Talk:4AD
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Cripesohblimey in topic Catalog numbering scheme section
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 4AD article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed merge with Beggars Group
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No consensus for a merge SilkTork (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
no need for an article. easily merge for best Light2021 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, while I'm usually a fan of merges, I don't think this is necessary here. The 4AD article contains a lot of 4AD specific stuff (the artist listing could be omitted though, IMHO) and while I knew about 4AD before I didn't even know that Beggars Group existed as a label. Evilninja (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. 4AD is arguably more notable than the extant label group, and existed as a very well-known independent label for 12 years before acquisition by Beggars Group. --Canley (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – "no need for article" is too vague of a rationale for merging. North America1000 09:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Catalog numbering scheme section
editI didn't add the Importance template (appears to be @SilkTork: -- pinging here), but I'll second the question. Is there a good reason this section exists? I have yet to see this on any other label page. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've now removed the section. SilkTork (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect the importance of this section might no longer be obvious to younger users. 4AD was more an art-project than a profit-making enterprise, which is why you will see nothing like the Catalog Numbering section on pages for other labels. In a time before the internet, offering a vast schema of taxonomic information was both ground-breaking and a puzzle for collectors to complete. The importance of the information is demonstrated from the way that the section has been kept intact for the last eight years and over 400 edits by numerous users. The breakdown of the catalog system after Watts-Russell left the label mirrors the label's change in focus; and the recent abandonment of the system, replaced by the sequential numbering, demonstrates this further. Aston's recent history of the label structures its chapters around the catalog numbering system. I'll add an introductory paragraph from page 104 of Aston's book in the hope that this will provide sufficient context. 202.67.117.245 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think there needs to be actual evidence that the 4AD cataloguing scheme is actually interesting enough to warrant such a detailed section. The quote provided states "It was all part of the bespoke detail that set independent labels apart from the majors" which would suggest, without further information, that such details were/are typical of independent record labels in general. Aside from this, further sourcing is probably necessary for this section's content. Cripesohblimey (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect the importance of this section might no longer be obvious to younger users. 4AD was more an art-project than a profit-making enterprise, which is why you will see nothing like the Catalog Numbering section on pages for other labels. In a time before the internet, offering a vast schema of taxonomic information was both ground-breaking and a puzzle for collectors to complete. The importance of the information is demonstrated from the way that the section has been kept intact for the last eight years and over 400 edits by numerous users. The breakdown of the catalog system after Watts-Russell left the label mirrors the label's change in focus; and the recent abandonment of the system, replaced by the sequential numbering, demonstrates this further. Aston's recent history of the label structures its chapters around the catalog numbering system. I'll add an introductory paragraph from page 104 of Aston's book in the hope that this will provide sufficient context. 202.67.117.245 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)