Talk:Johnny Winter discography

Johnny Winter discography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on May 24, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2020	Peer review	Reviewed
February 17, 2021	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Johnny Winter was copied or moved into Johnny Winter discography with this edit on April 27, 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

FLC?

This may be a good candidate for a featured list, but the recent IP edits make it less than ideal. Once again, First Winter is being pushed as a legitimate "studio" album. It's hard to understand why an unauthorized compilation album of early 45s should be presented as his "second studio LP". According to Sullivan's biography timeline:

February 1969: Winter signed with Columbia
April 15: Johnny Winter was released (his second studio album, Progressive Blues Experiment was first)
August: The Johnny Winter Story released by GRT (unauthorized compilation of early 45s)
October: First Winter released by Buddah
"late 1969": Second Winter released (advertised in Billboard 11/8/69; listed in "New Album Releases" & "National Breakouts" 12/6)
November: About Blues released by Janus (another unauthorized compilation of early 45s)

So at best, First Winter was his second compilation album. These early unauthorized compilations contain many of the same songs, although sometimes overdubbed and remixed so as to appear different. Winter publicly denounced them and advised people not to buy them.[Sullivan quoting Winter p. 128] Only the first, JW Story, charted (at #111, compared to #40, 24, and 55 for the actual first three studio albums); the rest didn't, probably because the public was no longer fooled.

Anyway, AllMusic no longer has any reviews for First Winter and it is usually only mentioned elsewhere as an exploitation album. The WP article uses Rate Your Music and Discogs as refs, which are user generated (not RS) and has been tagged "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" since June 2019. Maybe it's time to bring it up at WP:Articles for deletion. For now, I've removed First Winter from here and from his nav template pending what others think. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the First Winter article, my initial thought is that the album might be notable, and so have its own article, even though it was a "cheap shot" compilation produced without the artist's consent or approval. I wouldn't submit it to Articles for Deletion myself, but if someone else did, that would settle the question one way or the other. What I do think is that if the article is kept, it should be listed here in the discography -- but under compilations, not studio albums. "P.S." As far as nominating the discography to be a featured list, that's an interesting idea. — Mudwater^(Talk) 16:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline includes: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list ... "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".(WP:GNG). WP:NALBUMS lists more criteria which may suggest notability (charts, awards, etc.).

A couple of searches shows the title in lists of Winter albums and ads for record clubs (remember those? – 10 ALBUMS FOR 10¢), but nothing that would be considered "significant coverage" and it never charted, received any awards, etc. Sullivan gives it the most attention with 3–4 sentences mixed in with JW Story and About Blues. Do you have any more? Otherwise, the article probably wouldn't survive AfD.

If the subject is noteworthy, maybe an article devoted to "Johnny Winter Houston sessions" or such, where all the singles (which make up the album) can be written about along with all the compilation albums they have spawned over the years (I think one song was played at a county fair ride or something).

To move forward with an FLC, it would be nice to settle this so the article appears stable.

—Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying makes sense. I'll ponder this further. At the moment I don't have a strong opinion either way. Although a Houston sessions article does sound like a good idea. — Mudwater^(Talk) 19:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Launchballer has already taken First Winter to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Winter). —Ojorojo (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: The AfD nomination is fine. But, I'm going to put back the two references you removed, to Discogs and Rate Your Music, and take off the "unreferenced" tag you added to the track listing. I really think those refs should be left in, especially since the article was just nominated for deletion. If those references are "poor quality" or "user generated", let that be part of the AfD discussion. Thanks! — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but added {{unreliable source}} tags because they are listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. The previous version had one at the top, when it only had the two refs – the ref I added is a RS & wouldn't want them to be confused. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. "P.S." Don't forget to post on the AfD, if you have an opinion -- and I have a funny feeling that you do.

— Mudwater^(Talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the reasoning for "Keep". It seems that several readers are fans of the early compilations (former record club members?). The first, The Johnny Winter Story is on the discography because it is marginally notable (charted). Winter Essentials 1960–1967 is included because it actually has a review and is the most comprehensive (40 tracks, including all from JW Story, First Winter, and About Blues if I remember). The packaging is also more honest – it clearly identifies the years and uses an early photo, instead of the late 60s Winter. If the fans really like the music, it seems that this should be the one that they should be pushing for. Otherwise, to include the rest for historical reasons is BS IMO, given the fact that they are clearly fraudulent ripoffs. Of course, the bottom line is that they do not have "significant coverage" that addresses them in detail and therefore are not notable for WP purposes. The lack of RS may explain why the earlier version of the article got the timeline wrong. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Now that the AfD is over, maybe we can continue with a FLC. The main concern is that the existing per-release AllMusic references may not be adequate. For earlier (pre-2000?) albums, AM is often wrong about the release dates and other info in its side panel. Sometimes the reviews and track listings are for reissues or foreign releases. Although there have been several attempts to add discogs.com, imdb.com, the johnnywinterstory fansite, etc., these cannot be used as references in a FL (but maybe OK for general info in an "External links" section – see WP:ELNO and WP:ALBUMAVOID). It's been a while since I read Sullivan's bio, but I don't remember a discography section. She does sprinkle a few dates here and there. Release dates, label, and format info may be found in Billboard release announcements, but it would take some work to find them. Do you have any reliable sources that can be used? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Yeah, that all makes sense. Offhand I don't have more or better references. If I get a chance I'll try to dig some up. Though I think your research has been pretty thorough. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: I've added some release dates from Ruhlmann's AllMusic bio and some other sources. I would be nice to have some more info from reliable sources for the "Details" for the Live Bootleg Series (recording dates & venues, etc.), but I can't even find it on the album covers. Anyway, it's been nearly a year and this is nearly ready for FLC. To meet the "Stability" criterion requires that "its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process" (WP:FLCR #6). So you may want to look it over and make any changes before the process starts. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Yeah, that's the beef with the Live Bootleg Series. The album liner notes don't say when or where they were recorded, or even who the other musicians are. And I haven't seen any sources with more information on that. Anyway, thanks for continuing to improve the article. It's looking good. I'll go over it more carefully if and when I get a chance. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Well, it's been a long time comin', but now it's a FLC. Add your name as a nom if you want. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Track timings in album articles

Greetings, @Poolietrev:. I noticed that you have changed the track timings on a number of articles about Johnny Winter albums -- for example, here, here, and here. Where are you getting the new track timings from, exactly? Do you have the physical albums, on LP or CD, in your possession, with the track timings in the printed album liner notes? Or if you're getting the timings from somewhere else, where? — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@poolietrev The timings come from the album sleeves (or on the physical record) which I possess: I have all the vinyl era releases. Usually they are just tweaks: could be the timings are taken from CDs which include the gap adding a few seconds. However, some complete album timings are incorrect and do not tally with the sum of the timings of the tracks listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolietrev (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Various IP and new users have been changing track times, songwriters, etc., on many albums without supplying any reliable sources (see this comment). Much of the info appears to come from reissues on amazon, allmusic, and user-generated-type sites. Despite the comment above, their changes to Live Johnny Winter And[1] were not based on the original album. Also, for Still Alive and Well they supplied their own length for one song with the note "'Can't You Feel It' is incorrectly listed as 5.04 on early pressings."[2] (they also mix in incorrect time formats: 5.04 vs 5:04). Of course, statements like these need reliable sources, otherwise it's likely original research. Perhaps any changes should be sourced, such as "Songwriters and track running times are taken from the original Columbia LP.[ref] Other releases may have different listings." For the source, Template:Cite AV media notes may be used. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@poolietrev: I haven't changed any songwriters although I did add them where they were missing on an album. I did make the amendment to the time of 'Can't You Feel It' as the label time of 5.04 is obviously wrong. I stopwatch timed it on an accurate Technics deck and added the covering note explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolietrev (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]