Talk:Cavity Search Records

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cavity Search Records. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930054650/http://frenchkisslabelgroup.com/mission-statement/ to http://frenchkisslabelgroup.com/mission-statement/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

public relations editing suspected. contents manipulation by Cavity Search Records controlled accounts
Checked edit history. A handful of throwaway accounts are identified that have substantially alter the article contents Graywalls (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Also, I removed catalog entry added by Earflaps, which was determined to be a sock puppet of Musiclover650 and sockmaster's block was in place at the time contents were added. An exhaustive list of products, past and present is something for their website, not on encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am restoring the discography and the full list of artists, as this is not fundamentally an exhaustive list of products, but rather a publication history, a discography (read as analogous to a bibliography), which is of encyclopedic interest. Even if it was added by a COI account, it is not inherently promotional in nature and has encyclopedic value to readers interested in the article subject. Chubbles (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, list of everything published by someone is not appropriate as "bibliography". This shouldn't be here. There's no consensus to restore the catalog like contents initially added by public relations effort. I have listed this discussion for third opinion Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the deletion discussion, there's nothing wrong with retaining neutral, encyclopedic, and well-organized information, even if it was added by a COI editor. I await the 3O opinions. Chubbles (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I agree with @Chubbles. MOS:DISCOGRAPHY allows discographies on artist pages, and I don't see a good reason we can't include one on a record label page. A discography also meets NLIST and so is fine for inclusion in an article. Pinging @Graywalls. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Artist =! corporation though. I asked, not specifically to this article, but in general on WP:NOT talk page and that was the comment I got. Graywalls (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Graywalls (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We include discographies on the pages of artists and other creatives as that is expected for those that are the primary party responsible for those works, but not on their publishers or labels, as these groups do not have significant creative input into the output. M asem (t) 23:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's meant to describe aspirational principles or current status, but there certainly are discographies on many record label pages as a matter of fact, even if they were not wanted. I argued that they are wanted, because people seeking information about a record label, overwhelmingly, are interested in the label's recorded output. This is fundamental to the encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and collates information about associated artists - associated, that is, by being labelmates - which often reveals sonic and even political or philosophical confluences in a way that is not captured purely through artist discographies or even, most of the time, by the prose summaries. I strongly disagree that labels have no significant creative input into the music they release; I actually have a hard time understanding how that claim could be defended. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur here. They're certainly relevant content, useful to our readers, etc. What's the case against inclusion? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)