Talk:Legendary Shack Shakers

JoeBuck name spelling
The spelling of JoeBuck (without a space) is correct: "...guitarist JoeBuck (one word; presumably to avoid confusion with the similarly-named Fox Sports broadcaster)." - PopMatters.com Kaldari 06:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legendary Shack Shakers. 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/20070125130107/http://www.bloodshotrecords.com/artists/thlegendaryshackshakers/ to http://www.bloodshotrecords.com/artists/thlegendaryshackshakers

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) 19:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legendary Shack Shakers. 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/20061110115741/http://www.yeproc.com/artist_info.php?artistId=985 to http://www.yeproc.com/artist_info.php?artistId=985

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) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Musical styles
Another editor proposed tightening this section, so here's a suggestion of how the section can be tightened. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose just returning to the last clean version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legendary_Shack_Shakers&oldid=1074164664 ) which was perfectly fine (and sourced) --FMSky (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't an improvement. It's actually a de-evolution because you're suggesting downgrading the quality of the article for no explanation. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to comment on the inclusion of so many genres in the first place, I would personally find this 'note table' style of citations much preferable to the citation soup | currently live on the article. For reference, the citation organization proposal was pulled/modeled from the note present in Eagles of Death Metal. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Another editor elsewhere suggested that heavy metal be removed from the styles list because apparently the source only cited one song as having elements of the genre. Does anyone have any other proposals about other listed genres from this section? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Does it help if "hillbilly music" is left out since the section Hillbilly describes hillbilly music as an early form of country and the band is already cited as rockabilly and country elsewhere? Or should "hillbilly music" be put back on the list below? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit suggestion
J.D. Wilkes says that the original incarnation of the Legendary Shack Shakers focused on playing rockabilly, "hillbilly" music, Memphis blues and Western swing, but subsequently the band shifted to a more eclectic style with an emphasis on country music.

This needs a different approach
Related to my notes at WP:ANI, the current wall of text of genre and sources are not acceptable. It's hard to read, and generally lacks the proper context. For example, its pretty poor context to say that the artist's music has been classified as "heavy metal" when the source says that the closing seconds of one song goes into that direction.

So, some ways to fix this - basically, the genre/sourcing should be trimmed way back and given appropriate context.


 * Only use sources that label the artist itself. If you wish to classify a musician/band itself, stick to sources that literally and directly comment on the musician/band themselves. Not commentary on individual albums/songs. So, for example:
 * If you find a reliable source that says "TLSS are a rockabilly band" - use it as commentary on the band.
 * If you find a reliable source that says "Cockadoodledon't is a garage rock album" do not use it as a genre for the band. It would be fair game to move over to the album article, but it would not be used to classify the artist themselves.


 * Keep WP:OVERCITE in mind:
 * Unless its a particularly controversial label, you probably don't need any more than 2 or 3. I could probably go and find 20-23 sources that call The Foo Fighters a rock band. But I don't, because it's not likely to be challenged.
 * If you've got a glut of sources, trim it down to the ones that are most direct about the description, and/or maybe ones you find at WP:RSMUSIC, so there's less likely to be dispute about the sources not being reliable.

So in short, re-review the sources, and depending on the context, delete the ones that don't discuss the artist specifically and directly (but feel free to move them discuss respective album/song articles.) And don't add so many in the first place if its non-contentious genre. Sergecross73  msg me  17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm all for collaborative input. What from the citations below should be included in the section? Can other editors review the citations below and make notes on how the citations are implemented and discuss any further changes before making them? I don't feel like massively removing content without explanation is collaborative. I took out all of the genres cited below because this was the cause of the disruption. I would very much like other editors to review the citations and comment rather than assume bad faith. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, what I outlined is a combination of "extremely standard procedure" and "basic writing concepts" like "providing proper context". It is most certainly not "removing content without explanation", so I have no idea why you would write that. Feel free to wait for others to give input, as long as you're not continuing to edit war. But experienced editors are likely give you similar advice. Sergecross73   msg me  03:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you and I invite anyone to give input on the cited genres and what should be included in the section. I vaguely remember an interview with the band's frontman where he said that he hated the genre alternative country and denied that the band was in the genre. That might be helpful to expand the section. It might even be in one of the citations below. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I had another question about the infobox genres listing. The genres were generalized to avoid edit warring but there was possibly some conflict over that as well, or do you think the conflict was just over the section having too many citations? Do you think that if the genres were paired down further to "rock, blues, country" it would avoid further conflict in edits? And maybe adding a note saying not to get overtly detailed in the categorization and not to add more than 4 genres? Rockabilly and punk rock were used as a generality to cover all rockabilly and punk rock subgenres, because while the band has released music that has been described as cowpunk or psychobilly, not all of their music is not considered to be in these subgenres and some of it is considered to be more straightforward rockabilly, blues or country. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd narrow it down to genre that:
 * Have a reliable source that directly and literally states that the band is a genre. None of that "elements of their song are a genre" type stuff.
 * Genre that actually have a Wikipedia article and are commonly understood as broad music genre. (Not things like hillbilly or circus music, which really aren't recognized genre.)
 * Unless they're really some sort of genre-bending musician, 3 or 4 genre is probably more than enough. Sometimes less is more. If I see a band that is labeled hard rock and alternative rock, I have much better understanding of that the band if I read a band labeled "carnival cowpunk metal tex-mex hot jazz", which is incomprehensible to most readers. Sergecross73   msg me  17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)