This redirect is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
Section sizes
error: Louie Louie discography is a redirect (help)
I can't see any discussion or editing by multiple editors that has affirmed the content that I have removed, so per WP:BRD it has to stay removed from the article until there is consensus on the talk page otherwise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over. Very much appreciate your input. My concern on references is that there are several notable researchers (Dave Marsh, Eric Predoehl, Theo de Grood, and others) who have done a ton of research on the various versions of "Louie Louie" over the years. I didn't want to slight anyone, so I included multiple references to acknowledge each researcher. What is the best course here? Which of the multiple researchers should I reference? I'm not sure how to prioritize one over the other. Relbats (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no justification on using certain references so that each researcher gets a certain amount of credit for their work. If we could reference the entire article's content with one reference, of course we would. If the sources are equal in reliability to each other, the only preference would be to use as few references as possible. If there are sources more reliable than others, then of course the preference would be whichever is more reliable. This is more than simply the authors of the particular sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a list, subdividing might make it less useful. I think the character count can be reduced by streamlining the references. I'll work on it. Relbats (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTESAL, individual items in a list do not need to be independently notable if the group or set is notable overall (i.e., has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources).
The discussion about the number of “Louie Louie” versions by musicologists and music historians has been ongoing. The KFJC Maximum Louie Louie Marathon in 1983 was an early attempt to catalog all existing versions, Dave Marsh’s 1993 book included a rudimentary “Louie Louie” discography, and multiple sources (see ‘’Further reading’’ and ‘’External links’’ sections) have subsequently attempted to list the known versions.
Another ongoing discussion revolves around which songs have been most recorded/covered, and dozens of articles on this topic can be referenced. “Louie Louie” is a nominee for the most covered rock song category and is often cited, but the research is ongoing.
This article combines and updates existing sources and attempts to create a comprehensive list of documented cover versions.Relbats (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
