Talk:Psychedelic Horseshit
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Columbus, Ohio may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Shitgaze[edit]
Should there be a section about Shitgaze ? Because a few pages are redirecting here since this case was debated and it's quite confusing. I was about to delete the redirect before I found the AfD. zubrowka74 20:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- That AfD should be overturned as completely bogus; this isn't even close to the most well-known shitgaze band. (see Titus Andronicus (band) and Times New Viking for better-known ones). I could see a plausible merge of shitgaze and shoegaze, but really shitgaze is a different style in a different era, and is well enough to have its own article. Chubbles (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- As long as it's sourced. A merge with shoegazing would indeed be more sensible. In the meantime I added a mention in the lead, just to clarify. zubrowka74 20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I was an original supporter for shitgaze to either be deleted, redirected to noise pop, or redirected to shoegaze. It just isn't there at this point as most of these so-called "shitgazers" aren't anything other than the aforementioned genres. Titus Andronicus are a punk/alternative band and Times New Viking and No Age are noise pop. Shitegaze isn't really anything other than a term someone's friend came up with to describe the former's music. 70.120.228.11 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviews[edit]
User:WesleyDodds keeps removing the four reviews at the bottom of the page. The reviews function as independent third-party coverage of the band and substantiate a claim to WP:MUSIC; the article is likely to be targeted for deletion if they are not present. (Articles with words like "horseshit" in the title are much, much more likely to be repeatedly targeted, after all.) Dodds stated in an edit summary that they "need to be integrated as inline citations". I think this is neither necessary nor particularly useful, and in this he seems to be confusing "references" with "footnotes"; in any case, it doesn't matter to me how they are present as long as they are present, and if he wants to convert them into inline cites, I'm not going to stop him. But I am going to stop him from removing the article's main claim to existence. Chubbles (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The mere presence of these links doesn't establish notability. They must be cited in the article to help establish notability; otherwise the links are extraneous and should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- He speaks! Finally, after five reverts (which is itself absurdly disruptive). Notability is established by the existence of several independent third-party articles the subject of which is this band; I have no doubt that you are familiar with WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Ultimately this is so regardless of whether they are in the article or not, but as a practical matter, they need to be there because of WP:PROVEIT. Their being inline or endnoted is immaterial. There's nothing extraneous about them; the article's only real claim to notability is the existence of those articles, and it's likely someone will be around to have the article deleted now that you have removed them for the fifth time. Please restore them. Chubbles (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is already established by the references inline-cited in the article (Allmusic and Pitchfork). The mere presence of unused references won't change that. That's why I found the insistence on re-adding the links so curious. As someone who's worked on scores of music articles, I've run into a lot of unnecessary URLs listed at the bottom of the pages, typically inserted by well-meaning folks who don't understand how to properly incorporate such material. Unless they are saying something that needs to be cited in the article, they're useless. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two references is rarely enough in a deletion case. The process of establishing notability for a band like this is, in many cases, not one of "saying something that needs to be cited in the article" - it's finding a bunch of reviews from third-party sites that don't actually do much but offer an opinion about the band's album or live show. That's the case here, and converting these into a sea of inline cites verifying a sentence stating that the band released an album wouldn't be much help (I used to do that a lot, but now realize how pointless it was; it was making a Wikipedian happy rather than improving an article). I certainly don't want to add a bunch of pull quotes from the reviews, since that would give them a lot more literary credence than they deserve (why does some nineteen-year-old's opinion about a band get to be credited in their encyclopedia article?). But as I have stated, multiple times, they are not useless, in whatever form they appear in the article. Chubbles (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The burden on you is to incorporate the sources if you want to include them, no one else. Otherwise they can be removed. As for AfD, we'll cross that bridge if it happens, but I've rarely if ever seen a band article nominated for deletion that has legitimate inline cites from Allmusic and Pitchfork. The best way to avoid a potential AfD is to inline cite those references, which you refuse to do. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- At no point in Wikipedia history did it become common for editors to remove sources like that. They're totally legitimate to be in the article even if they are not inline cites. If they are not specifically supporting a sentence of text, it is still appropriate for them to be in the article. I don't know how many times I can state this. It certainly never was appropriate for someone to blow past WP:3RR in doing so (and I didn't report you...). Chubbles (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that neither you or I violated 3RR. More importantly, what are those sources citing in the article? That's the crux of the matter. Please explain that. Removing the links won't instantly bring about an AfD; notability is already established without them. Given you want to retain the links, the burden is on you to warrant their inclusion. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it won't instantly bring about an AfD (honestly, a series of A7's and PRODs is more likely). But as a practical matter, it increases the likelihood. The article now has two sources, whereas it used to have six. They're there not to provide support for specific material in the article; they are there to substantitate the article's being there in the first place. Two sources is not usually enough to sway editors in a notability issue, and six is. Articles I've written get tagged for deletion all the time, and I have a good sense of what will cause that. That's why I want them there. (Also...someone might want to read about the band...) But you have given no substantial reason why several links to reputable third-party sites should not be there. You've simply stated over and over, "unless they're inline, they're useless and extraneous". Chubbles (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- "They're there not to provide support for specific material in the article; they are there to substantitate the article's being there in the first place. Two sources is not usually enough to sway editors in a notability issue, and six is." You're arguing for something that mostly likely won't occur. Once again, the best way to avoid any prospects of deletion is to cite the prose in the article. Simply making a list of external links doesn't do anything to enhance the article. As for the links themselves, you have three live reviews and one album review. They really aren't that illuminating on the band's history themselves, and are useless as general references. That is, unless you can prove me wrong by citing them. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- None of this is sufficient justification for militantly and unilaterally removing them time and time again (one other editor restored them, as well). No policy, guideline, or logically consistent argument has been given for your removing several reliable third-party sources; you have announced by fiat that they are useless, and I maintain they are not. As such, I am restoring them as legitimate "further reading". Chubbles (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why can't you at least cite them in the article if you insist on including them? That boggles the mind. I can show you how to cite if you need help. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary to do so? Why must they be removed if they are not inline cites? They provide at least some benefit merely by being there; frankly, they would still do so even if they were just labeled "external links". I don't think an article like this would be significantly improved by adding a half dozen footnoted references because I don't have much more text to add to the article, and I'm not seeking GA status for it or anything, so I'm not looking to expand it to a four-paragraph article anyway (if that's even possible for a band this marginally well-known). I welcome you to do it if you really think it's going to benefit the article, but I just don't think it's worth it. (Of course, we both would have spent far less time on this if one of us had given in from the start...the stakes here are rather astoundingly small for having occupied so much of yours and my attention.) Chubbles (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Any article can be a GA or FA, just so you know, no matter how short. Per external links guidelines, links that would be referenced in a Featured Article (ie. reviews) should not be included in such sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary to do so? Why must they be removed if they are not inline cites? They provide at least some benefit merely by being there; frankly, they would still do so even if they were just labeled "external links". I don't think an article like this would be significantly improved by adding a half dozen footnoted references because I don't have much more text to add to the article, and I'm not seeking GA status for it or anything, so I'm not looking to expand it to a four-paragraph article anyway (if that's even possible for a band this marginally well-known). I welcome you to do it if you really think it's going to benefit the article, but I just don't think it's worth it. (Of course, we both would have spent far less time on this if one of us had given in from the start...the stakes here are rather astoundingly small for having occupied so much of yours and my attention.) Chubbles (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why can't you at least cite them in the article if you insist on including them? That boggles the mind. I can show you how to cite if you need help. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- None of this is sufficient justification for militantly and unilaterally removing them time and time again (one other editor restored them, as well). No policy, guideline, or logically consistent argument has been given for your removing several reliable third-party sources; you have announced by fiat that they are useless, and I maintain they are not. As such, I am restoring them as legitimate "further reading". Chubbles (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- "They're there not to provide support for specific material in the article; they are there to substantitate the article's being there in the first place. Two sources is not usually enough to sway editors in a notability issue, and six is." You're arguing for something that mostly likely won't occur. Once again, the best way to avoid any prospects of deletion is to cite the prose in the article. Simply making a list of external links doesn't do anything to enhance the article. As for the links themselves, you have three live reviews and one album review. They really aren't that illuminating on the band's history themselves, and are useless as general references. That is, unless you can prove me wrong by citing them. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it won't instantly bring about an AfD (honestly, a series of A7's and PRODs is more likely). But as a practical matter, it increases the likelihood. The article now has two sources, whereas it used to have six. They're there not to provide support for specific material in the article; they are there to substantitate the article's being there in the first place. Two sources is not usually enough to sway editors in a notability issue, and six is. Articles I've written get tagged for deletion all the time, and I have a good sense of what will cause that. That's why I want them there. (Also...someone might want to read about the band...) But you have given no substantial reason why several links to reputable third-party sites should not be there. You've simply stated over and over, "unless they're inline, they're useless and extraneous". Chubbles (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that neither you or I violated 3RR. More importantly, what are those sources citing in the article? That's the crux of the matter. Please explain that. Removing the links won't instantly bring about an AfD; notability is already established without them. Given you want to retain the links, the burden is on you to warrant their inclusion. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- At no point in Wikipedia history did it become common for editors to remove sources like that. They're totally legitimate to be in the article even if they are not inline cites. If they are not specifically supporting a sentence of text, it is still appropriate for them to be in the article. I don't know how many times I can state this. It certainly never was appropriate for someone to blow past WP:3RR in doing so (and I didn't report you...). Chubbles (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- The burden on you is to incorporate the sources if you want to include them, no one else. Otherwise they can be removed. As for AfD, we'll cross that bridge if it happens, but I've rarely if ever seen a band article nominated for deletion that has legitimate inline cites from Allmusic and Pitchfork. The best way to avoid a potential AfD is to inline cite those references, which you refuse to do. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two references is rarely enough in a deletion case. The process of establishing notability for a band like this is, in many cases, not one of "saying something that needs to be cited in the article" - it's finding a bunch of reviews from third-party sites that don't actually do much but offer an opinion about the band's album or live show. That's the case here, and converting these into a sea of inline cites verifying a sentence stating that the band released an album wouldn't be much help (I used to do that a lot, but now realize how pointless it was; it was making a Wikipedian happy rather than improving an article). I certainly don't want to add a bunch of pull quotes from the reviews, since that would give them a lot more literary credence than they deserve (why does some nineteen-year-old's opinion about a band get to be credited in their encyclopedia article?). But as I have stated, multiple times, they are not useless, in whatever form they appear in the article. Chubbles (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notability is already established by the references inline-cited in the article (Allmusic and Pitchfork). The mere presence of unused references won't change that. That's why I found the insistence on re-adding the links so curious. As someone who's worked on scores of music articles, I've run into a lot of unnecessary URLs listed at the bottom of the pages, typically inserted by well-meaning folks who don't understand how to properly incorporate such material. Unless they are saying something that needs to be cited in the article, they're useless. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- He speaks! Finally, after five reverts (which is itself absurdly disruptive). Notability is established by the existence of several independent third-party articles the subject of which is this band; I have no doubt that you are familiar with WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Ultimately this is so regardless of whether they are in the article or not, but as a practical matter, they need to be there because of WP:PROVEIT. Their being inline or endnoted is immaterial. There's nothing extraneous about them; the article's only real claim to notability is the existence of those articles, and it's likely someone will be around to have the article deleted now that you have removed them for the fifth time. Please restore them. Chubbles (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok guys, enough with the indents :) Could we just leave the links where they are until someone finds a way to put them inline ? This way we won't loose the information. I thought this was the base of Wikipedia : each editor puts one brick on the wall. Someone finds sources. Another puts them inline. Someone else corrects a typo. zubrowka74 16:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can always move the links here to the talk page until they are utilized. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Other[edit]
Just FYI - the New Yorker citation does not support the claim made - it does mention Psychedelic Horseshit at all - it merely lists that those two other bands are performing at Glasslands. You need to find real citations - I will see what i can find - but that is definitely not a kosher citation for the claim. I will edit the citations as well.Freecheesepizza (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)