Talk:The Kinks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Kinks is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.


While we generally split live albums from studio releases, there is no rule governing this, and articles generally go by what is appropriate, such as The_Allman_Brothers_Band#Discography, James_Brown#Discography, Grateful_Dead#Discography, Cream_(band)#Discography, Jimi_Hendrix#Discography. By allowing such flexibility and responsiveness to individual situations we can create discographies that are more helpful to general readers, and prevent instruction creep that will sniffle further article development. The standard discographies of the Kinks list live albums along with the studio albums: AllMusic, Rolling Stone, KindaKinks, Discogs. The Kinks live performances are an important element in their story - they were banned from performing live in America during their peak creative period in the late Sixties. Everybody's in Show-Biz is a live and studio album. To the Bone is also a studio and live album. As such separating out the official releases into live and studio is not helpful in this case, and is non-standard for this band. I suggest all official release albums are listed as shown in discography sources, in chronological order regardless of if the music was recorded in the studio or in concert hall. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are objections I will set the discography section to include all regular album releases in chronological order as reflected in significant sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, we only put studio albums there usually because they are what are considered "major releases". Few exceptions have been made, for say Drake who had a mixtape disputed as an album. I'd say only studio unless there is a dispute on what it is, if it's both a live and studio album, like comedians do, for example Bo Burnham, or if it is considered a major release. Like something that had great success and is what they could be known for. Cause I do not see live albums in Drake Bell's or Taylor Swift's discography sections. But it may be notable here. I'll wait for other opinions. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying about major releases, and agree. In this case we have the major releases (which include both studio and live albums) but they are separated into two columns: studio and live, breaking the chronological order of the major releases. My point is that all the significant reliable sources put the major releases together in chronological order (see the links above, and please do your own research, either online or in the library), but here on Wikipedia we have made a decision to separate the live albums which makes them appear to the general reader as perhaps less important than the studio albums. This may actually be more of a discussion to be held on the music and album projects rather than just here, as there are other oddities, such as Deep_Purple#Discography which leaves out Concerto for Group and Orchestra presumably because it's a live album, and disregarding that it consists of original compositions, and that the album is very well known (some would say "notorious"). However, it's worth discussing this here to see what people feel, though I may start a new discussion on the wikiproject talkpages. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There's also an issue with Percy, in The Kinks article it is listed under Studio albums, but in the Percy article, it is not given studio album number, i.e. Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One is the eighth studio album, and Muswell Hillbillies is the ninth studio album, so where does Percy sit. Also the Word of Mouth article states that it is the twentieth studio album, but the next album, Think Visual article states that it is the twenty-second studio album. I suspect that there isn't a missing twenty-first studio album, but that someone has counted, e.g. Percy into the sequence. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We are agreed that the list should be major releases rather than bootlegs or compilations. We have an uncertainty about albums like Percy and Everybody's in Showbiz because they are not conventional studio albums, but they should be included. Are we agreed that it is OK to list Percy and Everybody's in Showbiz, and live albums like Kelvin Hall chronologically, as other Kinks discographies do? SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no objection to putting the major releases in chronological order I will do so again. If anyone does object, please bring objections to this discussion rather than reverting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the place to discuss changes to the discography. Please do not engage in an edit war. We make more progress by discussion.

Here are standard discographies of the Kinks: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Albums are listed in order of release, not separated into an arbitrary listing of "live" and "studio". This separation is non standard, and in some cases - such as here where the Kinks have an album that is both live and studio - not helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Studio and live albums are almost always separated in this section, unless the live albums have as much importance as the studio ones, for instance if they consist mostly of previously unreleased or drastically rearranged material (e.g. Allman Brothers). However it is absolutely not the case here. The Kinks' live albums feature renditions of their studio tracks and do not matter as much as the studio albums, so they should be listed apart. The only point of controversy is the 'Show-Biz' album, which is indeed both studio & live, and should maybe listed twice. 'To The Bone', however, should be listed only among the live albums, as the studio part was in fact recorded live in the studio in front of a small audience.JPGR69 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
"unless the live albums have as much importance as the studio ones". I agree. Which is why the live albums are listed alongside the studio albums. That's what the main sources do. If we separate out certain Kinks albums here on Wikipedia because we feel they "do not matter as much as the studio albums" we will be doing so on a personal judgement, rather than reflecting what reliable sources are saying. The albums as listed in the article now, are the major releases as accepted by the standard sources on the Kinks, and the standard discographies, which I have linked above. For example, see the AllMusic discography of the Kinks, and see the discography at the back of You Really Got Me: The Story of The Kinks By Nick Hasted. Look at the discography sources used in the articles, such as It's not me deciding that the live albums are considered to be an integral part of the story, it is the very sources that we've used in building the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The sources you are citing do not 'decide that Kinks live albums are an integral part of the story', they just choose to list studio & live albums together. But allmusic and discogs do that for all bands/artists. So according to your point view, wiki pages of all artists should be modified to merge studio and live albums, on which I disagree. I insist that separating studio & live albums is not a matter of personal judgement. It is following an objective criteria: it's not me or you who decides that an album is a studio or a live album. Hence, there's no reason that the Kinks page should not follow the general wiki consensus that studio and live albums are listed separately.JPGR69 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, because we do generally separate studio from live, though not always. Some articles don't differentiate between the two if the editors working on those articles feel such a separation is inappropriate. I am working on this article, and I am one of the main contributors - [5], and I feel that based on reliable sources, that separating the live from the studio for the Kinks is non standard and not helpful. Our guidelines accept that this is the case. If the editors working on an article feel that listing all the albums is the appropriate thing to do, that is what we do - see WP:DISCOGSTYLE, in particular Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Ignore_all_rules. In this article, originally the albums were all listed [6], and the article's discography has gone through various stylings, sometimes with just a link to the stand alone discography, and for a period had the albums listed with their covers. So there have been variations along the way. I'm reading the discographies of the Kinks as I'm working on this article, and I find that we do it differently from the way the sources do, so I am putting the discography back to how it was originally, and how the standard works on the Kinks set it out. That way the discography matches that in sources, and the albums are kept in chronological order for those wishing to understanding the band's development. The format of the albums (live or studio or both) is noted in the list, and there is a sourced introduction (again, not something generally found in Wikipedia article discographies, but helpful here because of the nature of the band's recording output). Each band is different. For this band, the current set up, to which I have given thought and time, and for which I have done sourced research, appears most appropriate, and meets our policies and guidelines. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I respect your huge contribution to this page, and I agree that studio and live albums may be separated if the editors feel it appropriate. In the case of the Allman Brothers or Grateful Dead for instance, it is clearly appropriate. In the case of the Kinks, I do not think so. Why should the inclusion of 'Live At The Kelvin Hall' in this list be more appropriate than the inclusion of, say, 'Live At Leeds' on the Who page? Why are Kinks live albums particularly helpful to understand the band's development and not Rolling Stones or Who live albums? The bare fact that Allmusic or Discogs merge studio and live albums does not convince me at all. And anyway, I never said we should remove the names of the live albums from this page, I just think we should list them separately, which in my opinion would make the discography much more understandable.JPGR69 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Live At Leeds is a significant album - it should be part of the listing of main albums. If I was working seriously on the Who article (I've made a few edits over the years, but I'm not actively working on it) I would look into including it. It is probably an oversight based on the album being dropped from the list some time around 2007, or it may be because there is this feeling that is how discographies should be done, though it appears to be only on Wikipedia (and mirrors) that Live At Leeds is dropped from the band's list of main albums. Other sources include it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Leeds is not dropped from the list of 'main albums', but from the 'studio albums'. Again, let us stick to objective criteria. There are 'studio' albums and 'live' albums, which is easier to differentiate than 'main' and 'minor' albums. If you include 'Leeds' in the list, what criterion will you choose to include or not include the other live albums by the Who? This will be subject to endless discussions. The studio/live distinction, usually applied on Wikipedia, is much clearer, much more objective and should be applied to the Kinks as well.JPGR69 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The criteria is reliable sources; that is what we use for all important facts on Wikipedia. Reliable sources which include album lists or discographies, such as books on the artists, official websites of the artists or their record companies, sites such as AllMusic which create discographies, etc. If we use reliable sources, then we can't go far wrong. I have indicated several reliable sources which do not separate the Kinks' albums into lists of live and studio. Your counter augment (which I understand) is that this is the way it is done on other articles; but we have the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which indicates that such an argument by itself is not enough. I fully understand that because this is the way it has been done since around 2007, and has become established, that there is an unease when the format is different, but I feel it would be academically dishonest and misleading for our readers if I ignored what other reliable sources are doing in order to make this article confirm to what in this case (and likely others, such as the Who) is an inappropriate set up. If the reliable sources don't separate the "live" and "studio" albums, why should we - especially as our own discography guidelines indicate that we don't have to? As regards "Live at Leeds" - while it is mentioned significantly in the article, it is missing from the article's discography, and has been since around 2007 (actually it was included in 2009). I'm not after changing the way we do things - I don't have the time or energy to set up a RfC on the issue - but I do feel very uncomfortable doing something on an article I'm editing which runs counter to what the sources do, and for no satisfactory reason other than that's the way it's been generally done on other articles since around 2007 or 2009. We should be summarising what reliable sources say, not rearranging facts to suit some arbitrary decision that appears to have been made somewhere around 2007 - 2009. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with reliability. I'm not saying the sources you mention are unreliable. They just choose a different way of listing the albums. Allmusic and Discogs follow the "no separation" policy for all bands/artists, but with a bit of research, it is possible to find other reliable sources listing studio albums separately, for example : [7]. I insist that there is no reason not to make the distinction here.JPGR69 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If there is no more objection, I will reinstate the studio/live albums separation.JPGR69 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Kinks. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Father Christmas misplaced?[edit]

I'm puzzled why the author/editor of this sentence placed it in the "Theatrical Incarnation" section. It was not composed or recorded during this period (in fact was created 2 years after the era, on the Arista label rather than RCA, which otherwise was the label for all the "Theatrical" releases.) More troubling is it's placement reads as if it were part of "Schoolboys in Disgrace." I looked for a more appropriate place to move the sentence, but it seemed like an odd duck wherever I put it without re-writing it, which I am hesitant to do. Does someone else want to take a stab at it? ShelbyMarion (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)