Template talk:Frank Zappa

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Frank Zappa (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Frank Zappa, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Frank ZappaWikipedia:WikiProject Frank ZappaTemplate:WikiProject Frank ZappaFrank Zappa articles Progressive Rock This template is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles

Archives

Archive 1

I recently changed the template so that the albums would be organized like this, but it's been reverted, and honestly it should be discussed first. This version not only follows the official discography on Zappa's website, but prevents overlap. Many of the albums don't really fit in one category alone (Sheik Yerbouti, for instance, is both a live album and a studio recording), so this seems like the easiest way to organize the dozens of albums out there.

The links to songs are necessary as well. We don't have to list every song that has its own article in the template. Almost every Pink Floyd song has its own article on Wikipedia, but they are simply linked to on their respective album pages. We should, in my opinion, have a section for singles. However, for some reason only two of Zappa's many singles have their own articles (Bobby Brown and Valley Girl). I don't know why that is. But I strongly believe that this version is much better than the template we have now. Friginator (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been more than two weeks without any comments, so per WP:SOFIXIT, I'm just going to change the template back now. Any thoughts? Friginator (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had have been online two weeks ago I would have said this right then: I was thinking that with the genre-sorted version rather than the date-sorted, you could just allow albums to appear under multiple categories - for example 200 Motels would go under Studio albums and under Classical (where it rightly belongs, since all the best works on that album are the classical ones, and the same goes for Lumpy Gravy, Lumpy Gravy phase 3, Studio Tan, etc.....).

Not that sort-by-date is hugely wrong, but one possible objection might be that date of release != date of recording != date of composition. Pretty much all of the 90s ones weren't recorded in the 90s for example. Some of his classical works date to before the first Mothers even.

Stuart Morrow (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the old categories better too, gave a much better overview of what's actually on the records, and was good for presenting the genre scope of his output. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what's better about the current version is that is matches up with the official Zappa discography. All music templates go by the release date, not when it was recorded. Friginator (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision is NOT better. It's garbage. The Zappa website is organized POORLY. These people do not know how to categorize albums. The albums are categorized much better by OFFICIAL SOURCES which properly place the albums as studio, live, compilation, etc. My organization was NOT placed by recording date, but how the album was released AS WELL as being properly categorized. You basically vandalized the article with the help of another vandal then rolled over me when I tried to FIX it. STOP DOING THIS. --WTF (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheik Yerbouti is NOT both a live and studio recording. It's a live album with studio overdubs. Having the live and studio albums separated makes it easier to read. Mixing them all up turns the template into a mess.--WTF (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note — There is a thread going on about splitting Albums into Studio albums and Live albums at Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 7#Zappa Template. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing where that left off...

The template looks to me like it's currently in a readable state. Hopefully readers won't have to guess which arbitrary category Broadway the Hard Way or Uncle Meat fall under in order to find the info they're looking for. This is about readers, not editors, after all. All albums listed are sourced according to Zappa's official discography. If it appears on the list, it's in the main section. If it's an "unofficial" album, or anything other than an official release listed by the Zappa Family Trust, it is linked to elsewhere on the template. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject? Friginator (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) seems to ignore consensus as built on Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 7#Zappa Template, I have put a warning at their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There WAS NO CONSENSUS. What you did was in fact, falsely accusing another editor of edit warring for trying to improve your precious formatting to make it readable instead of jumbled up garbage. You clearly do not understand what the phrase "edit warring" means. STOP vandalizing articles and talk page templates like this. --WTF (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DVdm has never reverted your edits on the template. Your accusation of vandalism is false. --Mystery Roach (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - A case about this matter was opened at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. See opening statement and closing note. - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is much better formatted than the current revision, which looks like crap. Two editors keep reverting to a disorganized revision despite it being COMPLETELY UNREADABLE. Please change it back to THIS revision. --WTF (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long discussion about this at Talk:Frank Zappa, in which, as far as I can see, all users have disagreed with you that the current version is unreadable. So do I. If you can find a valid source on Zappa's discography that makes a distinction between studio and live albums, I will happily support your version of the template. Wikipedia editors making a decision on which albums are to be considered primarily studio albums and which are to considered primarily live albums constitutes original research in my eyes, regardless of whether it's supposedly "easier to read" (which I don't think it is). --Mystery Roach (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the distinction between compilations and regular albums? There's a clear indication where an album is a compilation or a unique album. --WTF (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? Is Läther a compilation? Is Frank Zappa Plays the Music of Frank Zappa: A Memorial Tribute a compilation? If you want to make a distinction between unique albums and compilations, you must draw a line for how much previously released content an album may have before it's a compilation. I don't think it's possible to draw such a line without generating controversy. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Läther is not a compilation, it is an album assembled by Zappa in the '70s that was later reedited into four smaller albums. Meanwhile, Frank Zappa Plays the Music of Frank Zappa: A Memorial Tribute directly IS a compilation, as it's a reissue of previously released material assembled after Zappa's death. --WTF (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the four smaller albums would constitute compilations. And FZPTMOFZ contains three tracks that were previously released, but also four tracks that weren't. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there is a line that separates what constitutes a compilation and what constitutes an official album. There always has. That line is the official discography. If the material collected doesn't appear there, it shouldn't be listed as an album. If it is listed there, it should be given space as a regular album. If anyone has a source that overrules the official discography, they're willing to point it out. Friginator (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friginator, that's wrong. Several items in the "official discography" are, in fact, compilations but aren't noted as such. Zappa's compilations include Mothermania, Strictly Commercial, Have I Offended Someone?, Frank Zappa Plays the Music of Frank Zappa: A Memorial Tribute, Joe's XMASage, etc. --WTF (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Commercial is not part of the official discography. All the other albums you listed contains previously unreleased material. Anyway, I wouldn't actually make the distinction between "official albums" and "compilations", I would make it between "official albums" and "non-official albums". This removes the burden for Wikipedia to decide what can be classified as a compilation. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages of those articles probably aren't too well surveilled, and until we have the wikiproject, I guess album related questions will have to be placed here. Shouldn't the articles about the two volumes be merged? They're on one double CD these days. There are not separate articles for the different volumes of Joe's Garage either. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that the two volumes were released years apart, unlike the volumes of SUNPYG and Joe's Garage, but per se I think merging the two would make for a more informative article. --Mystery Roach (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]