Talk:'68 (band)

Associated acts

Yesterday, 208.81.212.224 (talk · contribs) removed The Chariot from the infobox because one member in common is not an association. I contested this removal due to a common and totally understandable misunderstanding of the guidelines. According to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts, this field should avoid "Groups with only one member in common." While this might seem like this quote is relevant, it's actually not (and something I've brought up on many talk pages about how the guidelines should be updated). This quote is meant to exclude instances where a band member of an existing band joins an already existing band. For example, when Chester Bennington of the already existing Linkin Park joined the already existing band Stone Temple Pilots. These two bands might share one member in common, but they're not really associated with each other. The quote is also meant to exclude instances where a musician has been in MANY bands, but not everything s/he has ever worked on is necessarily associated. For example, Dave Grohl originally performed in Dain Bramage in the 1980s and then later formed Them Crooked Vultures in 2009. These two bands share one member in common, however they existed 30 years apart and have nothing to really do with each other, so they're not really associated.

However, the guidelines encourage editors to add "A group from which this group has spun off," regardless of the number of members, which in this case would be The Chariot. The example given at Template:Infobox musical artist shows a template for Audioslave, which includes Soundgarden in the "associated acts" field. Despite only sharing one member in common (Chris Cornell), Soundgarden is listed because Audioslave is a supergroup that spun off the breakup of Soundgarden.

As I said, this is a common misunderstanding because the guidelines are poorly worded and totally seems correct to remove The Chariot based on that one quote, but when taken in as a whole and in the proper context, The Chariot should stay because '68 spun off of The Chariot's breakup. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You have that completely backward. The guidelines are clear. When it says "Groups which have spun off from this group" means just that. If a group, which means two or more, have spun off of another group, that's an association. When one individual leaves and forms a new band band, that's not a group that has spun off from the group. I can fix any other articles that don't correctly follow the guideline, but to argue it's misunderstood is simply wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's how it was explained to me 8+ years ago when I first started editing, that's how I've been editing ever since and I've never once ran into any issues before this. Since when is one member spinning off to form a new band not considered spinning off? Does this mean Frasier isn't actually a spin-off of Cheers because it only includes one cast member? Why does it have to be two members? That interpretation seems so arbitrary and senseless. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So, just to make sure I understand... Foo Fighters did not spin-off from Nirvana? Angels & Airwaves did not spin-off from Blink-182? The Almost did not spin-off from Underoath? Fort Minor did not a spin-off of Linkin Park? The Postal Service did not spin-off from Death Cab for Cutie? Gorillaz did not spin-off of Blur? Yeti did not spin-off from The Libertines? Discovery did not spin-off of Vampire Weekend? Mini Mansions did not spin off of Queens of the Stone Age? ...all because they only share one member? Had a second member showed up to the first band practice and then quit the next day, they would have all been considered "associated," but because it was only one member, these bands are completely unrelated to one another? Fezmar9 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know specifics about the band, but if you ask at the template, if they only share one member, they are not associated acts in Wikipedia terms. Of course, if reliable sources say that one band spawned the other, they are associated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The guideline also says the field is for acts that are "significant and notable to this artist's career." The Chariot is mentioned six times in the article, and recent news sources continue to associate '68 with The Chariot[1][2][3][4]. It appears it's impossible to talk about '68 without also bringing up The Chariot, which seems pretty significant and notable to me. There was also a discussion about the inclusion of Audioslave as an example at the template documentation back in 2011 that, while the support as a continued example for a temple is debated, everyone seems to agree that Audioslave should have groups that only share one member based on their context, direct relationship and significance. It seems like a perfectly good time to use common sense, not follow all of the rules all of the time and keep The Chariot in the template. Outside of "rules are rules," can you explain how including The Chariot is hurting the article and how removing The Chariot improves it? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And an "artist" is not a "band". If you think that's the way it should be interpreted, ask at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. You can check the archives. The specific example used when the guideline was initially proposed is that Wings (band) is not associated with the Beatles just because they share Paul McCartney. (Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 6). In that discussion, "individuals or groups" was proposed for the "significant" statement and it was not clarified, but it clearly misses the thrust of the discussion, and what made it into the guideline "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" which is follwed by "The following uses of this field should be avoided: Groups with only one member in common". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Outside of "rules are rules," can you explain how including The Chariot is hurting the article and how removing The Chariot improves it? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not about improving the article or making it worse. The information would make the infobox inaccurate and mislead readers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)