Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 7

YouTube video capture "Frank Zappa Playing Music on a Bicycle 1963"
About the YouTube video capture "Frank Zappa Playing Music on a Bicycle 1963" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9P2V0_p6vE that had been entered by a non-registered user into the infobox on the Frank Zappa page on Nov 7, 2010 - Very late last night, I saw that the entry had been made by the non-registered user. I did not have time to evaluate where it should be located on the page. My edit was intended to clean the entry up so that it would look presentable to viewers. The double brackets around "bicycle" were showing. My annotation, "minor cleanup of bicycle addition to instruments just so that reference would show properly - further attention needed" described my opinion that further attention is needed concerning the video clip. I believe that the clip belongs somewhere on the page (not where it was placed), because what Frank Zappa, at the age of 22, was saying, on a popular national TV show, about creativity is very significant. Both Frank Zappa's delivery of the message, and Steve Allen's reaction to what Frank Zappa was saying and doing are significant. Steve Allen was an accomplished musician in his own right, and his reaction, in my view, shows how something that is not within the norm can be difficult to accept by the general population. Steve Allen also displayed in his acknowledgement at the end of the clip that he understood what Frank Zappa was demonstrating. Could this video clip be seriously considered for inclusion on the Frank Zappa page, hopefully in a location that has context as opposed to being included merely as an external reference? Reference #34 (as of 11/7/10) refers to the show. Could this clip be inserted as an external video link in the Early 1960s: Studio Z section on the Frank Zappa page? Doc2234 (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't dispute any of your edits. The article mentions Zappa's bicycle playing performance, so "Bicycle" could be included in the infobox's instrument section, although it would obviously require further explanation in context. A link to the video could be worth inclusion as an external link rather than a reference, being part of Zappa's notable appearance with Steve Allen as a whole. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a one off gimmick, so is it realy relevant? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be considered a one off gimmick, but I seriously think that a lot is being said in that sketch on a couple of different levels. Yes it is funny; the interplay between Allen and Zappa is comedic; and some might view the situation as somewhat absurd. But on another level, Zappa is displaying musical sounds that emanate from something that would not be considered a musical instrument. He is displaying creativity in a very real sense. The fact that Zappa chose to use the bicycle as a percussion, string, and wind instrument is also significant, in my opinion. Towards the end of the sketch, Zappa has the orchestra join in. If one were to place that improvised piece into a genre, one might see that little piece as a revealing snapshot of what Zappa was to further develop in later years (and then again look at the humor in this sketch, but also realize that something very serious is being said - sound familiar?). Zappa was 22 when this was filmed. The sketch shows him displaying confidence (on a nationally broadcast TV show) and a knowledge of what he is about, and where he is headed. It also shows Steve Allen as understanding that his audience would see the sketch initially only for its humor, and Allen played to that. But Allen also acknowledged that he knew what Zappa was about at the end of the sketch. In my opinion, I think that this little video clip is very revealing, and deserves a place on the Frank Zappa page, likely as an external video link in the Early 1960s: Studio Z section. ...and the bicycle could possibly be added in the infobox to his list of musical instruments if an appropriate explanation could be used to support it. My thoughts and opinions. Additional thoughts? I will try to put the external video link into form a little later if no one gets to it before I do. I'll risk a revert on this one. Doc2234 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that video links are only allowed if you are certain that there is no copyrights to the clip. A link to the Steve Allen show was demanded to be taken out when the article underwent FA review. As for including "bicycle" in the infobox, I think it is unnecessary. The infobox should only name the central instruments (without any explanations). Otherwise it becomes overloaded (he also played toy accordion on a German documentary; very funny and said a lot about the man, but we really have to stop somewhere). Oh, and the bicycle incident is mentioned in the article, so I am afraid I fail to see any deficiencies here. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was looking into the copyright issue, and that's why I hadn't continued with the edit. For my knowledge, could you provide me with some insight concerning the video clip issue? Possibly on my talk page? information such as what is required concerning documentation in order to use a video clip or music video on a page? I have seen them on pages, and they can be quite explanatory. Doc2234 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies with the editor: One has to prove that there is no copyright violation. If one cannot see any copyright notices, one cannot refer to the clip as the default is that unless proven otherwise, things are copyrighted (and fair use is not applicable here). I know several articles break the copyright rules anyway, but in a FA article one has to obey strictly to the rules. Those really interested in seeing the clip can google it by themselves; it should be easy. Cheers, --HJensen, talk 18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The clip is copyrighted of course, only way to feature it within the article (and not just as a link) would be through "fair use". But this is only used in circumstances where such media is vital to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Illness
is it wikipedia policy to omit details about one's illness/death or are there no reliable sources in zappas case? thanks --Severino (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is such a policy, nor do I think there are no such sources. If you have something notable —and well sourced— in mind, be wp:bold and add it. Wikipedia is yours too. DVdm (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you but i don't have sources about his illness. i was curious to know why it isn't mentioned in the article.--Severino (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the contributors found that the details that got mentioned (and sourced) in the section Frank_Zappa were sufficient. Have you read that section? DVdm (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * i searched in this section but didn't read the details...indeed, it is sufficient. thank you.--Severino (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with using Miles biography
As noted by multiple reviewers, Miles' biography of Zappa can be wildly inaccurate. Please make sure the claims cited in here can be backed up by other sources and are true. For example, Tony Palmer did not try to have his name removed from 200 Motels. WTF (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this site, he did, apparently:

At one point during production, Mr. Palmer demanded that his name be removed from the credits of "200 MOTELS" out of concern for his career

Toward the end of  principal photography, Mr. Palmer, in a fit of  peek, threatened to   erase all of the master video tapes of the movie.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.222 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that can hardly be considered as a wp:reliable source for Wikipedia. We need better. Book? Interview? - DVdm (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the section on politics? Was this huge deletion related to Miles' unreliability? The text of the section was: "On commenting on Zappa's music, politics and philosophy, Barry Miles noted in 2004 that they cannot be separated: "It was all one; all part of his 'conceptual continuity'".[198] Describing his political views, Frank Zappa categorized himself as a "practical conservative."[199] He favored limited government and low taxes; he also stated that he approved of national defense, social security and other federal programs, but only if recipients of such programs are willing and able to pay for them.[199] He favored capitalism, entrepreneurship and independent business, stating that musicians could make more from owning their own businesses than from collecting royalties.[1] He opposed communism, stating "A system that doesn't allow ownership [...] has–to put it mildly–a fatal design flaw."[199]

He labeled people on drugs "assholes in action", and he tried cannabis only a few times, but without any pleasure.[200] He was a regular tobacco smoker for most of his life, and strongly critical of anti-tobacco campaigns.[201] While Zappa disapproved of drug use, he criticized the War on Drugs, comparing it to alcohol prohibition, and stated that the United States Treasury would benefit from the decriminalization and regulation of drugs.[199]

Describing his philosophical views, Zappa stated, "I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'–in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government–it doesn't own you."[199]" I think the article needs to retain some information about Zappa's expressed beliefs. What's going on? Ph7five (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: American Libertarians
I'm afraid I'm going to open up a whole can of worms here, but does he really belong in this category? The category page says "American people who have categorically referred to themselves as libertarians, who adhere to any form of libertarian philosophy" and while FZ clearly held a lot of beliefs that are libertarian, he also held quite a few that were not. Also as far as I can tell, he always declined to call himself a libertarian when asked about his political beliefs. (Note -- this edit was reverted while I was writing this). A13ean (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Yes, I already had reverted that edit. Indeed nowhere in the article libertarianism is mentioned, so there is no place for the category. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Zappa Template
The Zappa template that displays all of his albums has now been split in to two sections- one for studio albums and one for live albums. This doesn't work, because many of Zappa's albums feature a mixture of studio and live tracks, which means that they cannot be classified as either studio albums or live albums. Examples of this would be "Weasels Ripped my Flesh", "Ship Arriving Too Late to Save a Drowning Witch" and "Lather". The template should be changed back to display all of Zappa's albums together rather than split into different categories. --Sexually Aroused Gas Mask (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. - DVdm (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would edit the template back to how it was... but I don't know how, that's the problem. Is editing a template complex? --Sexually Aroused Gas Mask (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The best thing would be to go the template's edit history, and revert to this last version by Gnuish dd. 15 jan 2012, before user  started working on it. The technique is easy: make a, then click the edit link on the left, write an appropriate edit summary —explicitly pointing to here (Talk:Frank Zappa) —, and hit the Save Page button. Expect some resistance though, as Wisdomtenacityfocus has put quite some work in this. So before we do that, it might be a good idea to first notify the user on their talk page and let them know about possible plans to undo this, and invite them to comment here on this article talk page. I have  of that. Input from other contributors here would be welcome as well. - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is standardized formatting for musician biographies and templates. Pink Floyd has also released albums which mix studio and live content, but if the content is predominately live or predominately studio, it is categorized as such. Arguing that "most of his albums mix content" doesn't cut it. This is the way it's supposed to be formatted. Weasels Ripped My Flesh is predominately live. Lather is predominately studio content. Ship usually considered to be a studio album. WTF (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, compilation albums can't be categorized with legit studio LPs. WTF (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice that someone. I fully agree with that. Let's keep it this way. Deciding which album is live and which is studio, is not our job, and there is no policy about standardized formatting for musician templates that says that it should be. - DVdm (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one's deciding which albums are studio or live, it's stated outright by the sources. And the formatting is standardized. WTF (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To see how albums that mix live and studio content should be handled, see Ummagumma for example. WTF (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Remarks:
 * I notice that you . That gets close to edit warring. Be careful. Also have a look at wp:BRD, which explains how things are supposed to be handled here.
 * ("doubling Ship, as it's half live, half studio") lists an album twice, both as studio and as live, which is (at least i.m.o.) downright silly. Note that the lead of Ship says that it is "a studio and live album". It does not say that it is a "a studio album" and also "a live album". There are other albums like that, so that would need another category: studio and live albums — and needless to say, it would contain just about all Zappa albums. This is precisely the reason why the split was not made before. The contributors who created and maintained the template knew what they were doing. I suggest that you undo that edit, unless you find one source that says that Ship is "a studio album and also a live album". If it is indeed a "a studio and live album", it does not belong in either of the current categories.
 * I also suggest we revert to the original version. Can we have some input from other contributors here? - DVdm (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a ludicrous statement to claim that the majority of Zappa's albums combine studio and live content. Look at the Ummagumma article, and the Template:Pink Floyd. Ummagumma is listed twice because it contains half studio, half live content. There's never been any complaint. The Pink Floyd articles, discography and template are also better organized than Zappa's. That should point to something, doesn't it? Ship qualifies as a studio/live album in the same way that Ummagumma is both a studio and a live album. That is no argument, to claim that these articles should be mixed up and disorganized because of a false notion that minor live content on some of the studio albums is significant enough to dismiss the importance of the fact that Zappa did release straight up live albums, like Sheik Yerbouti (which is still such, despite the overdubs) and Tinseltown Rebellion because some people believe, personally, "it's all the same", when it's contradicted by actual guidelines and sources. --WTF (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about Pink Floyd. It is about Zappa. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole. The subject of the articles being different doesn't change the guidelines. The point being, Pink Floyd have quality album articles, navigational templates, etc. You can't make it through the list of albums if it's all mixed together. It's cleaner to look at if studio and live albums are separated. And don't say that many of Zappa's albums mix live and studio content, because there's a clear distinction between an album like Joe's Garage, which is a studio album that has some live content, and Sheik Yerbouti, which is a live album, despite the overdubs (which, I have to point out, did not make several other '70s live rock albums studio releases despite containing overdubs). --WTF (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You think "it's cleaner to look at if studio and live albums are separated". I don't. The few other contributors who have contributed don't either. Listing Ship as a live album and as a studio album is i.m.o. downright silly, and in this case even wp:POINTY. - DVdm (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Just look at the way the Pink Floyd albums are categorized. And clearly, to most people, it's cleaner for the live and studio albums to be separated, because the majority of templates have this formatting. WTF (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraboloid. This is not about Pink Floyd. It is about Zappa. - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think repeating the same thing over and over again even though it's not a valid point and it doesn't change standards will state your case? --WTF (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that what happens in some article elsewhere, should have no effect on what happens here. There is no policy about how albums should be categorised, so the way they are categorized here is purely a matter of local consensus, and so far, by pushing your point of view, you are working against consensus — and please note that we do have a policy about consensus. - DVdm (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not working against consensus, because there is no consensus. --WTF (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are going against a long standing (de-facto consensus) version of the template. Three editors expressed objections. You might have a look at wp:BRD: you made a bold (B) to the template. An editor reverted (R) your action ( and ) with a proper edit summary. The idea then is that you do not revert again —as you did —, but instead come the talk page to discuss (D) and try to convince the rest of us. Failing that, the article stays the way it was -- see wp:STATUSQUO: If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. In other words, if, indeed like you claim, there is no consensus, then the situation should stay the way it was before you started working on it. Do you understand that you are working against this, and that the burden of convincing is upon you? - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong, I am right. The formatting was only good after I changed it. The original formatting was difficult to look at. This is a very poor way of thanking me for improving the template. --WTF (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not about being right. It is about working together. What ends up in an article does not depend on whether someone is right or wrong. It depends on how the editors work together. You find the original formatting difficult to look at. We don't. That is just your problem. If no compromise is possible, then we go back to the original — see the policy at CONSENSUS, second bullet: * In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article. That is the policy, and it is unambiguous. If you insist on working against that and still want to push your view, you have some tools at your disposal — see wp:CONSENSUS and, in general, wp:Dispute resolution. - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, (undoing two separate edits  and ) is problematic for two reasons. First, it reverts a lot more than what the edit summary suggests. Second, note that, for instance, Ben Watson writes in his Negative dialectics: "Weasels was a collage of the Mothers in concert and in studios from all over...". So there clearly are sources that do not agree with your take on the matter. You see the problem here? - DVdm (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, there is no consensus. Repeatedly stating such does not make it true. Sources identify Weasels as a live album on the basis that Burnt Weeny Sandwich was primarily studio with live elements and consisting largely of chamber music, while Weasels largely consists of rock songs and was largely recorded live. Thus, Burnt Weeny is a studio album, and Weasels is a live album. --WTF (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, the policy as stated in CONSENSUS, second bullet, says: * In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article. So we go back to the original version. Repeatedly stating your preference does not make a Wikipedia policy go away. - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's really silly that we're arguing about a template. Imagine if a real issue came up.--WTF (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the template is used in quite a number of articles, including in this FA, I don't think it is silly to base oneself on basic policies to restore the original overview, for which the following rationale:
 * Zappa's work is very hard to categorize and most albums —on which many individual tracks— contain bits of live and studio work. Sources generally fail to agree about whether an album is either Live, with studio elements, or Studio, with live elements, resulting in at least one album having to be listed twice — as a studio album and as a live album,
 * The outspoken preference of four (well, at least three) other editors to keep the long standing original version ( and, combinded with the edit history of the template.
 * The policy CONSENSUS: No consensus for change results in status quo.
 * You obviously have put quite some work in this and in the individual album articles, and that work is appreciated, but on the template it really goes against Zappa's "incategorizability", and against consensus, so let's try to make the albums of Template:Frank Zappa match the overview article Frank Zappa discography as much as possible, while avoiding undue categorization, which is probably bound to remain controversial. I.m.o. the thing to do, is to restore to this version, and perhaps moving the items currently under Other releases into the handful of undisputable decade-of-release-related subdivisions of the Albums division. - DVdm (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could fix the discography page. WTF (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a good idea — see wp:POINT. I notice that you, as if nothing was said here. - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am NOT disrupting Wikipedia. I am improving Wikipedia. You don't seem to understand the difference. This is standard formatting to separate studio, live, compilation and box set albums. --WTF (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are not disrupting at this moment. This page is watchlisted by 312 editors. Only 3 or 4 editors have commented on and objected to your edits, and luckily nobody seems interested in edit-warring over this. Personally, I'm not even interested in these (—in this case— i.m.o. silly) categories, but be aware of the fact that some editors object to your point of view. Anyway, if putting things in boxes makes you happy, then by all means feel free to continue :-) DVdm (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Update. I just noticed by anon  to Template:Frank Zappa. Of course I totally agree, and left an invitation on anon talk page to join this discussion. Off for the weekend now. - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 68.0.118.130
 * It was not a "mess" as I had edited. It was a mess, until I fixed it. My edit made it not be a mess. And then anon made it a mess again. --WTF (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is two additional users who prefer the original version: and . You reverted twice ( and ), once referring to vandalism, which was clearly not the case. Together with, you now have reverted 3 times. That could be interpreted as disruptive editing: see wp:edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how edit warring works. What I reverted was, indeed vandalism, as it disrupted the correct recommended formatting. --WTF (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you really think that then I can only advise you to have a very careful look at wp:vandalism and, while at it, at wp:edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the borderline edit warring and constant reverting of both the template and the discography page is not jut disruptive, it also leads to inconsistencies and plain incorrect information. Right now, the template and the discography page follow different formats. The discography page was reverted to a partially incorrect version (wrong release date for Civilization Phaze III; Illegal, Immoral and Fattening mentioned as a cover album; the infobox at the top lists incorrect numbers). Something has to be done.

As far as I'm informed, no source on the Zappa discography makes a clear distinction between studio and live albums, they list them all together. The reason for this is simple: A clear distinction cannot be made because Zappa freely mixed live performances with studio performances, applied overdubs etc. Any attempt to classify albums like Weasels Ripped My Flesh, Drowning Witch, Them Or Us or Läther would constitute original research. A logical classification is certainly possible, but not verified by any other sources. It's not Wikipedia to invent a classification system out of nowhere.

So instead of distinguishing between studio albums, live albums and compilations, we should distinguish between "official" albums (as listed on zappa.com) and "non-official" (but authorized) albums, i.e. the way it was´before this whole argument. What does bug me about this is the infobox on the discography page, which still distinguishes between studio, live and compilations. I don't know how that template works, but is there any way to set it up differently? That should solve all remaining problems. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have to agree with the above statement 100%. I've just reworked the template into something that's hopefully more manageable and easier to navigate. Secondly, shouldn't this entire discussion be on the template talk page instead of here? Friginator (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had decided to open a thread here, as this page has more than 300 watchers, whereas the template has less than 30 watchers, probably just a handfull. Good job. DVdm (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An issue with the template is that it does not include songs unless they are singles, yet there are articles for album only songs such as America Drinks and Goes Home and others. What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added a section of the template that links to "Other Compositions." Hopefully that'll clear it up. The section still needs work, but they've got a place to go. Friginator (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, once again the template has been reverted to it's arbirarily-grouped state without any discussion. I've restored it to the version that is backed both by the official discography and what seems to be consensus. Does anyone have any thoughts to add on how to stop this? I'm NOT interested in turning this into an edit war, so regardless of anyone's personal opinions, can we discuss this? Obviously it's already been discussed into the ground, but if there are any arguments that haven't been put forth, they still should be heard. Friginator (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As user seems to ignore consensus, I have  at their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. YOU are ignoring consensus. Stop making the template look worse by mixing up live, studio, compilation and box set albums. Look at WP:Albums. There's a clear distinction between these releases. Stop changing against formatting rules. Changing the organization against the rules downgrades the quality of the discography list and template. --WTF (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, WTF, to me it looks like the consensus points the other way. You mention "formatting rules", yet there aren't any in this case. If I'm mistaken about these "rules", you're welcome to cite them as they appear on their respective pages. And I'd also like to point out that you just altered the discography page (which also appears to have been against consensus) in a way that doesn't even match the template the way you yourself organized it. Not to mention that the discography article, unlike the template, needs no real reorganizing. It's all on Zappa's official discography, so making a bunch of different sections doesn't make sense. And please, please, please, for the love of god, can we keep this on the talk page? Friginator (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User is  at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Friginator, this is ludicrous. You can't claim that a discography page "needs no real organizing". Look at the discographies that are featured lists. There's a clear quality improvement compared to DVdm's lowering of the quality in this particular discography. Also, look at many different artist and band templates. Do you really think bunching compilations, live albums and official releases together looks better than templates for other artists which are correctly formatted? Miles Davis has more releases than Zappa, and his template is more organized. No one can possibly claim that Zappa's discography is too large to not make a distinction between clearly categorized releases, or that the studio and live content is mixed so that there's no distinction, or that there are no live albums. There clearly is a distinction, so put the content back to where it was when I improved it and stop enabling DVdm's vandalism. --WTF (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what vandalism is. Or ownership, for that matter. No one is claiming to own the article, and no one is vandalizing it. Friginator (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You two ignore sources, album and style guidelines I presented. That's one thing, but removing large chunks of articles and cluttering the formatting to an unreadable state, as you two have done, is vandalism. --WTF (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of articles
DVdm, please see WP:Article ownership. --WTF (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DVdm isn't claiming ownership. Neither are any of the people who disagree with you. Citing that policy is irrelevant to this discussion. Friginator (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't claim any ownership of anything. On the contrary, I already said that "Personally, I'm not even interested in these (—in this case— i.m.o. silly) categories." . - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that I have never reverted your edits on this matter. I tried to discuss your edits vis-a-vis the other editors' views. - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What you claim and what you do are two very different things. --WTF (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is yet another false accusation. Warned on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DRN case
A case about this matter was opened at Dispute resolution noticeboard. See opening statement and closing note. - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)