Talk:The Blackest Beautiful

Loniel Robinson Comment
Loniel's only mentioned twice in the article, so why is he listed in the lead paragraph? If he is that notable, shouldn't be also be in the personnel credits? -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Funk
So I just want to weigh in the addition of funk. I'm not doubting that this is influenced by funk, and as you state, critics note as it as an influence, but I don't think it should be in the infobox because it hasn't been described it as a straight up funk album. I'm totally cool with having it in the article where it's mentioned, but I think it would mis-lead a reader to think it's a Funk album if they were just reading the infobox. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, this album is not a straight-up funk album or even predominantly funk, but neither is it straight-up post-hardcore. When people look at an info box they usually take the first genre to know what an album predominantly sounds like while the others just cover that there are other elements at play. I feel it wouldn't be representative of what letlive. do on this album to just put post-hardcore and that would actually be the misleading decision (personally of course). But above my personal opinion, which I know holds not sway on Wikipedia, funk being cited felt far to common to not be included into the infobox. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree as I often just see the genres listed alphabetically. The infobox instructions don't actually state how to list genres appropriately either. But my suggestion would be to not have funk in the infobox, but in the lead of the article be sure to talk about how critics noted the funk influence on the album. Influence doesn't place it in the genre, but just listing it on it's own suggests the album might sound like Zapp or something. Critics seem to note the "funk influence" more than it being a funk album straight-up. I just woke up and this sentence might be a bit weird, but I think you know what I'm getting at. Right? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a bit and I have not heard any news from you. If there is nothing else to add, i'll assume consensus and remove funk per my statements above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been on the whole absent from wiki, I've struggled to gather the motivation to edit as real life stuff has fallen into motion. I'm still adamant on my position, as the quotes used directly reference funk as a part of the style as much as punk rather than just an influence. I just think only putting post-hardcore is reductionist, It's like how the London Calling article had punk and reggae next to each other. (it currently has post-punk instead, but it's notable that there is dispute behind the generalisation). Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Since we've kind of hit a stalemate, I'll ask for others to weigh in from various wikiprojects. Hopefully we can come to some solution. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove Funk unless it can be proven that it is a predominant genre used by multiple/many reliable sources. Funk should certainly be mentioned, but more in the "Sound" "Composition/Music" type section, in prose. Not the infobox. Sergecross73   msg me  01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove Funk as per the logic supplied by Sergecross73 and Andrzejbanas. Having "funk" in the infobox could be misleading to the casual reader IMO, but it is absolutely correct to discuss the funk influence/styles in the appropriate section of the article. Thanks — sparklism hey! 12:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As per the consensus I have removed the other genres. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Review box
Per WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide, "Include no more than ten reviews in table form. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews.". Currently we have 13, instead of removing random ones, I thought we should discuss what stays and what goes. My first nomination would be to keep the ones that were in print opposed to online ones. But I think that would still only get rid of one or two, when we need to get rid of three. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps Allmusic, Clash Music and This Is Fake DIY could be removed, as you said, not printed sources, but also some of the remaining ones are either newspapers or a diverse collection of music magazines. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd personally swap Allmusic with Sputnik as Allmusic has stronger writers who have worked for other material. This is Fake DIY should definiately be one of the first on the chopping block though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with you, I need to correct some of the issues the article's copy-editor pointed out, I'll crop down the list in that edit. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So the list is back at 13, i'll remove some again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)