Talk:Mo-Da-Mu

Templates

I disagree with the suggestion that if a label released a notable album, it is notable. The criterion for a label would be WP:CORP, and that is most certainly not a CORP criteria. As far as the sources template goes, only remove it once sources have been introduced. There currently are none. Erechtheus 06:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If an album is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then that in and of itself has to constitute sufficient notability for the record label that said album was released on to have a Wikipedia article, or else the album isn't being covered properly — because the record label that an album was released on is a critical and unavoidable part of the album's context. When a 54-40 fan looks up their early albums and sees that they were on a label called Mo-Da-Mu that doesn't have an article, Wikipedia is, by definition, failing to do its job if we can't or won't tell them what this Mo-Da-Mu thing was.

As for sources, the fact is that for a record label that went out of business long before the Internet existed, such sources are hard to come by; I'm doing the best I can, but by and large the only sources still available are the actual discographies of the bands in question, most of which are already on Wikipedia in those bands' articles. If you'd like a link to every individual album that any band ever released on the label to be present under this article's external links heading, then be my guest, but otherwise I fail to understand why listing bands whose own articles already contain pre-existing references to Mo-Da-Mu, as well as their own sources for those references, isn't sufficient in the meantime. Bearcat 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that taking this notion of label notability to its logical conclusion leads to extreme inclusionist places. Where do we stop? The album personnel? The thanks? It's all a part of the album context. You could argue that the store where it was purchased and even the clerk from which it was purchased are a part of at least the personal context. Where should it stop? I can definitely understand that it's difficult to source this article -- that's one big reason why I went with the notability template instead of a prod in the first place. It's going to take some old fashioned research to establish a lot of what needs to be established. There is no expiration date on the sources template -- it can and should exist until the article is sourced. Erechtheus 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, WP:CORP is a guideline meant to help establish notability, not a policy that an article can be deleted for not obviously passing on first readthrough. A record label is clearly notable if it has had notable albums released on it; no other position is even tenable as an argument. A record label is not just a random insignificant speck hiding in the background of a notable album; they're second only to the band in their importance to the process of getting an album into existence. The nighttime janitor at the recording studio, even if he's a nice enough guy that the band feels the need to thank him for not freaking out at the mess they left after getting drunk on the last night of recording, is not relevant to the process. And nobody has ever argued that a non-notable regular joe's own personal context for an album or a book is deserving of Wikipedia coverage. Where I bought You Forgot It in People or Reconstruction Site doesn't mean anything to anybody but me — it's not encyclopedically relevant. What label released the albums, however, is hugely encyclopedically-relevant to an album's article; the label is inseparable from the process.

And for the record, slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy — nobody's ever argued that every single person who gets thanked in the liner notes of an album should necessarily merit an article. And for the record, many backing musicians and producers and engineers do already have Wikipedia articles if they've been involved in enough notable projects that something coherent can be written about them. Bearcat 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The logical fallacy argument is overused against the slippery slope, particularly when the argument already recognizes the extreme nature of where it leads. I would argue that the label must qualify on the same basis as the backing musicians, engineers, and producers -- involvement in one album isn't enough, but involvement in a number of notable releases may be. Erechtheus 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And how, exactly, do you propose to determine the notability of a record label beyond the fact that notable bands have released material on it? What, exactly, is it that makes Mo-Da-Mu less inherently notable than Asthmatic Kitty, Artists Against Success, Boltfish Recordings, Crammed Discs, Creative Sources Recordings, Can't Stop Eating or any of the hundreds of other small independent labels which already have articles filed in Category:Independent record labels? Bearcat 23:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are now the one treading into dangerous logical territory. The presence of other poor articles is not an excuse for additional poor articles. I have already suggested that a label's notability can be determined using WP:CORP. Erechtheus 23:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, WP:CORP is a guideline, not a policy. And, for that matter, it's a guideline so restrictively written that the vast majority of all corporations in the world, including the vast majority of all corporations which already have Wikipedia articles, fail to meet. Even many corporations that are legitimately notable fail to meet WP:CORP as currently written. And it is not a logical fallacy to question why standards, especially ones that aren't actually binding as policy, are being selectively applied. Bearcat 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Claim on Folding in 1983

I believe this is false. I have two releases on Mo=Da=Mu that date 1984 and 1985. Both are by Emily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canonical (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)