Talk:Cuneiform Records

Archival releases

Note: The first few reissues came out as "Wayside Music Archive Series" releases

Samplers

^[1]

Artists

Artists who have released albums or reissues on the label:^[2]

References

discussion

I fail to see how a list of artists is adjudged to be unencyclopedic. What artists the label releases is essential to even a basic understanding of what the label is and does, and is standard practice on virtually every existing label article. Why the exception here? Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROMO, which is policy, says Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Please note the bolded part -- Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website.

What we do here is describe, in an encyclopedic manner. Another part of the WP:NOT policy is that WP is not WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not an explanation. A list of artists is not an extension of the label's website. (We can remove the link if it irks you, and place it where it belongs, in an external links section). It is inherently encyclopedic information about the label. Chubbles (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It is an exact answer. The content above is a catalog - this is stuff for the label's website. Describing the kinds or artists they publish is the kind of thing we do here, not listing all of them or every record they released. Please do read WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's pretend I'm familiar with WP:NOT now, since, even if I had never read it before after ten years on the site, I have been pointed to it several times already in this conversation. The full list of albums might conceivably contravene WP:NOTCATALOG, though we do have (near-)full discographical catalogues for some important labels; I will not argue here that Cuneiform is that important. A full list of artists is a succinct, bounded, relevant list which provides direct and neutral information about the label and the cultural milieu in which it is situated. It does not contravene WP:NOTCATALOG point 1 (not loosely associated with the label), points 2 or 3 (not relevant), point 4 (not a schedule of releases, as it includes current and past artists, and is not trivial, like including every record store where the label's records are for sale), point 5 (no sales information included), point 6 (not relevant), or point 7 (the list's context is appropriate since it constitutes the primary activity which makes the label notable - releasing albums by important bands). A description of the kinds of artists is a start and should of course be done, but it is not sufficient to encyclopedically capture the full range of the label's activities. Chubbles (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That is kind of interesting wikilawyery argument ... but the spirit of the thing! This just turns this page in Wikipedia into a host for this page of the Cuneiform website. That is not what WP is for. I understand there are wide swaths of WP that have turned into fancruft where people do what they can instead of what they should do, which is provide enduring encyclopedic knowledge.. not catalog listings. I am thinking of nominating this for deletion in any case. If this label is so trivial that all we do is to copy their website, it doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the list is very much in the spirit of the website. (I was making sure I was understanding your concerns, point by point.) The list allows you to click through to the artist pages, of which we have dozens, and gives a much more robust sense of what musical scenes the label has fostered than a short list of musical genres can do. That is important and enduring work (well, hopefully enduring, assuming the article is not nommed for deletion. Silly me, I returned The ultimate guide to independent record labels and artists : an A-to-Z source of great music by Norman Schreiber, Pharos, 1992, to the library not long ago, before adding its entry on Cuneiform here.) Since we are WP:NOTPAPER, the length of the list is irrelevant; the chief crime here seems to be that the label has managed not to go out of business yet (some 35 years in) and has done us the service of keeping a comprehensive list on its own website, something few other labels ever do (which is why discography is an academic discipline and was a nightmarish task for the amateurs who took it up before the academy did). Chubbles (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if an AfD would, in fact, materialize; not sure if you are still considering it. I regard it as somewhat bad form to gut an article of its content and then nominate a stub, but so far as I know I am alone in that sensibility, as I have seen it often at AfD. Nevertheless, the value of the removed artist list is still at issue (I will leave the discographical information for some other time and, perhaps, some other person). Chubbles (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I said I am thinking about it. Since we don't agree about what WP is and is not (this is a pretty fundamental policy difference) we should probably pursue some sort of DR. RfC? Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you take the list of artists - lists of artists signed to a record label, in general - as inherently unencyclopedic, then yes, an RfC is probably a good idea (or a discussion at Wikiproject Music or some such). I'll be on vacation starting tonight for the next week-plus, with rather infrequent sign-in likelihood, so if there is an AfD I may be somewhat slow to participate. Chubbles (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with the RfC. Shall we ask for comment only on the list of artists, or the catalog as well? Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the Cuneiform catalog here: the point is, this information *IS NOT* available on Cuneiform's website, and I had to collate data from a dozen or more sources to pull together the table. Even the label's founder, Steven Feigenbaum, could not help me create the table. I agree, the "list of artists" (created by somebody else, I might add) is duplicated on the website and I'd be okay with dropping that, if you think the bits are best saved. But the catalog l;isting falls right in line with many many similar Wikipedia catalog listings of small independent labels (viz. ECM, Obscure, etc.) so I don't see why Cuneiform is being singled out for deletion simply because it's not your style of music, perhaps?Rcarlberg (talk)

Incidentally, you threaten to delete the whole listing for notability but this has been discussed before (Articles_for_deletion/Cuneiform_Records) and I thought settled. Must every new editor start fresh with no history?Rcarlberg (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

the last AfD was 8 years ago. Things are different now and there is less tolerance for marginally notable articles that are plagued with promotionalism. It is not a threat; it is just that rather than dealing with the timesuck of fans (or companies) who hijack pages and will not even follow DR, the trend has been to delete them. Wikipedia is not a fansite or a proxy for the label. As I said we can do an RfC if that is what it takes but if you will not do that, then an AfD is the way to go. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this your personal opinion, or can you point me to something that documents it?Rcarlberg (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The characterization of the label as "marginally notable" is untenable - Cuneiform is one of the more noteworthy avant-garde labels in the business, which generates its own coverage in addition to that of its roster (e.g., Washington City Paper (), Brooklyn Vegan (, ), Takoma Voice ().) Any article acts as promotion; Disney's article is promotional - it cannot but be promotional, because of Wikipedia's reach and prominence. However, it is also encyclopedic. So, too, with, at minimum, a basic list of artists the label carries; whatever promotional effect this incidentally carries is outweighed by its basic functionality as encyclopedic and relevant information. (The catalogue does this, too - but one fight at a time, as far as I'm concerned.) I don't listen to Cuneiform artists - much too outre for my plebeian tastes - but I recognize the important informational function that pages such as this (or, what this page was until a few days ago) serve to those interested in the music the label carries. Why do you insist on denigrating this as fancruft? Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Are we going to have an RfC to resolve the lists or not? Chubbles wants to keep the artist list, Rcarlbarg has argued to keep the list of records and has acknowledged that the compilation exists only here and is his act of WP:OR). Both, or one of them? Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, is there any way with Wikipedia articles to see how many views they've had? That might tell you if the Cuneiform Records page is getting used or not.Rcarlberg (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

yes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.229.22 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, classifying my article as "original research" is totally inaccurate. What I did was collate online resources -- which is the bread & butter of Wikipedia. I did not <ref> every time I found information because that would be unreadable and unnecessary, especially for online data which is not likely to be disputable.Rcarlberg (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "your" article, I talked about the content you added. And please do read WP:OR. We don't build new things here - we summarize existing things.

I will just go ahead and launch the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• Neither list should be in the article. This page has been hijacked to serve as a proxy for the record label website on the one hand, a personal webproxy for the other in which had editor has built a catalog that apparently only exists here. This is not encyclopedic content and Wikipedia is not a catalog. Relevant policies are WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTCATALOG. Wikipedia of course can be used this way, but it shouldn't be. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• I vote both stay. You can't have it both ways -- either Wikipedia presents information that isn't reproduced elsewhere, or "We don't build new things here - we summarize existing things." These statements are mutually incompatible.Rcarlberg (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Remove catalog, prosify artists. I came here from the RfC notice, but I first became aware of the discussion because I watchlist Jytdog's talkpage. It seems to me that the relevant guidance is at WP:LWA, MOS:EMBED, and WP:LSC. I think that the catalog goes way beyond the style guidelines in terms of its sheer length, and because there appears to be no selection criteria beyond simply being issued by the company. Consequently, it looks like a catalog of what they sell, even if it is not actually copied from their sales list, and that goes against the spirit of WP:NOTADVERT. In looking at the page edit history, I see that the version before the catalog was added is this. I think that it is appropriate for the page to include artists who record for the label, although I don't think that we should list every single one. It might make sense to only include those who are notable enough to have bio pages, and it would be better if the information were presented in prose-paragraph form, instead of as a list. Again, I am basing this on WP:LWA, MOS:EMBED, and WP:LSC. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The prosifying idea is one I hadn't heard before, and it seems as if it may make the artist list less usable, though it might have the advantage of adding more context about what the artists are like. But for a label like Cuneiform, you're talking about artists that often cut across genre and style lines, which makes putting them into neat boxes for a prose summary ("x-genre artists like A, B, C, y-genre artists like D, E, F, etc.") much more difficult. Such a prose summary might become unwieldy, and a simple flat list (as is common on most record label pages at current) is something I, at least, find much more user-friendly (but please weigh in, others who use such lists). As for which artists are included, I have long held that a full list of artists is encyclopedic; WP:NNC suggests that notability does not apply to content within articles, and the list is bounded, finite, and informative (though long for such a longstanding label) - though of course this does not suggest that every artist in the list should have an article written, nor that adding to this page voluminous information about artists with no article would be a good idea. Chubbles (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Because there is a similar response below in the discussion section, I'll reply to both of you there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep somewhere. It doesn't much matter if they're on this article's page or in a separate article (on Wikipedia, not data), linked to in the usual way from this article. An "editor has built a catalog that apparently only exists here": congratulations to that editor! Great work! That's a wonderful service for an encyclopedia to offer. It's obviously not original research; it's taking information that's publicly available and collating it: collation, not OR. Promo, webhost, etc: how could any list of commercial products be created if that were to be a reason for removal? There must be thousands of such articles on here (discographies, books published, films released, video games released...). Here's a list from 60secs of searching for Wikipedia articles with a discog like the one here: Verve Records discography, Apple Records discography, List of Taurus Records albums, Hollywood Records discography, Cash Money Records discography. There are also plenty of articles that have the discography as part of the label/company's article. In other words, this is a well-established and accepted practice. EddieHugh (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep in separate article, apologies for being late to the party. And I would only mention the most notable artists here, no extended list. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

discussion

• Rcarlberg - yep, this is exactly why OR and NOT exist (especially NOT). You might want to put the catalog you built in Wikidata. They love that sort of thing. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Jytdog - will you be deleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ECM_Records_albums as well then?Rcarlberg (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That response is typical advocacy and what we call WP:POINTY. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you claiming there's no bias in your RfC?Rcarlberg (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wild claims of bias are another thing that advocates do when their policy-violating content is challenged. I have work to do here and in the RW and will not respond here further. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what makes my claim of bias "wild," when you want to unilaterally overturn an 8-year old editorial decision and delete a catalog which is nearly identical to another popular and long-standing catalog, and the only "policy" you point to as justification states (essentially) "The world isn't fair. Deal with it."Rcarlberg (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Tryptofish - I don't think making a prose list of artists on Cuneiform will work. For one, there are almost 160 of them, second most of them have their own Wiki articles, and third it's impossible to describe instrumental music in words. Cuneiform is one of those rare record labels (like ECM, Obscure, Impulse, Cinema, Blue Note, etc.) where the label identity unifies the artists; where if you like one release you are likely to enjoy other releases and other artists on the same label. Cuneiform's own website promotes current releases, but as a small independent label not everything is kept in print. The substantial used market for out-of-print releases is of no concern to the label, so they do nothing to document them. I always found this frustrating, so I took it upon myself to collate the release history from dozens of sources (Amazon, Discogs, Bandcamp, AllMusic, Wayside, and so forth) and present it in a sortable table making it easy to, for instance, see how many releases are available from each artist. I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from other Cuneiform listeners (we're a small but tightknit group). I see this sort of information (organized, collated, made searchable) as the best use of Wikipedia. In my viewpoint -- admittedly biased -- editors should concern themselves with removing questionable or biased or advocacy entries, and leave "pure" data to the SMEs (subject matter experts).Rcarlberg (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Replying both to you and to Chubbles, I'll start with a general comment that it will be helpful to hear what other uninvolved editors will say during the course of this RfC. There are various options that I think could work for figuring how a prose description would work. I agree that it would work poorly to try to write about every musical genre. However, I see that some artists have made their original releases on this label, whereas others have been reissues. So one approach would be something approximately like: "In the early days of the label, [names] were some of the artists who first recorded for Cuneiform. Later, [names] also premiered on this label. Other artists, including [names], have had reissues issued by Cuneiform." You could of course expand that if there is more to do with early-versus-later. You might even organize it by decade. You could then have something approximately like: "These assorted musicians have characterized Cuneiform's position as a provider of [description]. In addition, other artists who have recorded for the label include [names]." In this way, you can actually contain many artists' names in the prose, and you are helping readers understand Cuneiform as a company. As for the best use of Wikipedia, it isn't really serving as a supplemental source of information for buyers, per WP:NOTADVERT. Rather, it is providing readers with an understanding of what the company is and how it works, as an encyclopedia rather than as a fan site. As for the notability issues, of course WP:NNC applies, but WP:CSC is more to the point here: lists typically are subject to selection criteria and would either have only notable entries or only non-notable ones, and complete lists containing both need to be kept short. Here, as an embedded list, it makes sense to focus on notable artists. However, you have another option as well. As with the example of ECM just above, you could omit the list from this page, and instead have a separate page with a standalone list (but that list would have to satisfy stricter notability requirements – if, like ECM, that would work, it would be a good option, and if the ECM list is notable but a Cuneiform list would not be, that should be telling you something.) WP:LWA and MOS:EMBED should be helpful in deciding between an embedded list and a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If moving the list (and, perhaps, the catalog, as well) to a standalone article is a solution other parties can agree to, I have no qualms there; where the information is located is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, but the rub seems instead to be over whether the information contained in the artist list and/or the catalog list ought to be on any page. Chubbles (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The problem here is that notability seems to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. Who's to say the next editor with a Napoleon complex won't make the same decision again, another 8 years down the road?Rcarlberg (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally at one point I had made the table hidden, as a compromise to the "separate page" option. That got deleted without discussion too.Rcarlberg (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have three suggestions. (1) If the move to a standalone list sounds like a good idea, great, go ahead with that. (2) If not, wait and see what other feedback comes from this RfC. (3) Take back that comment about a Napoleon complex. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Don't make me regret it, or I won't take back the Napoleon crack :) Rcarlberg (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I take it that the issue of what goes on this page is resolved? Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so yet, Jytdog, others may yet want to comment. (such as myself, I want to look further into this). If we're commenting on record labels in general, it should probably be noted that what works for this label (Cuneiform) may not be appropriate for other labels, say Paramount Records. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• keep both or keep list of artists and move discography to Wikidata or it's really complicated. To start, has WikiProject Discographies been notified? They usually deal with artist discographies, not label discographies, but I think their input would be relevant. I'll try, promise, to organize my thoughts on this, but they're all over the place. Thought the first: We need to be careful about what we consider encyclopedic. Discussions around these types these arguments often are based on [[WP:ILIKEIT] or WP:IDL. I often see people argue to remove this information because they have no interest in the topic, and can't see how it is useful to anyone. I've undoubtedly, and may be here, fall into the opposite side because I have been collecting music and researching it my entire life, and can't tell you the number of times I've wished someone had done what the editors of this article have, which is to piece together information while it is still available, instead of 40 years later when information that was available is now long-gone. To me this is encyclopedic information, because it informs me of what the label issued, and the sequence in which it was issued. This information helps me understand the role the label had in shaping musical culture or sub-culture. Thought the second: Lists of the sort can be tricky. How can List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases (since Disney is already a target here) be anything other than promotional? And again I'm really biased here. If I see a list of released of some web-only label from the last 2 years, I immediately think "delete as advertising", but were I to see a list of Grey Gull Records releases I'd think "Ain't Wikipedia Grand!?" Thought the third: Length is important. Do we really want a list of the hundreds of thousands of releases put out just by the US Columbia Records? So if a label had a short but notable history (Black Swan Records for instance) then perhaps a label discography would be helpful, but the aforementioned Columbia listing would be ridiculously cumbersome. This list doesn't seem too cumbersome, and it is nice that the two series have been separated. It makes sense to hat them, so that the article's appearance isn't overwhelmed by the list. I'm also fine with moving the information to WikiData, as long as that information is conspicuously linked to from this article. Thought the fourth: In general, I'd prefer to link to a discography website (under "external links") if it contains the information. However, none of the big three numerical listing websites list this label, not would they as it is too recent for them. It would best fit at Both Sides Now, but as there are CD-only releases that site would never include this information. If the complete information is at the label's website, then the "official site" link would be fine. In this case, there is a lot of out-of-print information not found on the company's current website, useful information for a music collector/researcher. I may have more "thoughts" later. If you've waded through all this, consider yourself warned! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As you think further, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about keeping embedded lists here at this page, versus splitting the lists out to standalone list pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• So, the RfC time period having passed, it seems like we are all more or less happy with the catalog being farmed out to a stand-alone page. I would like to restore the basic artist list here, with a section hatnote to the catalog article, if there is reasonably secure consensus that the artist list is also worth keeping. Chubbles (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to restore the artist list. If the album list is split out, it will need content and sources added, showing that it meets WP:LISTN (which may be totally possible). But if that is not done, I will nominate it for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)