Talk:Blue Murder (folk group)

Untitled

I see that the tracks of the album "No One Stands Alone" are given twice over - one in the article called "No One Stands Alone" and once again in this article for the group. Oh dear, I think that's a very clumsy approach. It adds nothing to our knowledge. If there is genuine concensus to leave it this way, I won't change it, but I'd like to know what other people think. Articles on major artists don't do this, because it would make them elephantine. It's only articles on minor artists that have this characteristic, and it just looks like at attempt to pad it out. Nobody is fooled. Ogg (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually added the track list which was aimed more at completeness and simplicity than an attempt to 'pad out' the article. But regardless of my ignorance of accepted practices, I suppose there are two potential issues here. Firstly, as you point out, this practice is not generally followed in articles on major artists and if we're aiming for consistency across Wikipedia as a whole we should try to follow whichever approach is broadly accepted and practiced. But on the other hand, you could argue that for an artist with only one full length album the simplest approach would be to incorporate the tracks and the album details into the main article. Ideally you could then get rid of the separate album page altogether and have everything in one article although this may have to change if the band release another album at some point in the future. This second approach may not be standard practice but I think it's a much more satisfactory for this kind of situation. And in all fairness, the music-related articles in general are a very mixed bag both in terms of quality and approach so I think there's probably some value in simply having a well written article that makes sense in it's own right regardless of whether it complies with a vague consensus. But having said all that, you're absolutely right to point out that the current situation is unsatisfactory and we should have either one or the other - but certainly not both. What to do? Kevin Boyd (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue. To put all the tracks from their only full album in the main article is a "pessimistic" approach. If you put them into in a separate article, then you must be expecting more to follow - an optimistic approach. I'm an optimist for this particular group. In order to break the deadlock, I'd like to see the opinion of a third Wikipedia. Ogg (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessarily pessimistic - if anything it's realistic in that it deals with the situation as it is at present without taking any particular standpoint on potential future events. In fairness, I think that's all we can ever do. But anyway, you're right that we'll probably never agree so I'd be happy to know what others think and in the spirit of Wikipedia I think we should agree to go with the consensus. Kevin Boyd (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Murder (folk). 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.coopeboyesandsimpson.co.uk/blue_murder
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220004602/http://www.coopeboyesandsimpson.co.uk:80/blue_murder.htm to http://www.coopeboyesandsimpson.co.uk/blue_murder.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)