Talk:Quique (album)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quique. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20000120192755/http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/ned/nedmain.html to http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~tewing/ned/nedmain.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Genre

I highly suggest not trying to push and force genre upon this album in the infobox. The job of the infobox is to to accurately describe information that is already in the article (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It also states that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." As the genres are slippery and have been described all over the place, it would be wrong to clarify individual genres and shove them into the infobox this way. As the prose does a better job of getting the sound across to the user, I would be against applying it in this form. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've included those more straightforward and explicit sourced labels in the prose, where they take a more forceful stance than the rest of the paragraph and imo warrant inclusion in the infobox. They're clearly used as wholesale descriptions by sources, not associations, and in particular they're by retrospective sources rather than the initial ones, which lends them more historical perspective and, potentially, accuracy. Most importantly, they don't mislead or contradict anything in the prose—they're all genres the album has already been repeatedly associated with by critics. In fact, their inclusion in the infobox would make it easier to quickly derive information "at a glance," rather than forcing the reader to dive into dense prose to make some sense of it. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that they give an idea at a glance, as they should, but despite being pigeon-holed into a genre it's not clear and simple. Generally, I am all in favor when genre is applied to the albums in the infobox (it has its issues, but that's for another discussion), the bigger deal here is the prose specifically says that the gene is relatively all over the place and simply labelling it by point forms does not accurately describe the prose in the article which openly states several times that the genre hard to describe and hard to pin down specifically. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Genre again

Per a recent edit, i've removed the genres added. As usual with what happens when these are added people hunt and pick genre while ignoring others. We need to come to a consensus of what should or should not be included here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Three editors have now put genres back in the infobox. Each time you have decided your preference is more important. Please follow the consensus process. Sourced genres are entirely suitable, if you wish to add more feel free, provided they are backed up reliable sources in the article body. Cambial foliage❧ 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated, and what considered consensus on the original GA review which I was part of was to leave it blank. I'm more curious why you hunted and pecked out genres, which I removed, because it didn't seem to have a rhyme or reason. Now, because it's literal burst of genres that doesn't help the user understand the sound, I've left it blank originally as it's easier to understand the genre from reading the prose, it's strange hybrid album and just dumping genres in the infobox doesn't help the user understand. Per the standards of infobox, not all sections need to be used, and currently they don't actually reflect the article. Now, the onus is on you who wants content added, currently from what is listed does not reflect it and does not address the issues I stated above, which are echoed by the pitchfork review. So my suggestion would be to remove them, or include everything (which sounds like the less good option) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The GA review doesn't discuss genre; don't misrepresent its content. The current genres were added by another editor, they are sourced and appear reasonable. I agree with Kkollaps's editorial choices. You can certainly get a very thorough sense of the exact way in which the music is described in the music press by reading the prose. That is not what an infobox is for. Cambial foliage❧ 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, you've gone through several reasons, and I've gone through mine. None are really really reflective of rules other than you found some other users who have added genres, and then had them removed and the users have moved on from on the topic. I'm not trying to control it, i'm more curious why you haven't answered my questions on why you selected a quick assortment of genres to add, ignore the Pitchfork statement where it says the albums's style can not really be described in terms of genre (and this is reflective by the several different genres people have discussed it as). So why did you only select some? I don't really dig your offer of "oh well go ahead and add others", because that's not my stance, my stance is to keep it empty because the genre of the album is too complicated to sum up in the infobox. So sorry, I don't accept your choices you are giving me here as there are still other ways to deal with the problem as I've stated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also per your suggestion of it not being discussed during the GA review, it wasn't discussed and was not seen as an issue. So again, this something that has only come up a few times, and then dropped. It's typical WP:GENREWARRIOR stuff of people adding things, not being able to back them up, and then moving on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've messaged several other WikiProjects (WikiProject:Albums and WikiProjet:Music Genre, etc.) so we can get more discussion involved here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No – it's typical of people seeing an empty, nearly-ubiquitously used parameter in the album infobox, with a significant level of sourcing to support its use. With regard to this silly phrase and then had them removed, your placing it in the passive voice doesn't negate the fact of what you've admitted there: other users added genres, and every time you have removed them. I haven't selected genres; those choices were made by Kkollaps, and they appear a perfectly reasonable summary of the reliable sources. Which is what the infobox is for. One sentence in a pitchfork review does not negate or take precedence over multiple other RS. Your preferred version does not take precedence over multiple other editors.

If you want to discuss adding or removing specific genres feel free to do so. The quite broad genres Kkollaps chose seem entirely representative of RS and suitable; the only one I would possibly question is post-rock, which doesn't fit what I know of the genre at the time (Slint, Bark Psychosis, Disco Inferno, Ganger, LFK), but it's a pretty broad categorisation, so its use in RS supports its use in ibx. Cambial foliage❧ 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. You want to remove a genre you don't feel belongs, but that's not how we follow the rules. We don't get to choose, and there are several citations within the article here that call it a post-rock album. ( Paste writer Robert Ham classified the album as a post-rock album in 2016, as did Simon Reynolds in his 2011 book Bring the Noise.) Both are in there. I'd either say we include all the genres mentioned in the prose (which is not a preferable choice, as it would be come bloated and unuseful for readers) or we leave it blank (or possibly with a link to say (see Music section, which I find a bit corny) that better expresses the wide scope of the album and yes, that some said its in a style that can't really be conflated to a genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You want to remove a genre you don't feel belongs Please stop your bullshit. It is you who has removed all the genres. I said I would possibly question one genre, but that its use in RS supports its use in ibx. How do you interpret that as that I want to remove a genre [I] don't feel belongs, when I have returned that exact genre by reverting your removal? I reject your ridiculous "all or nothing" dichotomy, which has no basis in content or style policy. Cambial foliage❧ 19:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, i'm juts asking why you want to remove one that is cited twice. That seems to be against WP:RS. Also, there is standards for what i'm saying. per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, "he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Also, I am stating what you said, you said " the only one I would possibly question is post-rock, which doesn't fit what I know of the genre at the time", i mean, I interpreted that as a removal. If you didn't mean that, what did you mean? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we are getting on the wrong foot here. I've been accused of gaslighting and misinterpreting rules (but everything I didn't understand here, i've asked for further explanation and have only been told "do not contact me" and i'm not going to reply, but don't interpret that as consensus. I feel like this is not fair and if we can't reach a consensus, we should revert the article to how it was and how it has been the longest since its original GA review in terms of the infobox. It's been like that for over 5 years and only with this addition has there been this kind of distruption and I have not been convinced otherwise how adding genres while ignoring others makes this better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've made clear, I'm not interested in crass attempts to WP:GASLIGHT. Writing i'm juts asking why you want to remove one, when I restored that content to the article and have been clear in the immediately preceding comment that I don't want to remove it, is an example of what I'm talking about. If you want to get on the right foot, stop doing that. Let's review the history of what's happened here:

• The article as created had genres in the infobox (Electronic music, Experimental rock, Ambient music, Dream pop), as is normal practice.
• You delete them all.
• Editor adds genre Shoegaze, referring to source;
• you delete it;
• another editor adds genre Shoegaze, along with Ambient techno;
• you delete it;
• that editor adds them back, explaining their reasonable rationale;
• you decide to edit war to which the other editor responds in kind, in the face of your intransigence they give up;
• another editor adds Shoegaze and Ambient techno, this time with post-rock. It remains as the stable status quo for over two months.
• Then you delete them all.
• Then I revert your removal back to the stable status quo of two months, restoring shoegaze, ambient techno, and post-rock, and here we are.

Even though all four editors added shoegaze, and the three most recent added ambient techno, and my revert was exactly the same addition of genres as Kkollaps, you claim the editors added different genres, and say that you are not lying about that. With respect, it seems that you are at least repeating a false claim, and that's the reason we are getting on the wrong foot here.

All three most recent infobox editors added shoegaze and ambient techno. Your reticence to use a widely-used infobox field, with more than adequate sourcing, is not really explained by the weak rationale you give. Regardless, the status quo is now that there are reliably-sourced genres in the infobox. If you want to try to build a consensus to remove them, feel free. I remain unconvinced, and will not be joining your view. Without consensus to remove, WP conduct policy is that the reliably-sourced content should remain. Cambial foliage❧ 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a human being and i didn't check. It's an honest mistake. And again, you have not added content against WP:STICKTOSOURCE and have not made the infobox follow the purpose of infoboxes, which is to reflect the information in the article. Congrats on going through an edit history, i've tried to pass out an olive branch to clear things up, but you seem to be stuck on the idea that assortment of genres you added (it doesn't matter if it was your idea or not), what matters is that you've added stuff with little thought put into it and basically are showing bunch of edit histories hoping it makes you makes correct. I'm not trying to fight for right and wrong, i'm trying to find a consensus. You haven't really been doing that. If we can't talk like civilized wikipedians, i'll probably look for admin intervention here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at AllMusic, and not a single genre is specifically listed there. It's not surprising that none of the genres are sourced. Either create a style section and source specific genres, or source them in the infobox, but we need WP:EXPLICITGENREs not edit wars adding WP:OR. For the record, https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/9993-quique-redux-edition/ does not call this album shoegaze, but that term is used in reference with other content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The genres are sourced in the article body. There is no OR; it’s not clear why you bother to link to the page. As per WP:INFOBOXCITE, citations are generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere, as in this case. Allmusic is highly inconsistent, and not always a reliable source for genres, release dates etc. That said, your comment is clearly inaccurate: "Styles: Alternative Dance, Alternative/Indie Rock, Ambient Techno, Dream Pop, IDM, Indie Electronic, Techno". The other genres currently in the ibx are taken from other sources. Cambial foliage❧ 06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your statement that you are trying to find a consensus does not really square with your edit warring with multiple editors who have added the same content, including your recent deleting it from the status quo version. It also doesn’t square with statements like we include all the genres mentioned in the prose….or we leave it blank. Kkollaps gave their reasons in the edit which added them, as did other editors before them. I’m not opposed to editing the list if consensus is that other genres would be more representative. But your "all or nothing" attitude is the opposite of seeking consensus, as the diffs above clearly demonstrate. You can seek out admin if you wish, but they do not settle content disputes. What you need to do is to seek a consensus for your change away from the status quo (four genres, sourced in the body), to your position that casual readers should have no information on genre whatsoever; they should either read the detailed explanation in the body (if they notice it) or be left uninformed. I suggest focusing on seeking to generate consensus for your edit; I'll not be joining that view, as I think it's absurd. Cambial foliage❧ 07:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You are really talking about something which you weren't there to experience. Also, the users who aren't here to discuss it now aren't really voting for the current thing. Also, I have been trying to generate a consensus, I've reached out to other communities (you have not), i've talked with you on your talk page (you have told me not to talk with you there). I've asked if we can restart again. You are by default on Wikipedia supposed to be assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH). I feel like we are not getting to that here as you are bringing up edits from years ago I that were either simple reverts from me that barely went further or debates even the people involved have forgotten. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to seek a consensus for a different set of genres, make your case, and I will respond. I warned you about posting gaslighting with radical misrepresentation of my comments, history re-writing, and reality denial on my talk page. You continued to do so, so I thank you not to post there.

I think your edit to simply remove all of the genres (which you say is the only practical version you would accept, and the only proposal you've made) is absurd, so I won't agree to it. Until a consensus forms for a different version, the status quo should remain. Cambial foliage❧ 13:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly only absurd to you. I've shown above it's a stanard thing to do to not do. And as stated, we can't hunt and peck genres we like, but we should not disinclude genres we find as sourced. Currently, the what we have is worse than either situation. It's really that simple. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly only absurd to you. – You engage in yet more reality denial. Three other editors also thought it appropriate to add genres. You are the only editor who has sought to remove them all. You've shown no such thing. If you have another proposal, feel free to make it. Failing that, we follow WP:NOCONSENSUS for your edit, and leave it as the status quo. CY out. Cambial foliage❧ 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What happened in the past is the past and you aren't addressing the conversations we're having in the present. If you have nothing to add, and are not willing to contribute further, I've made my suggestions and have said my preferred one. Also, the status quo would have been to revert to it how it would have been from my previous edits. Which is blank. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The status quo is the version which was stable for the past 10 weeks, since 17 April. It is not some arbitrary choice of version which you prefer. Cambial foliage❧ 17:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty laughable as the content was different for the past five years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious why you want a version that goes against WP:RS and WP:OR to be the standard. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't go against them. Your curiosity is misplaced. Cambial foliage❧ 21:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You've selected genres from the article by choosing some and not applying the others. How is that acceptable? Per WP:OR, "By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view." (that is straight from WP:OR). In this case, you need to include all the genres mentioned. Not just the ones you've chosen. If we must have genres, i'd like to go forward with Wikipedia:Consensus, where we move forward to withing maintaing "a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article." via WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. I would like to move on to that as that seems to be a bigger issue. How do you feel about this @Cambial Yellowing:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable and normal. You've selected sources and quotes for the prose in the music section. How is that acceptable? Answer: because that's what editors do to edit.

I've already said maybe six or seven times I'm happy to discuss a different list. The quote from OR you reproduce is not relevant to this discussion; I have no idea why you've pasted it. I don't know what withing maintaing means; I don't think those are words. I don't think it's necessary to include every single genre that has ever been mentioned in all reliable sources. In the music section, you didn't add every single reliable source in the last 27 years that has ever mentioned Quique. You selected some sources and added quotes and not others, just as other editors did. Just as we select the most representative sources and quotes in the Music section, we can select the most representative genres for the infobox.

Shoegaze is ubiquitous. Post-rock seems to fit less well to me, but as you have rightly pointed out it has been clearly characterised as post-rock by two recent sources, so that also seems a no-brainer. Ambient, or ambient techno, is also used very frequently. One genre not currently used which comes up a lot in the current sources is dub; perhaps we should add that? Cambial foliage❧ 22:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should go through references (and maybe clean them up) a bit in the article. This might want a clean slate. There's nothing too crazy about about them, but, let's tackle them per WP:RS. I.e: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". I'd suggest we go into the sources themselves, and see how much they actually discuss the genre and it's context to the album. That's what I tried to do when i first did the GA nom a while ago. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just been through the references usd in the *Music* section. They all appear to be sufficiently reliable (and, of the websites, widely-used) sources for describing a music album. It could maybe do with a a wider use of sources, including some of the other reviews listed in *Reception*, but it's really not a major issue. Cambial foliage❧ 09:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Genre summaries

I've decided to through references to clarify genres more specifically. I've even dugup some new ones to further expand our topic.

• Huffington Post: " the album was a stark departure from the guitar-based alternative music that dominated that period. It was the gateway drug to Autechre, Squarepusher and others how embraced electronic music without feeling like they had to make music for a rave."

• Clifford states ""It was quite amusing to us at first because we felt like journalists were scrambling to find a box to put us in. It seemed like a strange game. But after a while I think it became a minor irritation because we weren't trying to fit into any one of their scenes and it felt a little like we were almost having convention thrust upon us when that was the very thing we were reacting against."" [1]

• AllMusic: "unleashed a curious blend of prog rock, ambience, and minimalism -- a sort of electronic hybrid that had listeners simultaneously scratching their heads while hitting the repeat button. "
• "it makes for a prog rock reminder of early Aphex Twin (a longtime supporter of Clifford), and the mutual influence shows. "Imperial" overlaps several watery layers of sequencing for another (and especially chromatic) soundscape, inducing a sort of trance that has nothing to do with the dancefloor." [2]
• Spin "Whatever happened to "dream pop"? Well, the smartest of those bands have turned on to techno, and are mixing their lustrous guitar stuff with sampled pulses and sequenced hypno-rhytm" "The best of the the new techno-affiliated dream-popsters, Seefeel, had struck a sublime groove midway between MBV's sensual tumult and Aphex Twin's ambient serenity." [3]
• Pitchfork "Seefeel's music continues to sparkle 14 years later, an entire generation having built an ambient-motorik noise-pop aesthetic around Quique songs like "Plainsong". Too Pure finally brings the album back into print after far too long with this double-disc "Redux Edition", and listening now, you'll hear the beginnings of a still-thriving genre that remains slippery and unnamed, purely electronic music with a strange, tangy rock aftertaste-- think Tim Hecker's own post-shoegaze explorations into ultra-violet noise, Nathan Fake's plastic techno My Bloody Valentine homages, M83's heavily sequenced Vangeliscapes, a good chunk of the Darla Records catalog, and the twinkling textures of Mouse on Mars, who sent Too Pure a mash note with their demo after they had become infatuated with Quique. " "this rock-free space" [4]
• Pitchfork "Seefeel straddled the line between shoegaze and electronic music, never quite sure if they were a rock band with a fondness for sequencers or an ambient-minded collective who used guitars." "Mostly instrumental, it finds Seefeel exploring the outer limits of drone and ambience, with rippling waves of sound that are hard to place precisely" " Quique showed how the oceanic end of shoegaze could be found in a purely electronic world,"
• Paste Magazine (listed among the top post-rock albums) [https://www.pastemagazine.com/music/post-rock/the-50-best-post-rock-albums/#8-seefeel-quique
• Exclaim! "Originally lumped in with the shoegazing in-crowd of the early '90s, London-based Seefeel quickly discovered their ambitions were much more complex than their peers" "Tapping into the more ambient textures that would soon birth the booming IDM scene, Quique follows a similar path as Aphex Twin’s Selected Ambient work but with structures that a more rock-based band like Chapterhouse dreamed of matching." ". Clearly invested in the concept of washing out mists of digitally delayed, reverberating guitar lines, "Industrious” is full-on techno doped up, while at the other end of the spectrum, "Plainsong” re-imagines My Bloody Valentine with a skip in their step."
• Record Collector: "Seefeel coerced their sound from a seemingly conventional palette of guitar, bass, drums and voice, yet seemed to use it to distance themselves from rock’s usual drives and impulses. Rather, valuing timbre and texture over songs and riffs, the quartet created a blissed-out, post-rock, posttechno music that sounded mesmerizing and euphoric, abstract and alien." " Seefeel’s feedback scrape, heartbeat basslines and blissful loops were frequently supposed as the by product of an imagined alliance between My Bloody Valentine and The Orb." [5]
• Billboard "Quique" by Seefeel which is getting justifiable props in the U.K. for its blend of agile guitar noodling over trance/hosue grooves." [6]
• Tiny Mix Tapes "Quique still sits comfortably alongside today’s synth heavy artists like Ulrich Schnauss, Strategy, and Stars of the Lid. Accordingly, the main reasons why Quique, or any enduring album for that matter, still survives are the indescribable, intangible elements that critics have a tough time putting into words, and copycat bands have an even tougher time duplicating." [7]
• Harp "As if caught in the vapor trail of My Bloody Valentine’s occasional dub/dance experiments, Quique shimmered with a futuristic ethereality that was far more substantial than the electro-ambience of the era, but also much less assaultive than the shoegazers Seefeel was affiliated with early on." "Fourteen years later, we should have seen numerous imitations and advancements on the drifting, dubby guitar/synth swoon Mark Clifford and the other members of Seefeel delivered on their debut album, but few artists have seen fit to travel down the road marked by Quique." [8]
• Los Angeles Times "[Quique] is a mix of fuzzy shoegaze guitars, ethereal dream-pop and some kind of churning electronic haze that rewards exploration, even if for the first time." [9]
• Chicago Tribune "Seefeel, "Quique" "A guitar band that successfully crosses the Orb with My Bloody Valentine" [10]
• The Charlotte Observer "The term "art rock" has been bandied about for years, usually to generate the impressionf that somehow pop music was a legitimate an "art" form as Renoir, da Vinci or Michelangelo, and to appeal to culture snobs who felt that rock 'n' roll was beneath contempt. "Seefeel though, are art, exploring the same terrain in music as the abstract masters did on canvas during the past 100 years." "Quique lies somewehre betwen the mid-period Cocteau Twins and Aphex Twin's scientific arcana. "And as part of the post-rock, post-techno ambient thing, Seefeel are all about abstraction." [11]
• The Charlotte Observer "Seefeel represent the boundary between electronic ambient and the realm of guitar dreampop. Beginning with a hazy My Bloody Valentine-influenced sound, Seefeel quickly evolved into an outfit willing to turn the conventions of guitar music upside down" here
• Wired "Seefeel shows genre-bending potential but ultimately smothers it under the short-lived novelty of noise processing." [12]

Now, what i've delved from the above is the following

• People like comparing the album to Aphex Twin and My Bloody Valentine
• There are several sources that say it's hard to describe or pinpoint music
• Some people compare it to shoegaze, others say it doesn't really belong in that (and it's rare for journalists to say something ISN'T something, so this should be not taken with a grain of salt)
• People are not calling it ambient techno, which is currently in the genre box.
• The genres that seem to be mentioned a lot are electronic, dream pop, techno and shoegaze (the latter which, is debated per the above). I'd be curious to see what others feel should/could belong here but strictly based on the above (unless more sources can be found) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What’s your proposal? Remove ambient techno; add dream pop and techno? From the sources on the page and above it seems reasonable to also include Ambient (separately to techno). Cambial foliage❧ 09:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not particularly against adding it, but I think we should also clarify in the prose about how these genres fit a bit more with the sources above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

We've discussed. I've removed the genre that you say the album is not characterised as in the sources you selected. I've added the genres you say are mentioned a lot, along with ambient – which you say you are not particularly against. What is your problem now? Cambial foliage❧ 18:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to re-arrange the prose in the article first to reflect whats in the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

By all means do so. A discuss tag is not necessary on the infobox while (unopposed) changes to the section in the body are taking place. This discussion is about the contents of the infobox – do you or do you not have a proposed change? Cambial foliage❧ 17:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Going to call nonsense on that as you have called me out for reverting items when it was status. The discuss tag is there to tell users that we are still going (and from more than these rplies today, we have done). I do have a proposed changed, it's not ready yet, and i've already said that above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Until you’re willing to share your proposed change, we're not still going. I’m not interested in a long drawn out discussion, and my concern is the genres in the infobox, not any changes you want to make to the body. If you want to tag the body section to invite discussion on that go ahead. What genres do you want to add to the infobox (or remove)? Cambial foliage❧ 05:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas Once again you've added an inappropriate tag - because you're not discussing the issue your tag is attached to. Either make a proposal for a change to the infobox, or remove the tag. I'll leave it for you for now, but if you're going to continue editing while ignoring messages here and refusing to discuss or even propose a change, I'll remove it again and any further reverts we can discuss at ANI. Tags are not a permanent feature, they are there to draw discussion on talk. If you don't wish to discuss a proposal or have no proposal to talk about - no tag. Cambial foliage❧ 22:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Release

So we seem to have three issues for release dates. We have the International Standard Recording Code Database which states an October 18, 1993 release date. Billboard is specifically taking about a UK release date and states a December release date. Even The back of Seefeel's Quique says it was released on July 28, 1993 (which sounds a bit too early to be accurate). So which do we put? Also, the ISRC database states two dates: one in October and one in July for Quique, which is correct? I've tried looking up other releases on this site (i.e: Low Profile's We're in This Together, which sources state was released in 1990 not 1989 as the copyright on the back says, but I can't find specific confirmation.). The ISRC site states it was released decades after that and has no original release info. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, some issues of the record indicate that "digital editing" was carried out in August 1993. While Billboard is a useful guide for the release of records within the USA, it unsurprisingly remains entirely focused on the US record industry. A passing reference in a prose article about imports is hardly a definitive and reliable finding. In contrast, this from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry statement regarding their database:

Where does the data in this database come from?

The ISRCs included in this database were provided by Rights Owners (e.g., record labels), distributors, and other entities that control the use of sound recordings. SoundExchange receives repertoire metadata from all major music companies and a growing list of over 3,000 Rights Owners worldwide. The database is updated daily.

Your anecdotal finding of an obscure hip-hop record which lacks details of its initial release, suggests the possibility that the record's publisher was not a member of the IFPI at the time of release, but its rights were entered in the database when that label became a wholly owned subsidiary of EMI Group. There are of course other possibilities. None of which suggest that a minor reference in a trade article on imports is more likely to be accurate than the internal records of the record label concerned. Cambial Yellowing❧ 23:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with you on these statements, but there is a lot of "if" and "possiblys" in your statement, so its not clear which is which. Also, if it was added then, why would they add that information if the release info is so obviously far off from its earliest release date? Again, I generally think you are probably correct, but I'm not sure if what we are saying follows the standards of wikipedia. My main suggestion for now would be to change the release to 1993 and note the multiple sources that give varying release dates, even the two different release dates given by the database your provided. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

In reality, I used the conjunction "if" precisely zero times. The use of the noun form "possibilities" is only used in reference to your anecdote about an obscure album. I disagree with your suggestion: two of the sources you mention are of little to no value - one is evidently wrong, the other is focused on a completely different country; there is no need to mention them. IFPI is the largest music industry body in the world, and its information is provided by the record labels themselves. While it largely only includes release dates from the 1980s onward (including reissues), its accuracy is not in serious question. Its authority is self-evident.Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

OK I did not think you would take it literally, but stating a published statement from a contemporary source as being off is not something I'm going to agree with, and I have already shown you several examples where your database has been off (including that it shows several release dates for Quique, which you went and just said "this is the correct one"). I want to settle this sooner than later, but I'm afraid I cannot agree with just going with the database and ignoring other sources. That would be unfair to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether taken literally or figuratively, your contention that my response contained "a lot of if and possiblys" is still a total fabrication. The database cited is not mine, but that of the IFPI. Perhaps you are unaware that records frequently have multiple release dates, particularly for new formats, reissues, and remasters. The IFPI also represents and includes publishing as well as record company release data. The July 1993 date for Quique is clearly the publishing rel date (because as per the album liner digital editing was done in August). Hence the October date is the physical release date.

You pretend to have given "several examples where [the] database has been off" where in fact you have given none. You gave one example of an album where the original release date is absent, not "off". The entry for that record does give a release date for the digital reissue by its new label EMI, which is unsurprisingly correct. We do not ignore other sources, but weigh their provenance against that of the most reliable sources. One source which you claim indicates July 1993, is contradicted by the album liner itself, as well as by the information supplied by the record company to their trade body. Another is a passing reference by a US journalist in a minor article for a trade magazine, also contradicted by the information supplied by the record company to their trade body. Billboard journalists have made errors before when indicating the data of a release within the US. Why should we trust it as a source for release dates of records in a different country, especially when the article is mainly about domestic reissues of imports? The idea is ludicrous. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've given at least two and they were the firs things I looked up. How many do you require? Again, I feel you have made your conclusion and are not accepting other sources if they conflict with the one source you have given (which as stated, has been proven not to be 100% correct either.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It was released in October 1993, for what it's worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.237.140 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to believe that but we're getting such rapid back-and-forth and different sources, we need more specific confirmation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "rapid back-and-forth" and why do you think it is relevant to assessing the reliability of sources? What do you mean by "more specific" confirmation? I doubt that a more accurate or apposite source can be found, than information supplied by the record company which manufactured and released the record. Cambial Yellowing❧ 20:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't even bother debating with this fascist. Trust me. You can provide sources, but to this guy it isn't good enough or simply fan-based opinion. He will give you a hard time to no end.

Back and forth means we are talking back and forth and neither of us seem to be able to come to a compromise. More specific confirmation would be more sources that state a specific date. I would stop leaning towards your information that its "provided the label!" I've searched for several records since the above conversations and can barely find anything on even major releases. I would trust this database, that contradicts itself, has no oversight, as far as I could throw it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What you would do is not of interest. The test for sources is the RS guideline; you should familiarise yourself with it. Sources are assessed based on the provenance of the information, not by testing a source for information on other subjects. The fact that the information was provided by the record label is relevant to its acceptability as a source. Your claims, apart from the fact you have given no evidence for them, are not. Cambial Yellowing❧ 02:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against that source specifically without reason, my issues is we are picking and choosing the source from that citation which gives several release dates. How can we confirm which date stated by the source mentioned in the article linked to is the correct one? It gives several dates. Why are we just settling on picking one? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm also just really curious why you think it's great for editors, like the ones you mentioned above to hunt and pick which genres should go in in the infobox. That's why they were removed. No discussion, just adding them and hunting and pecking at which ones one user thinks belong. We aren't supposed to do that and I think you know that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Quique (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)