# Talk:Elephant 6

Should the projects be under a Catagory:List of Elepant Six Projects?  --Yono

Should this page be at this name or under "The Elephant Six Recording Company" or "The Elephant Six Collective," as opposed to simply "Elephant Six?"  --badlydrawnjeff 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking that for a while. I think "The Elephant Six Collective" is most appropriate, since the recording company was made as a label for the collective. --TheMidnighters 17:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
If no one protests, I think I'm going to move the article to The Elephant Six Collective this weekend.  It makes more sense, and fits the articles I've been creating a little better. --badlydrawnjeff 17:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I forgot about this.  No one's said anything, so I'm doing the move. --badlydrawnjeff 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually think "The Elephant Six Recording Company" or "The Elephant 6 Recording Company" would make more sense. Yes, Elephant 6 is a collective, but it's not the formal name of the subject. I'm going to try and move it soon, because the title has been irking me these past couple of weeks. Pele Merengue 04:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also created an infobox for better and cleaner listing of E6 articles.  At some point, I'd like to see us put them all into one category, but that can wait, I suppose.  I'll probably spend the next few days working on redlinks. --badlydrawnjeff 01:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks a lot. --TheMidnighters 17:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if you check the infobox, almost all the redlinks are gone.  I'll be away for a few days, so I'm not sure if I'll get to the record labels with red links, but I'd like some help if anyone's capable:

Albums.  Almost all the albums of the new articles, and many of the old ones, are redlinks as it stands.  I've unilaterally decided that the more notable E6 bands (ones with many releases, ones known outside of their E6 roots) get album pages, but anyone ambitious enough can definitely add them to their own pages.  I've done all the Elf Power albums and a few of the missing Of Montreal ones, but I've only done one of the Marshmallow Coast ones, for instance.  It's a lot of boring work - c/p the tracklisting from Amazon or Allmusic, add the infobox information, and upload the album cover (low res for fair use purposes, allegedly), and any help I can get on them would be awesome.
Bands I missed.  I went almost exclusively with the list on Elephant6.com, but that doesn't mean I caught all the relevant bands.  I have no information whatsoever on The Instruments, though, and I'd like to see that link taken care of if anyone here can help.
Record labels.  I'm going to keep them linked in the infobox for now, but I'm thinking of removing them entirely because there are so many that have released things.  One question, though:  Spinart.  Is it SpinArt or SpinART or SpinArt or Spin Art or spinART?  That's a necessary article anyway, but I've seen it linked each way.  The website (which should, theoretically, be the definitive source) says spinART.  Any strong feelings?
That's all I can think of right now. --badlydrawnjeff 17:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I created Category:Music scenes two days ago. Could that fit with this article? Dr. Who 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it a "scene."  I don't think of it as one, at the least. I won't protest hard, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any information on the planned documentary? Anyone?

It's out now and the information should be added to this article. It's called A Future History Of: The Elephant 6 Recording Co. (2022).Boone jenner (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I changed the article title to "The Elephant 6 Recording Company". I've made most of the appropriate redirects. I'm changing the category to "Category:The Elephant 6 Recording Company" as well. Pele Merengue 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Going to remove this section.  I mean there's 800 ways we could try to define E6 sound.  And this not the way I would go.
Ridernyc 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that won't be missed. But now I'm having trouble not deleting this giant Julian Koster blockquote from the 33 1/3 book. It's sort of overdramatic and it doesn't really do much to describe the collective in any sort of concrete way. Pele Merengue 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Got rid of it. Pele Merengue 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I missed this discussion, but I agree with Ridernyc's statement, and with Pele Merengue's course of action.  Such sections are always open to POV & OR edits, and end up an unencyclopaedic mess. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 04:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-rock? Is that really relevant to an E6 page? Jawamachines (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, no.  I'm taking it off.  If there are objections, punch me and then put it back on.  :)  Djk3 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Tidal wave side two green vinyl.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the name of the band is officially typeset with a lowercase 'o'.  However, the Wikipedia Manual of Style is pretty clear about these cases.  In the band's main article, the lowercase 'o' should be mentioned.  It's probably too minor to mention here.  Djk3 (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Elephant 6 is a record label and a collective. They had started calling themselves that before the label existed and the collective still exists with the label defunct. Not to mention that many of the members didn't release anything on the label. I think the article should be changed to reflect this.
Stuart 68.161.76.234 (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elephant 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: S Marshall (talk · contribs) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The spelling and grammar are correct for US English, and the text is clear.  The text isn't yet maximally concise, and would benefit from a further editing pass, paying attention to WP:TERSE and, particularly, the following issues that jumped out at me:i) I think the current text overuses the passive voice.  It's not wrong to use the passive voice in places, and you shouldn't try to remove every instance of it, but the active voice is less wordy and many readers find it more engaging.ii) The article repeats "the collective" slightly too often.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Yes it does.  Good work.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Yes it does.  Well done.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Yes indeed.
C. It contains no original research: 
I checked a random sample of the references, and I did not find any original research.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
I checked a random sample of the references, and I did not find any copyright or plagiarism issues.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Yes it does.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Yes it does.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
This is a simple, factual article on an uncontroversial topic, and there are no conflicting viewpoints that require reconciliation.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
The article is reasonably stable.  There are understandable and expected issues with original research, as is commonplace in music-related articles, but I do not consider that these issues rise anywhere near the level of a GA fail.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The article contains three images, all of which are in my opinion appropriately tagged for their copyright status as applicable.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Yes they do.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This article is one light editing pass away from promotion to GA status.
Update 12th July: I'm now content to pass the article.—S Marshall T/C 04:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Ping
@Famous Hobo: I'm pinging you to prompt you to read this GA review.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Sorry for the late response, and thank you for the reveiw! I've cut down on a number of the "collective" instances, and by extension "Elephant 6" which I use interchangebly. I also tried to cut down on passive voice instances, although admittedly I had a hard time finding some of them. The finer aspects of grammar are not my strong suit, so perhaps I've seen some obvious instances. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I've given it another editing pass.  Are you happy with the changes I've made?—S Marshall T/C 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@S Marshall: Yeah, it all looks great, thank you! By the way, one thing I should mention is at the bottom of the sources section is a further information section which includes an Elephant 6 documentary. It's safe to assume the documentary has more information, but the problem is I physically cannot watch it. It's only available on VHS (for some reason), and you can only watch it by scheduling a watch party in one of six US cities, and I don't live in any of those cities. There's no indication that it'll ever be released online, so that's why I created a further information section. Do you think that looks good? Famous Hobo (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly not something I've come across before.  Looks like a reasonable way of doing it, to me.—S Marshall T/C 04:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)