Talk:Run for Cover Records

Scope

I think the scope of this article should be artists who have Wikipedia articles, not artists who have never become important enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of this in terms of relevant content - information relevant to users about record labels is principally discographical information, and ideally, we'd provide a list of releases (which rarely happens in practice, mostly, I think, because it's just a lot of work - though there are a few articles that have done this). In lieu of that, it's usually feasible to give a complete list of artists, and I don't see a compelling reason not to do that here as well as anywhere else. Notability applies to articles, not content, after all, and it doesn't seem a relevant criterion here. Chubbles (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference for each entry which does not have a Wikipedia article then you have an argument. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I have an argument as it stands. Why not demand references for entries which do have a Wikipedia article? The answer, I suspect, is that who is signed to what label, in virtually every case, is not even remotely controversial information, to the point where no one asks for citations. That leads me to believe that this exercise is not really about verification. Albums are published works, and unless the label doesn't give its own name on the back cover, the CD itself could stand as a reference, in the same way that, for instance, verifying that a book was published by Scribner or Penguin could be done by reference to the title page. Furthermore, Run For Cover's own website has its full current roster listed. (I see no real need to go to a third-party source; there's no good reason to doubt that the label's own site is false, misleading, or biased.) So, yeah, I can do that...I can jump through hoops and add a bunch of footnotes, but does that really make the article any better? If the problem is the red links, we can dispense with the links and leave the band names up, unlinked. Chubbles (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So, like I said, I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of the exercise is, and I want to minimize the amount of unnecessary work I do - especially the use of gratuitous footnotes (some Wikipedia entries already look too much like law review articles). I'd like to be clearer on what needs to be done, and why it needs to be done; otherwise, the list as it was seemed just fine, to me (or at least, a good start). Chubbles (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm taking this article off my watchlist as it was really ZebraInTheDark that I was after. Best wishes going forward! Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. I don't have a strong objection to removing the red linking, if that bothers folks - while I do think that redlinks are useful as information-bearing objects (and I use them in that capacity), I recognize that there is a pretty strong movement to dispense with them. Chubbles (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)