw the back-and-forth. FWIW, I agree with Chubbles's approach here, as more reader-friendly. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As you know, Kayo, I asked for administrator intervention in this matter, and the admins have elected to take no action. (You move slowly enough in your edit-warring so as to attract little attention; as you probably already know, if you did this faster you'd be on the ban-wagon.) However, several other people have commented on this matter, both here and at WP:EDITWAR, and I have not heard anyone who agrees with you that the more restrictive presentation is the better one. The burden of proof is on you to show that you have consensus in this matter, because at this point I believe I have it.

Your last edit summary was disingenuous; see, for instance, Anathallo, where your edit summary falsely states that the information I added is all available elsewhere; it is not. Furthermore, there is no reason why the information cannot be provided in more than one place if it serves the reader; no policy anywhere states that something should only be present on Wikipedia in exactly one place. Having said this, as well as the previous paragraph, I am once again restoring my edits, and I believe it is in your best interest (and the reader's best interest, as I noted before) to let them stand (and, indeed, to begin presenting information in this way to pages you create, if you so choose). If you continue to block my efforts to improve these pages, we will be back here again. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did you ask for administrator intervention in this matter? I don't see anyone commented at WP:EDITWAR.

And I think you are minunderstanding consensus on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if you have not heard anyone who agrees with me, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Tasketz Kayo (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive188#User:Tasketz_Kayo_reported_by_User:Chubbles (Result: ). And you're taking me for a ride on consensus; you're a consensus of one, so far as I can tell. If you can bring one other warm body to come to your defense on this talk page, I could consider my tentative consensus back up for debate. But I haven't heard anyone argue that your restrictive and (so far) unilateral decision about how these pages should be presented is better for the encyclopedia. You've blatantly ignored WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR to serve your own needs, and I continue to find your stubbornness in this matter inexplicable (as inexplicable as the administrative community's failure to take action against you, even though such action would be warranted. I guess you're lucky enough to be editing in a far corner of the Wiki that no one else cares about enough to notice.) As such, I've restored them, yet again. Please stop edit warring until you have better reasons or something approaching an alternative consensus. Chubbles (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the location of the final decision of the EDITWAR thread, in case discussion is reopened. Chubbles (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bracken (band). 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://web.archive.org/web/20111225042039/http://www.xlr8r.com/reviews/bracken/we-know-about-need to http://www.xlr8r.com/reviews/bracken/we-know-about-need
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171106104145/http://laist.com/2007/01/29/laist_interview_bracken.php to http://laist.com/2007/01/29/laist_interview_bracken.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)