Talk:Frank Zappa discography

1963 albums
on the youtube video Frank Zappa teaches Steve Allen to play The Bicycle (1963) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF0PYQ8IOL4, two albums are mentioned which are not included in the list:

Live and Studio
Note — There is a thread going on about splitting Albums into Studio albums and Live albums at Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 7. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A case about this matter was opened at Dispute resolution noticeboard. See opening statement and closing note. - DVdm (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the infobox to reflect the lack of distinction between studio and live albums
As I've outlined somewhere here, the lack of distinction between studio and live releases in Zappa's discography means that the release list in the infobox has to reflect this. Therefore, I've made use of the optional parameters of Template:Infobox Artist Discography to shape it in a way that seemed appropriate to me. However, this brings a few issues to the table:


 * The optional sections are grouped together below the regular sections. This led to an undesirable situation where my custom section "official albums" was listed at the bottom even though it should be at the top. Therefore, I used optional sections for all release types, even the ones that had corresponding regular sections (Singles, Compilations etc.). This is slightly "hackish", since I've used the template in a way that wasn't intended, but it works. Is this a problem? if so, is there are way to work around this (e.g. change the order of the sections)?


 * The Beat the Boots releases didn't fit anywhere, so I used the existing "Miscellaneous" types and listed them there. This is obviously not very elegant. How should this be solved? Should the "Miscellaneous" type be renamed to "Beat the Boots"? Should the Beat the Boots releases grouped with the compilations?


 * I retrieved the numbers of each release type by counting the entries in the article. As you can see, the counted number of 85 doesn't match up with the number of 91 mentioned in the introduction. This is because the following releases are not listed: "Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar Some More", "Return Of The Son Of Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar" (both grouped together with Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar), all three "Old Masters" releases and "The MOFO Project/Object (fazedooh)". Should they be added to the list (zappa.com lists them) or should the number in the introduction be corrected?


 * "Compilation albums" isn't really a fitting name, considering some official releases are compilations. However, "Non-official albums" sounds suspiciously like unauthorized bootlegs. Anybody got an idea for a name?

--Mystery Roach (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: By "The MOFO Project/Object (fazedooh)", I mean the 2-disc version of "The MOFO Project/Object". Apparently the artist template lists these six releases, so the discography page should probably do the same. --Mystery Roach (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the six aforementioned releases to the official albums and grouped the Beat the Boots releases with additional "non-official" releases listed on zappa.com as "Miscellaneous". This resolves the second and third issue. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the layout
I propose to change the table layout from this:


 * {|class="wikitable"

! rowspan="2" style="width:33px;"|Year ! rowspan="2" style="width:407px;"|Title ! colspan="6"|Peak chart positions ! rowspan="2" style="width:150px;"| Certifications (sales thresholds) !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| US !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| UK !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| NOR !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| SWE !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| CH !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| AUT
 * style="text-align:center;"|1966
 * Freak Out!
 * Released: June 27, 1966
 * Label: Verve
 * style="text-align:center;"|130
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1967
 * Absolutely Free
 * Released: May 26, 1967
 * style="text-align:center;"|41
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * Lumpy Gravy
 * Released: August 7, 1967
 * style="text-align:center;"|159
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1968
 * We're Only in It for the Money
 * Released: March 4, 1968
 * style="text-align:center;"|30
 * style="text-align:center;"|31
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * Cruising with Ruben & the Jets
 * Released: December 2, 1968
 * style="text-align:center;"|110
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

to something like the following:


 * {|class="wikitable"

! rowspan="2" style="width:33px;"|Year ! rowspan="2" style="width:50px;"|Date ! rowspan="2" style="width:407px;"|Title ! colspan="6"|Peak chart positions ! rowspan="2" style="width:150px;"| Certifications (sales thresholds) !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| US !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| UK !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| NOR !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| SWE !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| CH !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| AUT
 * style="text-align:center;"|1966
 * Jun 27
 * Freak Out! (Label: Verve)
 * style="text-align:center;"|130
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1967
 * May 26
 * Absolutely Free
 * style="text-align:center;"|41
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * Aug 7
 * Lumpy Gravy
 * style="text-align:center;"|159
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1968
 * Mar 4
 * We're Only in It for the Money
 * style="text-align:center;"|30
 * style="text-align:center;"|31
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * Dec 2
 * Cruising with Ruben & the Jets
 * style="text-align:center;"|110
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

We could of course also provide a column for the label, but as there's only one label used, I have just moved that instance next to the album album title. The idea would be to save a lot of space, making it easier to maintain, and more pleasing to the eye. Any objections? - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm rather ambivalent about this. Although it does save space and makes it easier to maintain, I don't find it any more pleasing to the eye (especially putting the label right behind the release title) and it's inconsistent with every other discography page I've seen. But while I'm at it: Where do all these exact (to the day) release dates come from? As far as I can see, they're not sourced, often inconsistent with zappa.com and I haven't found them anywhere else on the web. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as the label is concerned, we could of course provide an extra column, or even keep it below the title — after all, for now, there's only one instance. I have no idea where the dates came from. If they are unsourced and indeed wrong, I guess they can be safely corrected and/or removed. - DVdm (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the label is kept below the title (maybe add a separate column when the label information is added for other releases), I have no objections. I don't really see the benefits as opposed to the way it is now, but it certainly isn't worse either. The dates may very well be correct. I wouldn't trust zappa.com 100%; for example, it lists Mothermania after Uncle Meat despite the latter being released before the former. But it's the official discography, and unless we have a source that proves it wrong, we should stick with it. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, if indeed zappa.com backs the release dates, there's not much we can do, other than simpy adding as the source of the dates column. If no-one else objects to my moving the dates to a separate column —and thus halving the size of the table—, I'll work on it somewhen in the coming weekend and produce something like this:
 * {|class="wikitable"

! colspan="2"|Released ! rowspan="2" style="width:407px;"|Title ! colspan="7"|Peak chart positions ! rowspan="2" style="width:150px;"| Certifications (sales thresholds) ! style="width:33px;"|Year ! style="width:65px;"|Date !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| US !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| UK !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| GER !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| NOR !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| SWE !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| CH !style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| AUT | style="text-align:center;"|Mar 4 |We're Only in It for the Money
 * style="text-align:center;"|1966
 * style="text-align:center;"|Jun 27
 * Freak Out!
 * Label: Verve
 * style="text-align:center;"|130
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1967
 * style="text-align:center;"|May 26
 * Absolutely Free
 * style="text-align:center;"|41
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * style="text-align:center;"|Aug 7
 * Lumpy Gravy
 * style="text-align:center;"|159
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1968
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * rowspan=2 |1968
 * rowspan=2 |1968
 * style="text-align:center;"|30
 * style="text-align:center;"|31
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * style="text-align:center;"|Dec 2
 * Cruising with Ruben & the Jets
 * style="text-align:center;"|110
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * style="text-align:center;"|—
 * align="left"|
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * - DVdm (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An extra column for the label is something worth considering, in my opinion. Having just looked, I can't find any well-sourced specific dates for a lot of the albums. I'm doubting that this format would work, actually. Friginator (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put a mock-up of it on my sandbox here, just to show what it would look like full-size. Friginator (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you have left the unconfirmed release dates out of the release column? The idea would of course be to entirely avoid the extra release date button lines in the title column. But perhaps you hadn't worked through the entire table yet. I had planned to quickly program an ultraedit keystroke macro to almost-automate the job. I think I can do the entire table in just a minute or two. - DVdm (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a slight correction to the above sample. I will make the change to the article tables now, keeping that lonely Label bullet under the title. In the Compilations table I will remove the empty Label and Format bullet placeholders — except for the top entry, so when values get available, they can be added easily. When many values become available, we can add separate columns. Hope this looks better. - DVdm (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

After seeing the new format in action, I have to agree that it's indeed much tidier for the viewer and the editor. Good job! Regarding the release dates, I replaced them with the ones backed by zappa.com for now (except in the case of Lumpy Gravy, where zappa.com fails to mention the original 1967 release yet lists it before WOIIFTM). However, I would appreciate it if we could find sources for the specific dates. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies on sources though. Would this be considered a valid source (already listed under "External Links")? --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I.m.o. Donlope's globalia.net is a very reliable source, and I'm sure most contributors will agree. If there's a conflict between the official zappa.com discography and globalia, then I guess we must indeed give precedence to zappa.com. If we end up using globalia.net as a source for the release dates and someone objects, they can always discuss here, but the fact that it has been in the external links suggests that our contributors regard it as an authoritative source (see wp:ELNO item 11: "[...] personal web pages [...] except those written by a recognized authority"). Using and citing it as a source would however definitely be better than having it in the external links section alone. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid wp:ELNO also goes on to state that "this exception [...] is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people". --Mystery Roach (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but if no-one objects to consider it as reliable, then we can de-facto cite it as a source and remove it from the EL. I have no problem using it as a RS. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It also fails WP:SPS, however, that policy also states: "Take care when using [self-published] sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." In this case, I'm not aware of any other source that provides exact release dates (as well as label information, by the way), so we might consider deviating from policy in this case and use the site as a source anyway (as per WP:IAR). I wouldn't mind. --Mystery Roach (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC
THIS is much better formatted than the current revision, which looks like crap. Two editors keep reverting to a disorganized revision despite it being COMPLETELY UNREADABLE. Please change it back to THIS revision. --WTF (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could this possibly be a size of screen/browser issue? Maybe you're not seeing what others are. I say this because at first blush, I see nothing disorganized or crappy looking about the current version over the prior version you say is much better, which current version appears to give more information than the prior. I have also come across people who were reacting to some appearance issue they legitimately did not realize was only on their end. Can you expand on what in particular it is that is inferior about the current version? It's certainly not self-explanatory to me by comparing them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Fuhghettaboutit. The current version's formatting seems fine to me. I see that the editor requesting this Rfc has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet, so let's call this Rfc closed. Jus  da  fax   00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Worst of the Mothers
This might just be a minor issue, but I find it hard to believe that there is a reliable source that claims this compilation peaked at number 201 on the Billboard "200" for obvious reasons. I'd like to call this into question, just in case there's actually an exception to the Billboard 200's practices that I'm not aware of. However, without a source, it seems rediculous to even state this in the table. (TheNethero (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Well spotted! According to Scribd.com (see page 39) it did indeed peak at #201, but I saw no mention of Billboard 200 and I don't know how reliable Scribd is. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal--you can help!
A Frank Zappa Wikiproject has been proposed here. If you would in any way help support this project, please add your name to the list found on that page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Singles
With all the singles being added lately, I'm starting to become kind of confused. The source that is being used doesn't necessarily correspond with what's on the page, and other sources (such as the singles section of this page, which is under "external links") have different information. I think it's high time we find a source we can all agree upon and then follow that one strictly. The problem is that the only useful information about Zappa's single releases comes from fan-made sites, and there are a lot of discrepancies between them. So which source should we use? And which singles should we list? Do promo singles count? Do singles released in countries other than the United States count? Some singles were released twice, the second one swapping the A-side and B-side; do we list both? (I'm not sure what the Wikipedia guidelines and the respective WikiProject recommend, but I will read up on that.) There are a lot of open questions that I think we should answer in order to make a list of singles we can all agree upon. --Mystery Roach (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well most discography pages on wikipedia DO list promo singles, but under a different section. I'm the one who added most of the recently added singles, but the truth is I added them because they were actual singles released by Zappa. Though I don't know which were promos and which weren't. It all started when I was told Goblin Girl was a Zappa single, yet it wasn't listed. This could be an important focus of the new project. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "but the truth is I added them because they were actual singles released by Zappa". Sure, but according to which source? --Mystery Roach (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Penguin In Bondage
Where might the Mothers' Day 2011 release of Penguin In Bondage: The Little Known History of the Mothers of Invention be included? http://pacificlectic.com/2011/05/11/zappy-mothers-day-2011/ Kmitch87 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Understanding America not under compilations
Why is it not under compilations? FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is Mothermania not under Compilations ?? Kollektionist (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are both listed as official albums on the Zappa website. Mothermania is the 7th official album, and Understanding America is the 93rd official album. It should also be noted that both albums contain content that can't be found anywhere else. It was decided a while back that it's much simpler to list albums as they're found on the official discography, rather than decide for ourselves which category an album falls into. Friginator (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. The fact that they have content that can't be found elsewhere, would (and perhaps should) be the decisive factor. Maybe this could be mentioned in both the articles Mothermania and Understanding America? - DVdm (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, yes, it should be mentioned on those articles. But I'm pretty sure it is all just different edits of released tracks, not distinct" songs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Different edits would be (i.m.o) relevant and decisive. - DVdm (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, for example, on Mothermania, the version of "The Idiot Bastard Son" is an entirely different take. Not different edit or a remix, but an entirely different recording of the song. The versions of "It Can't Happen Here" and "Mother People" are uncensored, unlike the regular album versions. As for Understanding America, the song "Porn Wars" is more than twice its original length, with various new soundbites and synclavier parts stretching the song from twelve minutes to twenty-six minutes. The songs "Hungry Freaks, Daddy", "Mom & Dad", "It Can't Happen Here", "Who Are the Brain Police?" "Who Needs the Peace Corps", "Concentration Moon", "Trouble Every Day", "You're Probably Wondering Why I'm Here" and "Cocaine Decisions" and (I'm fairly certain) the "Thing-Fish Intro" are all remixes made in the 1980s.


 * What sets them apart from albums like "Strictly Commercial" on a more technical basis is that in both cases, the albums have their own master tapes transferred by Zappa himself. So if someone were to go in and put out remastered versions of those albums (as they did a few years ago with Mothermania), they wouldn't simply be assembling bits of other album recordings, but going directly to different master tapes. It's not just "Take this song from Absolutely Free and transfer it, take this song from Freak Out and transfer it", it would mean finding the 2-tracks that Frank Zappa created (remember, Understanding America was mastered in the early 90s by Zappa himself, not put together later). Pops, warping and/or reverb heard on Understanding America and Mothermania could be completely nonexistent on Freak Out, Absolutely free. etc. The same is true with Läther, Have I Offended Someone?, FZ plays the music of FZ and really any other album put out by the Zappa Family Trust that contains at least one otherwise-identical recording as another album. Friginator (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (OT) - Wasn't aware that UA was that different from the "original" material. Will definitely give it a listen. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be nice if our articles denoted when "unique" material was present, like on the good old: http://lukpac.org/~handmade/patio/vinylvscds/ FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Go ahead, Wikipedia is yours. - DVdm (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that they count the vinyl single mix of Dancin' Fool "new material". Or that they count "Mystery Disc" as a compilation and not just a CD release of vinyl-only material. But yeah, that website is invaluable when it comes to keeping track of the discography. Not sure if it meets the WP:RS criteria, though. Friginator (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Separate Mothers of Invention albums.
Shouldn't the Mothers of Invention and solo Zappa albums be separated? Would be easier to go through the discography.

Tribute albums
Anon 86.19.151.163 removed the section Cover or tribute albums by other artists because "it has got nothing to do with Zappa discography". I restored it because i.m.o. it contains valuable information. - DVdm (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel too strongly either way, but I'd be fine with removing it. Limiting it to albums by groups associated with Zappa (the Persuasions, Ensemble Modern, etc.) might be a good idea. Friginator (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My main concern would be where to put the information that would be lost. Any suggestion? (provided we would indeed remove it) - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Early Recordings
Can anyone add recordings Zappa made before Freak Out? They may all be under various band names, but there seem to have been quite a number of singles at least.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Non-posthumous?!
Are we seriously going to label Zappa's life's work "Non-posthumous albums"? Is non-posthumous even a real word? Having taken a closer look at it, it is difficult to choose a correct term, admittedly. Since it's a long list it could be split into Live albums and Studio albums. Albums that are a mixture of both are still studio albums.  nagual  design   00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed it to just Live and studio albums. It used to be "Anthumous albums", which was worse than non-posthumous. There really is no good reason to stress the fact that these albums were made before he died. The future posthumous ones will automatically find their way into the next section. The list cannot be split in live and studio. See the many discussions in talk and archives. There was even an RFC about this. - DVdm (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Standard official release number
I noticed that user (hereby pinged) is working through Zappa's album articles, standardizing the "Official Release" numbers (eg, , , ...). I have a few remarks about this standard.
 * Some of these entries were put there a while ago by the same user, and are now merely replaced. No problem.
 * The release numbers that I checked are correct. Source is below. No problem
 * "Official Release" is not a proper noun, so the caps shouldn't be there. That's a little problem.
 * Articles about multiple albums, become a bit clumsy with this standard: see the edit summary in this revert. That's a problem.
 * I think that ideally, the official release number should be in the album infobox on the right of the page. I have been looking at Template:Infobox album, but I can't find a way to do it. That's a puzzle.

As an aside, many album articles have references to http://www.zappa.com/fz/discography/index.html, which does not exist anymore. It's now http://www.zappa.com/music/official. I already made two changes: and. As can be seen with this search, there's a lot of work ahead.

Comments welcome! - DVdm (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I decapped all occurrences of "This is Official Release #x" to "This is official release #x". In your future edits, please adhere to MOS:CAPS. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What's missing: "Official (R/r)elease" obviously refers to something of importance to the Zappa universe, but *WE* don't provide information to readers as to exactly what that is, rather only making mere mention of it in article after article. Of course, someone can figure it out from the above link, but that only further pushes Wikipedia in the direction of being a source farm rather than an information resource. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The release numbers are prominent already in the left most column of this discography article, so we don't really need this information in the separate album articles. But as they don't do much harm, I decided not to brutally undo (—the apparently silent—) user 's work. Ideally, if we keep them (—and I would not mind removing them—), they should go into the album infobox, but I can't find a proper way to do it. Any idea? - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe this on Sleep Dirt could do the trick. Any objections if I work my way through the lot? - DVdm (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a great improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Made another test. I'll go through the rest later today or -morrow... - DVdm (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✅. There's one little problem though: user redirected the Frank Zappa For President article to the generic Frank Zappa article again. This leaves a hole in the sequence, so to speak. Comments welcome! - DVdm (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Idea: perhaps, in order to avoid confusion, we could rename the article to Frank Zappa For President (album). Okay with you ? - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT for me. Knee-jerk reaction after multiple vandalism issues. My apologies. I've reverted my revert. :-) -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks a bunch! - DVdm (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Frank Zappa discography. 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/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924015932/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6B59B5BCL?url=http://www.musiccanada.com/gpSearchResult.aspx to http://www.musiccanada.com/gpSearchResult.aspx

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) 15:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Zappa discography. 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/20120606194522/http://www.zappa.com/fz/aaafnraa/2011aaafnraaaaam.html to http://www.zappa.com/fz/aaafnraa/2011aaafnraaaaam.html

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) 12:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jazz
Please remember to follow WP:BRD. You made an edit (not considered a jazz guitarist), which I reverted (From Frank Zappa: "In a career spanning more than 30 years, Zappa composed rock, pop, jazz, jazz fusion, orchestral and musique concrète works..."), then instead of discussing it you reverted my revert (dabbled in jazz early in his career, spent most of it in rock, the article is wrong). Your final edit summary is patently wrong since Jazz from Hell, Zappa's final studio album released in his lifetime, is considered jazz fusion, and Make a Jazz Noise Here, released almost 5 years later, is classed as jazz rock – and those are just the ones with 'jazz' in the title. He did loads of jazz stuff throughout his career. What makes you think he's not considered a jazz guitarist? Or that the Frank Zappa article is wrong? nagualdesign 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you're a fan of Frank Zappa? It would explain your lack of impartiality. I have no feelings about the matter myself. But I do know what jazz is and what it is not, otherwise I wouldn't be working on the project. He does get mentioned in writing. But just last night I was reading Ted Gioia's history of jazz and his conclusion was a definite no, that Zappa may have started playing some jazzy stuff for an album or two, but by Dancin' Fool and Valley Girl he had moved away from it. When classifying a musician's genre, I try to take a broad view, looking at the whole body of work and what genre is represented there. More importantly, I have to look at sources. I have resources here next to me as I write this, so I'm not making this up. I doubt Zappa would have called himself a jazz musician. It's important for encyclopedias to get that right. I guess it's more puzzling to me why a person would have such strong feelings about insisting something they like is jazz fusion. It's just a genre. It's neither intrinsically good nor bad. It's not a moral judgment. I know that genres can be tough to define, but lines have to be drawn. They are drawn every day and I'm responding to that as an editor.
 * Okay, for starters try to follow WP:AGF. Yes, I'm a huge fan of Zappa. Are you a fan of jazz? (Rhetorical question, as the answer is irrelevant.) I have no vested interest in describing Zappa as a jazz musician, or indeed any other genre. All I'm interested in here is ensuring that Wikipedia is consistent. Lots of his work is described here as jazz (jazz fusion, jazz rock, whatever), even if Ted Gioia believes otherwise. I didn't write those articles, by the way. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but you're going to have to change a lot of articles if you want to assert Gioia's opinion as fact. I'll leave it to someone else do deal with you as you seem like a bit of a presumptuous dick. nagualdesign 04:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And I take it you are very young and have some growing up to do. I'm done with this conversation.
 * I'm 40, thanks for asking. nagualdesign</b></b> 05:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly the label Jazz project (with low importance) is appropriate here, as is evidenced in the article Frank Zappa. I have restored the project template. There clearly is no consensus to remove it. - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

–Vmavanti (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good that you insulted me. I know when the name calling starts, that means the argument is over, though in this case it never really began. So now I know you are both biased and too irrational to discuss this subject. To the second poster, I believe you lack the authority and justification to remove the template. If you want to discuss the subject, to argue that Zappa is in fact a jazz guitarist, you can make your arguments. I have my sources ready.
 * 1. For an article to be in the jazz project does not require the subject to be a notable 100%-jazz-musician. It means that jazz-interested editors have an interest in the article, which clearly is the case. The word jazz appears 35 times in article Frank Zappa, so the article clearly belongs in the jazz project.
 * 2. Please do not insult me by calling me "biased and too irrational". I am neither.
 * 3. This is no matter of "authority and justification" to remove a template. It is about a long standing template that you like to remove. There seems to be wp:NOCONSENSUS for the removal, so per the policy, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Therefore I have restored it, pending a new consensus, which you are free to try to establish here on the talk page, or through any form of wp:dispute resolution. Edit warring over is not the way to go. Please do have a look at WP:BRD. It helps explaining the policy about consensus and edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we're off to a great start. I was responding to nagualdesign.

–Vmavanti (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "For an article to be in the jazz project does not require the subject to be a notable 100%-jazz-musician"
 * —Sez who?
 * "It means that jazz-interested editors have an interest in the article"
 * —Sez who?
 * "which clearly is the case"
 * —Based on what?
 * "The word jazz appears 35 times "
 * —So? So if there is an article that says 35 times that the earth is flat, then the earth is flat. I would like to know where you are getting these rules so that I can read them and learn them. When we have the same rule book, then we can communicate. Without knowing what your rules are, I am at a disadvantage and we're not speaking the same language. One of my goals as an editor is the clarity of language. But that assumes we are speaking the same language. I have already discussed these matters with others in the Wikiproject. Not regarding Zappa, but others. My argument is that we take a broad view. We should look at the entire body of work. What genre or genres most define that person? More important, what do reliable sources say? As I told you and the guy who insulted me last night, I do have sources. I'm not making this up and arbitrarily changing Wikipedia articles because that's my idea of a good time. I have plenty to do. I want to whittle down the list of jazz articles to something closer to manageable. In order to do that, I first have to know what articles belong in Wikiproject Jazz. You may not realize it, but many articles are poorly categorized. That doesn't do anyone any favors. Passing along fallacies to readers doesn't help anyone. If my editing means hurting someone's feelings sometimes, I'm still going to do it, because my assumption is that anyone who is old enough to use a computer, edit, and learn something about Wikipedia is old enough to quit worrying about hurt feelings.
 * 1. Re "I was responding to nagualdesign", you wrote: "To the second poster, I believe you lack the authority and justification to remove the template." The second poster was not nagualdesign. It was me.
 * 2. This article is not categorized as a Jazz article. Says WikiProject Jazz: "WikiProject Jazz is a group of editors writing and maintaining Wikipedia's articles on all things jazz." and "This WikiProject does not aim to: Act in an exclusionary way toward any particular styles of jazz or any jazz musicians."
 * 3. Please have a re-read of the replies that were given in answer to some of your related objections by some other WikiProject Jazz editors at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Jazz. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * —"This article is not categorized as a Jazz article"
 * Yes, it is. I'm referring to the template at the top of this page which includes the article in Wikiproject Jazz. By deleting that template, I'm removing it from the project. That's step one. That's what I mean by classified as a jazz article. Articles with this tag (and with the words "jazz" and "jazz fusion" in the article, infobox, categories, and so on) wind up throughout Wikipedia in Lists, Categories, cleanup pages, and so on. So information isn't wrong in one place. It's wrong in several places, and it's intertwined with information which is true. Readers don't want to be confused or slowed down by false or or imprecise terminology. Moreover, if you stretch the definition of jazz too far, it will snap. It will no longer mean anything, and that helps no one.

–Vmavanti (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The part about "exclusion" has been raised before by others. I'm not removing an article from Wikiproject Jazz because I dislike a form of jazz. I'm removing the article because it's miscategorized as jazz. I'm not deleting anything. I'm not making a value judgment. If Mozart were on the list, I would have the same reaction. Zappa should be labeled a rock guitarist, not a jazz guitarist or jazz fusion guitarist. Jazz fusion guitarists are Larry Coryell, John McLaughlin, John Abercrombie, John Scofield, Larry Carlton, Lee Ritenour, and Pat Metheny. Although there will always be an element of subjectivity, classifying genres isn't totally subjective. It isn't all up for grabs. People classify music all the time, every day. So we might as well try to get it right. Editors for the project necessarily require a certain amount of autonomy to make these decisions, drawing on their own knowledge at least insofar as to be able to say whether the world is round or flat. Those of us who are knowledgable are in a better position to make these decisions and to evaluate the sources. Fortunately, in the case of Zappa, I don't need to do any hairsplitting. Jazz sources mention Zappa only to discuss small bits of his work they find interesting, not to lump him together with fusion guitarists like McLaughlin and Ritenour, and not to lump him in with the more obvious jazz guitarists like Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, and Joe Pass. The sources understand these distinctions, but many people don't.


 * Re your "Yes, it is": no it is not. It is under the watch of some "group of editors writing and maintaining Wikipedia's articles on all things jazz"—by manifesto of that group. If you feel discomfort about that, you can leave the group. Nobody is forcing you to be a member of it, or to agree with all the choices they have made in the past. Again, see some of the answers that your received at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Jazz. - DVdm (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have another case of imposing his opinion and disregarding article content here, using the same techniques to belittle editors as he's done before. Plenty of jazz references in the featured article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to apologize for calling you a dick last night. It was unnecessary, and I'm sorry. I'd also like to qualify why I called you presumptuous. In my first post (above) all I did was remind you of WP:BRD, point out the incongruity of your edit summary (dabbled in jazz early in his career...) and ask you to clarify a couple of things. Your response to that was to accuse me of lacking impartiality, that my reverting your edit was motivated by "such strong feelings" and implying that I had seen your edit as a "moral judgment". You went on to say that I'm "very young and have some growing up to do", that and I are "both biased and too irrational to discuss this subject", and reading through Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Jazz I see that you even asserted, rather bizarrely, that  is Irish (and also "boorish, narcissistic" and "dumb"), and all but accused  of being motivated by a perceived "superior moral position". I'm not sure why you keep asserting that other editors are motivated by irrational or emotional impulses, while insisting that your "knowledge in these areas is extensive" and therefore your edits are somehow correct. Or why you think that other contributors consider your edits to be some sort of insult to Frank Zappa or whoever, even though you consider the fact that certain articles being a small part of WikiProject Jazz as "a disservice to the real jazz musicians".
 * Aside from all of that nonsense though, I think a major assumption that is perhaps the source of all this antagonistic behaviour is that you misunderstand the purpose of adding an article to a WikiProject. It is not, as you seem to think, a way of claiming that any artist, group, album or whatever is definitively considered to be jazz. It is not meant as a means for our readers to find jazz musicians. What it is is a simple means for editors who are part of that WikiProject to mark articles as falling within the scope of that project, and the number of articles marked as such can be as vast as necessary since the importance to the project ("low" in the case of Frank Zappa) is made quite clear. If you really want to help out at that project or any other I suggest you start working on the articles in ways that have been agreed by consensus rather than wasting your efforts trying to make summary judgements on which articles should fall within the remit of that project based solely on your own supposed expertise. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So I happen to have Gioia's book here. "In contrast, Frank Zappa’s connections to the jazz idiom were mostly hidden behind an outlandish onstage persona, yet his projects from the late 1960s and early 1970s such as Hot Rats, Uncle Meat, Waka/Jawaka, and The Grand Wazoo represent, on the whole, some of that period’s most ambitious and effective examples of the integration of jazz (as well as many other) techniques into a rock setting." This is in addition to all the jazz-related content in the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just listening to Waka/Jawaka. If it was up to me to decide what genre would best describe it, in all honesty I'd have to say I haven't got the foggiest idea! I think all in all Frank Zappa's music would best be described as "rather eclectic", but I don't think that's a bona fide genre. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 00:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

–Vmavanti (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoever is interested can take a look at this.

Sources about Zappa as a jazz musician
I was wrong. It wasn't the Gioia book I was thinking of, though I was reading it. I was thinking of The Jazz Book by Berendt, which I have also been reading. I often having many books going at once.

To start with the Gioia book, The History of Jazz (Oxford University Press, 2011) is about 400 pages in paperback and it mentions Zappa's name only once. This is on page 359 of my copy in a discussion of the AACM, musicians "as diverse as Carla Bley and Frank Zappa were using jazz elements...in a manner that can only be deemed postmodern." To say "as diverse" as Carla Bley and Frank Zappa suggests the two have little in common, Bley being a jazz musician, Zappa being a rock musician, except for their postmodern appropriation of cultural artifacts, in this case jazz. Parasitical more than improvisational. So here's a book about the history of jazz where Zappa barely is mentioned. Nowhere in this book is Zappa called a jazz musician.

Next is the seventh edition of The Jazz Book by Joachim-Ernst Berendt and Gunther Huesman from 2009. The longest discussion of Zappa is on page 610 of my hardcover copy under the section Rock Big Bands. The authors mention Zappa saying in interviews that he was inspired to become a musician by the work of composer Edgar Varese, a figure in 20th century classical music. The world that shaped Zappa, the one he longed for, according to the authors, was the world of the men he studied in school in Germany at the Kurse Fur Zeitgonssitsche Musik: Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono, Zimmerman, Ligerti, Henze, Kagel, Berio. Before his death in 1993 he performed concerts with the Ensemble Moderne and the Kronos Quartet. None of these names is considered jazz. But Zappa, like many postmodern people, had an allergy to categorization. He had a problem with it. So he made fun of everything and everyone. In the last paragraph of this section the authors say that "many critics" feel Zappa peaked in 1972 with his album The Grand Wazoo. They mention by name one critic, Harvey Siders, who says that one of the songs from this album is "one of the most successful weddings of jazz and rock". So in a career of about thirty years and over fifty albums, there is one song on one album that is considered a wedding of jazz and rock.

Source number three is The Great Jazz Guitarists: The Ultimate Guide by Scott Yanow. Here the significance is absence. The book has short descriptions and partial discographies for 342 jazz guitarists and three appendixes for "44 Other Historic Guitarists", "175 Other Jazz Guitarists on the Scene Today", and 36 "They Also Played Jazz Guitar" about people whose primary occupation wasn't jazz guitar. That's 597 guitarists, covering the beginning of jazz to 2014. Zappa isn't one of them.

I noticed some comments on the Talk Page of List of jazz guitarists:

1) "Zappa isn't really a jazz guitarist as such although he has dabbled in jazz. It is a bit like calling Ray Charles a Country singer"

2) "I like Zappa: Zappa was a guitarist, and he did dabble in jazz, but he was not a jazz guitarist. Nor, according to his semi-autobiography, did he consider himself one"

This ought to be enough sources for now. –Vmavanti (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you still can't scan the Gioia book properly, what evidence do we have you've gone through the other references properly? Plus, cherry picking sources is not helpful. Are you really saying there are only 597 jazz guitarists in history? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

–Vmavanti (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just spent an hour and half writing, reading, and thinking about the notes and underlining I did last night. I expect a better, good-faith reply and more of a good-faith discussion. The quickness of your response again suggests impulsiveness rather than thoughtfulness and rationality. The ignorance of your response shows you are not up to the task of reasonable discussion. And again you have insulted me. For these reasons I ask that administrators block you from participating in this discussion because your are preventing a good faith discussion from going forward as outlined in the documentation regarding Consensus. I wish you all the best.
 * It doesn't take that long to point out you've missed important material from a book if the material was presented here previously. And it's also easy to point out the problems with the practice of cherry picking sources. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You said yesterday that "anyone who is old enough to use a computer, edit, and learn something about Wikipedia is old enough to quit worrying about hurt feelings." So instead of indulging in being offended and throwing in your own caustic responses, as you did at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Jazz, why not just answer the question? You seem to be asserting that in a book which describes 597 jazz guitarists there's no mention of Zappa, and therefore Zappa is not a jazz guitarist, do you also assert that there have only been 597 jazz guitarists from the dawn of jazz until 2014? Because if you accept that that's not true then your argument falls apart, right? And the fact that this can be written in a few sentences is neither here nor there. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A book by a reliable source about nearly 600 guitarists is significant. Scott Yanow is an important name in jazz. Yes, of course, there could be some extremely odd reason Zappa was left out (printer error?), but that's speculation. We don't need to speculate when we have the text itself right in front of us. If Zappa had been even the slightest bit significant as a jazz guitarist, then Yanow would have included him. Is it possible that Zappa fans are too biased to make an impartial judgment about this subject?Vmavanti (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You didn't really answer the question. You have a book on jazz that lists nearly 600 guitarists and Zappa isn't one of them, therefore you believe it can be used as a source which demonstrates that Zappa isn't a jazz guitarist? By that logic there have only ever been less than 600 jazz guitarists! It's ludicrous. Look, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time, especially your own, looking for sources that don't mention something. At the moment we have a Featured Article with claims backed up by sources. If you like, you can go through those references and make sure that they support any claims, and if they don't then they can be removed or replaced. If you're on some sort of mission to prove that certain musicians have no relevance to the jazz genre then you'll have to find sources that back up this counterclaim. And if you find numerous reliable sources that say something like, "Many people believe that Zappa played a lot of jazz but he didn't, and here are the reasons..." then you could add something to the article like "[So and so], on the other hand, maintains that Zappa was not a jazz musician.[ref]" That way we'll have an article which reflects sources. What we don't do is pit one source against another and write nothing, particularly when the sources you're attempting to use have nothing to say about it. The idea that "absence of evidence [in the book that you happen to be reading] is evidence of absence" is what's known as an appeal to ignorance. Lack of impartiality has got nothing to do with it. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) A source that makes no mention of something can't really be considered a source, can it? You might just as well try using the Bible as a source to assert that Zappa didn't even exist, since it makes no mention of him whatsoever. Yet there are other sources that not only confirm his existence but discuss his relation to jazz, and those sources are in the article. And as NeilN pointed out Gioia had something to say about that too, which you seem to be glossing over now.
 * It's no good trying to point to non-sources to try and support your preference for non-inclusion. It doesn't work like that. And I hope you've also come to terms with the fact that being classed as part of WikiProject Jazz is not the same as being part of Category:Jazz musicians, nor is it "a disservice to the real jazz musicians". I appreciate that you're making an effort to be civil but I think you've been wasting your time if you've been looking for sources that don't mention Zappa. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 18:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scratch what I said about being civil, considering your ill-mannered response to NeilN above! That didn't last long, did it? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * None of the above is relevant to the question whether the Jazz Wikiproject template is appropriate here. That template says something about the editors who are interested in the article. Please do read what the WikiProject Jazz page says. - DVdm (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If I don't need sources to decide what article is in the purview of Wikiproject Jazz, that's even better. It's even easier to prove without sources that Zappa isn't a jazz guitarist. I've gone over a few of these names with EddieHugh and AllyD already. If EddieHugh and AllyD want to include Frank Zappa, they can let me know. If any Wikiproject members have an objection, they can respond.Vmavanti (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's stick to the facts. The disagreement is over whether Frank Zappa ought to be classified as a jazz guitarist in the article about him, in the infobox, in categories, and so on, based on what reliable sources say. Today I have given in clear, neutral language passages from reliable sources. I don't know how much clearer I can make them. These passages continue to go unchallenged. I'm following the rules of building consensus as set down in the documentation.

–Vmavanti (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "You might just as well try using the Bible as a source to assert that Zappa didn't even exist"
 * This is illogical. I'm sorry, but it is. I would not go to the Bible in search of jazz guitarists. I would go to relevant books, magazines, newspapers, and web sites. I would seek reliable sources and read them. That's what I have done. This is how Wikipedia works. You show me your books about jazz that say Zappa definitely is a jazz guitarist. Because that's what Wikipedia claims today. That's what the article says. That he is a jazz fusion guitarist. If you don't believe that, then change it. If you do believe it, then defend it with sources. This is how Wikipedia works. None of these comments are controversial or offensive. They ought not to provoke quick, emotional outbursts.
 * re "Let's stick to the facts", yes, the fact is that you are severely wasting your time here on this talk page. See WikiProject Jazz, wp:CONSENSUS and wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That is how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again and again you refuse to address the arguments. You put your fingers in your ears. You cover your eyes and ears. You refuse to read the arguments and the passages I have provided. Instead you repeat what you said and say read this. Well, I have read those passages. I'm not sure you have. Here is one pertinent passage from Consensus:

–Vmavanti (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever...Limit article talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."
 * And again, you reverted . I have undone it per wp:NOCONSENSUS. Next, time, you'll get a 3RR report. - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What participants is Vmavanti talking about? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * clearly nobody there has "decided this article should be excluded". But see User talk:EddieHugh and User talk:NewYorkActuary. - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ROPE, I guess. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)