Talk:Storm Corrosion

YouTube videos

Original discussion

(Here is the original discussion I wrote on User talk:Ktmartellthat lead to the new discussion below:)

What I was getting at, is that Youtube videos are to be avoided for a couple reasons.

1. It fails WP:SPS, there is no "editorial oversight" confirming that the information is true. I know, watching the video confirms it's really them, but what if the uploader was dishonest? What if they did some video editing, and altered some of the dialogue? Or removed a segment that altered the overall meaning or context. Because some random user did it, we can't know for sure. It's the same reason we don't use random messageboard quotes.
2. It fails WP:COPYVIO. Basically, it's not Youtube's video, it's Blabbermouth's video. They should receive credit, because it is their work. Youtube may not have the rights to such a video.

Both cases show why it'd be better to find the Blabbermouth original videos; Blabbermouth is a wikipedia reliable source, it's in its original form, and they have the legal rights to it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion

If the videos violate WP:LINKVIO, as some of them seem to, they should be removed straight away. Youtube videos are generally unreliable but this case, in interviews, they can be considered primary sources and used with care. The FaceCulture videos seem fine, for example. This doesn't override WP:LINKVIO though. Яehevkor ✉ 15:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the FaceCulture ones are the ones I actually provided. I found the actual FaceCulture website links, but the video was down. However, they were still up on Youtube. So I provided both links, where it was originally from (FC), in case the links just weren't working that day, and the Youtube equivalent for verification of the actual info if the FC ones continued to be down. I see you have already removed the ones that I was arguing about. Thank you for the help and additional explanation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comus

Wow. That is not a band who get namedropped very often.
More detail along a Comus line would be interesting. Varlaam (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

At first I thought Steven Wilson had covered their music before, but upon looking it up, he covered Momus. Very different. Sorry, I haven't heard anything else about allusions to Comus. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How can this article be improved?

The article has not gotten great feedback so far. How can it be improved? I think the most obvious way is by adding some information about how the self-titled was received. Other than that, what can be done?--Ktmartell (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, the album's reception would belong on the album's article, which I've written a bunch for. (Though feel free to add to it of course.)
• As far as what else to add in particular, I'm not sure. What bad feedback on the article are you referring to? There's not a whole lot more to say, unless you can sift through more interviews to find more things to include. Otherwise, we may have to wait until there's more retrospective commentary...
• There's also the Good Article guidelines. If you want to make the article better, you can try to bring it up to those guidelines I suppose.... Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When I say "adding some information about how the self-titled was received", I'm merely talking about a line or two. I think it would be a nice addition to the article. It also seems to be fairly common practice. Would that be alright? For your reference, an example of a "Good Article" that mentions individual albums' reception is OSI (band).--Ktmartell (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in that respect, that would be fine to add. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Portnoy

Resolved

 – Line was removed.

Was Mike Portnoy's availability really a factor in his not being a part of Storm Corrosion? I've never heard of that excuse before, and it's not mentioned in any citations listed in the article. Does anyone have any problems with me removing that line?--Ktmartell (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd remove it. I think it was just someone's original research made up by someone observing the timelines of all these musicians. The only official word I've heard was that the music didn't really need drums, and that the drumming that was there was relatively simple and they didn't really need a drumming superstar type to come in and do it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT - The source given does state He's got so much going on anyway, and I'm sure we will work together in the future." in references to Portnoy. Someone probably connected the dots. I still think it should be removed, as the source says that's why he was alright with not being involved, not a reason why he didn't do it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Will remove unless it's been done already. Thank you.--Ktmartell (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Genres

This is not a huge deal, but according to Allmusic, Storm Corrosion's genres are Neo-Prog, Neo-Psychedelia, Alternative/Indie Rock. Do we want to now use these as the project's genres, since we at least have a source for them?--Ktmartell (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions vary, but it seems some editors are okay with using Allmusic's "style listings", while others oppose it, saying that they that some are too much of a stretch, and say only use genre's used in the Allmusic paragraph information instead. I think it kind of depends on whether or not it's being challenged by other editors.

Personally, with the ones given, I'm not sure how they'd be "Indie" in any sense of the word, and I'm not sure how helpful obscure labels like Neo Psychedelia are to the general reader...

Take a look at the article for the Storm Corrosion (album) -- I added a few genre with refs. See what you think of those... Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)