Talk:Dennis Budimir

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Jazz Start‑class Low‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dennis Budimir discography[edit]

Vmavanti has removed all discographical information for Budimir's albums that cannot be sourced to All Music Guide. This includes Budimir's first studio album, The Creeper, which was released on Mainstream in the mid-1960s. I pointed out that this album exists and noted its Discogs entry (which includes a photograph of the front cover of the album). Vmavanti has reverted, stating that there is no reliable source substantiating the album's existence. This appears to be systematic; Vmavanti is doing this on hundreds of artist pages (i.e., adding a footnote to Allmusic and removing any albums Allmusic does not list) and is working from some kind of alphabetical list (besides Budimir, see also Cal Collins, Robert Conti, Christy Doran, James Emery, Bruce Forman; on each of these pages, Vmavanti has removed at least one studio album from the discography, ostensibly because it does not appear in AMG's list). Pinging the usual suspects for discussion as to whether this is a good idea: @EddieHugh:, @78.26:, @DISEman:. Eddie, I'm particularly interested in your opinion here, as you seem to be more or less the sole decider and enforcer of consensus for anything jazz-related in Wikipedia. This is the direct result of the conversation we had at Talk:Joshua Breakstone; you've agreed that we should have no unsourced discographical information and that albums cannot serve as sources for their own catalog information - a third-party reliable source must be found (I'll remind you that Vmavanti is rigorously enforcing this statement). This is resulting in the removal of a large amount of uncontroversial discographical information. Are you comfortable with this sea change in how discographies are sourced - especially given that we have just had a discussion elsewhere suggesting that AMG perhaps isn't the only place we should be looking for definitive discographical information? Chubbles (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one's the decider. In that discussion I wrote: "an album is a primary source for itself; it's better not to base an entire discography on such sourcing; find a better source if possible. So, technically, a discography might source itself, but there are almost certain to be better ways of sourcing it, and showing those to other readers can only be a positive thing". And that, in my view, a secondary source was "Not exactly required, Chubbles, but preferable, if available". For me, the presence or absence of an album at AllMusic doesn't in itself warrant its inclusion in or exclusion from what we list. There can be reissues, worthless compilations, etc in what they include, and there can be omissions from their lists too. EddieHugh (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of releases by Mainstream here; it includes the one being disputed. I haven't used this site so don't know how reliable it is, but a brief look suggests that it's likely to be fine. EddieHugh (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Sides Now is generally considered reliable, it is the granddaddy of internet album discographies. It has editorial control, and is not user generated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie, you're welcome to address each of these disputes on a case-by-case basis, and bully for finding external sourcing for both of them so far. However, after this one, we will move on to Cal Collins, and then to Robert Conti, and so on. The same pattern will repeat itself. A more general decision is necessary. I have staked out a position; Vmavanti has staked out another. They are mutually exclusive. A decision-making process is going to have to happen; I request that you suggest how that deciding is going to happen, if you are absolving yourself of the role. Chubbles (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing to a source something it didn't say can cause a lot of problems. I don't want to enter information that's wrong. I don't want to enter information that's unsourced. So in some cases I have to leave out an album when there is too much discrepancy and confusion. That's why I said "look for another source".
Vmavanti (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then: I don't think it's a good idea to take just one source for a discography and remove albums from a Wikipedia discography solely because they're not in that one source. A possible solution is to put a citation next to every entry in the discography, instead of one citation that is intended to cover all of the entries. That would make it easy to see which are not sourced from AllMusic, in this instance, including future additions by IPs or others. If the existence of an entry is challenged as being unsourced, then the standard Wikipedia process can be followed: WP:BURDEN. EddieHugh (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an entry has been challenged as being unsourced. 78.26 has restored the entry with a catalog number, which Vmavanti has not reverted, though I'm not sure whether that's because he accepts the edit or whether he is leaving it alone as an editorial courtesy until this discussion concludes. If we include a catalog number with the entry, is that sufficient for the entry to be restored after removal? Chubbles (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the catalog number (aside from discographical freaks like me, for whom it is its own end) is that it provides WP:V. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment. Chubbles (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh wrote: "I don't think it's a good idea to take just one source for a discography and remove albums from a Wikipedia discography solely because they're not in that one source." Compared to what? The alternative to removing information is leaving it there. I already said this and no one responded to it: You cannot insert into cited material something that does not appear in the source. You can't write "AllMusic has this album and this album from these years" when it doesn't—anymore than you can write The Guardian reported the pope's wife had twins when the Guardian said no such thing. What was the state of the discography before I added a source? It was unsourced. Is the objection to the use of one source? Or is the objection to the use of one particular source—AllMusic? If so, why? If we're going to stop using AllMusic, what source do you suggest?
Vmavanti (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavanti:I'm telling you again, stop assigning motives to people. It is a form of personal attack. I'm worry you've been having these difficulties, but that is no excuse. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic's mostly fine as a source, but we can't say that if something's not in AllMusic then it doesn't exist. We can't say that for any source. Solutions: use 'citation needed' tags if something appears to exist but is unsourced; find a source and add it; add the source for each item separately instead of "Source: xx" at the end of a list/section (as suggested above); remove any listed that, having had a look, appear not to exist or warrant inclusion. All efforts to improve discographies are much appreciated. I see these solutions as simple to implement (and they're normal Wikipedia actions for any content). EddieHugh (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added inline citations for each item in the leader discog. It looks fine, covers each item, and future additions are likely to stand out if not similarly sourced. EddieHugh (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However you want to do them is fine with me. I won't object. I couldn't care less. I'll probably stay away from discographies from now on. You know what you're doing. My plan to work on guitarists has been canceled. If there is content you want removed from the other guitar articles I edited, feel free to speak up. I have restored content on the articles mentioned by Chubbles per Chubbles' request. Vmavanti (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, it seems like a lot has happened in the last day or two. I think, as time permits over the next few days, I'll probably pick through the restorations and re-add helpful contributions. This whole series of conversations was motivated by baby/bathwater issues, and I don't want to see good infoboxes and such thrown out, either. Chubbles (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]