Talk:Garage rock: Difference between revisions

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garage rock. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://60sgaragebands.com/terrythetelstars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Noticed term "garage rock" beginning to be used for newer bands--how to respond?

I have been noticing lately that a lot of the kinds of modern bands that we were calling "garage punk" a few years ago (i.e. those doing an updated version of garage, not doing a "retro" revival) are now using the term "garage rock" to describe themselves (particularly in San Francisco), and I've noticed that some Wiki editors are now using "garage rock" to describe them in articles. So I'm trying to accommodate this development without changing the article's overall focus (on the 60s bands). Perhaps we could mention something in the Revivals section (and maybe a line somewhere in the heading)--using the reliable sources that are out there and doing it in such a way that does not confuse readers nor in any fundamental way alter the article's present orientation. No big change, but a slight adjustment. But, I thought I'd run it by everyone first, before I make any slight changes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Split

I just wanted to point out that the readable prose size for this article is roughly 120 kilobytes. Because of the messy citation style, however, the article ends up being around 370,038 bytes. It would really benefit from {{sfn}} templates.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

DO NOT SPLIT: I am completely against splitting the article. Readers deserve to have the benefit of an article that fully and properly educates them on the topic. Having spin-offs will only lead to confusion. American garage rock is the centrifugal core through which all other national variants have to be connected, in order to be meaningful and helpful to the reader. By the way, there are plenty of other long articles at Wikipedia. This article just happens to be about a particularly large genre in terms of participants and recording--it is by far rock's largest genre in terms of the number of bands and records, so the article has to cover the form it in its true breadth. The kilobyte rule is in place because, when smartphones first came out a few years back there was a concern that long articles would not be able to properly load. Since then, smartphones have not only become more powerful, but now also sub-divide into different sections (i.e. do not appear on the same page). Let's keep the article in its full form rather than truncating it. The templates just inserted are unnecessary and unfounded. There is no synthesis--I've tried to be accurate. Yet, you say there is not enough central discussion--it is in the Milieu and Characteristics sections--they explain the overview in detail. I'll admit that I could reduce some of the citations in some of the statements. Nonetheless, this article has already gone through the rigorous process of review and is deemed to be of high quality. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment. While I am fully appreciative of the huge amount of valuable work that Garagepunk66 has put into this article over the years, I agree in principle that the article should be split. It is simply too long, and not easy to navigate. It would benefit from being split into smaller articles, without losing any of the well referenced text, and retaining a good structure. We need to approach any split with care, and it should not be on the lines initially suggested by Ilovetopaint. There needs to be a single overview article, which sets out the style's background and origins; a summary of the regional styles; and the later developments. Linked from that main overview article, there should be separate articles on the various regional garage rock scenes - perhaps regionally in the US, and some national and continent-wide articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – We can leave a couple paragraphs that summarize the major points of garage rock as a worldwide phenomenon. After split, it'll be easier to focus on the issue of self-sourcing examples, which is a huge one for the article, but particularly for these sections. They almost entirely consist of namedrops.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's not jump too soon to assume that there will be a split. Rather than splitting the sections off into different articles (which would make them seem orphaned and incomplete), we could collapse them into fold-downs here. I think that would be a much better solution. We could start with a general discussion of each regional scene, followed by a collapse that goes into more detail. But, if that cannot be done, the let's just leave it in its present configuration, albeit with some improvements. I am beginning to see that there could have more general discussion of each regional scene (before discussing individual bands). I'm not opposed to removing some bands, but we should do that with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. And, we do have a table of contents to help us navigate (but we could re-work the section titles if necessary). There was a similar discussion at the punk rock article a few years ago that resulted in no concensus to split--it is still in its full form. There are plenty of other long articles around here--many that are FA and GA (this one is GA). So, let's be careful in how we proceed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has the time (I don't), it should be possible to work up an alternative structure in a sandbox. The core article should do more than merely "summarize the major points of garage rock as a worldwide phenomenon" - it needs to be an overview, to highlight the background and history (primarily in the US), link to regional articles (which should retain the mentions of notable individual bands), and probably also cover the later developments (post-1960s). I don't think "fold-downs" (if I understand them correctly) are a good answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think it needs international coverage--there is more to it than just the US, though the US is its core. For instance, the Australian thing was huge, and there were other national scenes as well. I am not in favor of chopping whole sections out, but rather, going in and trimming out some of the fat. I'll be the first to admit that there is some fat. First, we could reduce the amount of citations. Believe it or not, I am not against removing some of the bands and any excessive or extraneous detail. I have been thinking about nominating the article for FA, and I was expecting there to be some "tree-trimming" in that process. Actually, such a review might be helpful, because it could help us resolve some of these problems, and we could get some extra hands on the deck. But, I think we should proceed carefully. I cannot go along with any move to split, but we can trim, yes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I would agree a split needs to be strongly considered and organized. I think it would be best to have the main garage rock article include an overview similar to the one Ghmyrtle recommended with mention of key groups from the genre.. While I also thank and encourage Garagepunk's work on the article, it has become much too large for average readers to navigate. I recommend Ilovetopaint spearhead the project if he is interested since he possesses the most experience with music genre articles. I am willing to help with some regional scenes in North America, such as Texas and the West Coast when the time comes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of months ago you told me that you were "blown away" by the article and how much you enjoyed reading it. You even called it "the best music genre article at Wikipedia". You said that in a Barnstar. [1] I cannot understand this at all. Why would you have more confidence in someone that knows very little about this topic. I'm not just frustrated with you, but everyone here. I feel that I am being given a vote of no confidence. This article that has been the backbone of my work here. Let's not truncate it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 I did enjoy reading it. I gave you praise because it was vastly improved and you needed encouragement since you felt no one appreciated the work. However, it has indeed become too large for itself and needs to be divided (with all info intact) in order to fix some of the issues that still persist with this subject. Ilovetopaint has the knowledge to properly format the article's split; look at his track record.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, he has no knowledge or care about this topic. So, you say now that I needed encouragement, but then you said it was the best genre article. I actually didn't think so--I thought it still needed some improvements, but you said you thought so. If your opinion was not that high of my work then, then you never should have led me to think it was. We need to have these sections here. I will not accept a split. I had the article peer reviewed a few months ago and no one said any of these things. I spoke with the FAC Coordinator, and though while she pointed out some things that needed to be improved, she did not say the article should be split. This is disconcerting. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

But Garagepunk66 if consensus states a split is in order, you will need to accept it. So far three users have approved it. I would think Ilovetopaint cares considerably about the topic; otherwise, he would say nothing to improve it (the split). Please take a step back and look at the bigger picture, thanks. When a split occurs, I will dedicate my efforts to the Texas and West Coast scenes as I mentioned.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no such consensus at this time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree for a split: I come, not having edited any on this article (probably, maybe), but bearing three WikiProject music related userboxes and thousands of edits to modern music articles. I am even involved in the most convoluted musician talk page controversy we have, it seems :Laura Branigan (who is not still living, but won't lie down). I do not agree with the comment: he has no knowledge or care about this topic as a valid comment to shut down this undertaking. Ilovetopaint seems to have a stellar reputation and steady good article creation of related subjects. I am not a cat, have poor knowledge of physics nor have travelled in a time machine, but I dare to work on those articles with pride. (I do play drums...) Garagepunk66s I will not accept a split, and This article that has been the backbone of my work here, are demonstrative article ownership and thusly if no better rationale can be offered should be discounted. This article is too long, too complex, TLDR and needs to be split. The citations alone would break my scroll key. Please. There are editors willing to take on the task.. Fylbecatulous talk 19:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't claim to own the article, nor ever have. I just admitted that we need to reduce the captions, so your scroll key should end up just fine. I'm want to make sure that it does not get diminished in such a way that it looses necessary information. Though, I have not at this point seen a good enough solution to make me change my mind, I could consider the idea of a split if I am confident that the article can retain its scope and breadth and cover all of the necessary topic areas--the international areas are import for a good briefing. But in a hypothetical split situation that I could consider endorsing, the article could keep all or at least most of its current sections, but many of them would be shortened to general summaries that could be linked to new articles conveying more specific information about bands and local scenes. So, each region and nationality have a still have a place here, but a one or two paragraph summary, and we be could link it to a more specific article. But, let's still keep the sections, please in some form. I do not own this article, but I I have demonstrated enough hard work and dedication to have the right to ask to have some input and to be part process of changing it. If you're looking for someone to do the heavy lifting, you've got a pair of willing hands right here. As for Ilovetopaint, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--maybe he cares more than I realize. I'll be a constructive with everyone, but we need to do this right. So, let's keep the necessary bases to cover. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 I do not mean to be rude (so please do not try to report me again I am very sad to ask, it will not go well for you), but whether you endorse the solutions proposed or not is nearly irrelevant because, as Fylbecatlous mentioned, you need actual rationale other than your own hard work on the article. Of course, the information that is assembled, as long as it is specifically related to sources and avoids WP:Namedropping, will be retained in the split. We want you involved in this process, but first you would have to be on board with the split. Four editors who work extensively within music-related articles have given clear-cut reasoning to steer the article in such a direction. It is going to happen so your plans would be valued, not just hypotheticals.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Though I just contacted Bishonen, I was not the one that reported you the investigation that took place a few weeks ago, I believe it was CrazyAces. I kept my thoughts confidential with an a third editor we both know (as a plea for help) and never brought up the issue again--I did not report the situation with ALongStay and you know that. But, I was his victim--and the pain still follows me. I try to give people a chance, but they take advantage of my kindness--this is such a cut-throat place. Anyway, why are we discussing personal matters here? And, please don't try to insinuate that things will not go well--that is out of bounds, I have a right to appeal to administrators (something I didn't do in the past). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66 I was referring to your ridiculous attempt at an Iban, nothing else. If you could respond to the other 95% of my statement instead of one specific moment unrelated to this article, that would be appreciated. And no, it would not go well since you mentioned it, and it is not "out of bounds" to tell you. I just want to make this split go smoothly, not be tied down by you asking admins for bans when I disagree (as has everyone else) with you. So, as I said, I would appreciate if you responded to the majority of my statement that talked about the split.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It will go smoothly. I am now trying to move to accommodate other's perspectives, but your presence here makes me feel afraid. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Umm Garagepunk66, "afraid"? I am sorry but are you serious?? If you are "afraid" I suggest you take in reality for a second. This is a talk page on a website (there's the reality), and I am essentially saying exactly what everyone else said. Yet you are unafraid of them. You seem to have a personal vendetta with me then. Can you please recall you are an adult and to get over whatever funk you are going through right now. In this current state (being "afraid" of editors trying to improve the situation), I do not think you can help in this transition in a reliable manner I generally associate you with. When you are ready to move past this --whatever "this" is you are going through -- I would love to read your recommendations for the article's split.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't want a bad situation with anyone. All I've ever tried to do is do a good job writing and get along with people. But, right now I am afraid that this article could very well get torn to pieces. If I feel afraid, it is perfectly understandable--I fear that what I have worked hard to achieve could get destroyed if not done in a careful way. There would be some of the same fear with or without you, but the situation I alluded to above has me on the edge. I must be assured that whatever comes out of this process is done properly. Your earlier comments did not reassure me--you seemed to be diminishing my role in this process. That 's all. But, I'm glad that your most recent remarks indicate a wiliness to hear some of my ideas. Look, the last few blocks of text have been really tense, and I will remove them to avoid any embarrassment. That way we can re-focus the thread on the needs of the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)