Talk:The Records

Merge from John Wicks (singer)
We appear to have two articles about The Records, as the Wicks article is pretty much all about this band. Merging seems an obvious outcome.--Michig (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The puffery in the Wicks article could be toned down a bit too. Piriczki (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The Records page relates to the activity of the original group 1978-1982 and subsequent CD reissues. The John Wicks page relates to John's solo activity after The Records disbanded. These are two distinct and largely unconnected stories. WillBirch (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point but could there be one article that diverges at some point chronologically, with a post-1982 section covering the individual members' careers? Just for the sake of keeping everything related to the Records in one place and making it one very good article. More balance might be needed though. Piriczki (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. This proposal is contrary to the policy of both (a) standard reference sources for the band and (b) Wikipedia itself. Allmusic only includes one CD Wicks has released on its 'The Records' discography page; the review of that CD says "Calling this "the Records" is a bit of a cheat". Trouser Press calls it a Wicks solo release and ignores his other CDs. Wikipedia has entries for "Creedence Clearwater Revival", and both factions of the group who play the music after an acrimonious breakup: "John Fogerty" and "Creedence Clearwater Revisited." Separate pages ensures that factions do not constantly revise the main page, requiring constant moderation.(Swarles Barkley (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)) Thank you, Will. In the last several years many outright lies about The Records have appeared on too many sites. A plethora of Web pages that have absolutely nothing to do with the band carry or have carried amateurish 'reviews'  and grandiose fawning manifestos that frequently begin:  'Why John Wicks and The Records are the best ...',  or:  'The Who's  (or whoever, pick your favourite)  new album is good, but not as good as John Wicks and The Records'. Whether or not Wicks approved this style of 'promotion', the technique is insidious, and moreover has nothing in common (thank goodness) with the artist(e)s formerly known as The Records.
 * I also disagree with a merge. There were some formatting errors on the page (along with the above comment) and I added some additional sources that show Wicks had a viable career as a solo.  Obviously The Records was the height of his career, but it was not the only thing. Trackinfo (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are versus Were
The Records appear to be touring again as John Wicks and the Records and have a current website. IMO they are no longer defunct. I guess the question is whether or not it is essentially the same band. Thoughts from others on the status? Bahooka (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's been the case for years. It was previously discussed above that this article refers the original group that existed from 1978–82. For "John Wicks and the Records" see John Wicks (singer). Piriczki (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Bahooka (talk) 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130092538/http://www.therecords.com/biography.htm to http://www.therecords.com/biography.htm

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) 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)