Talk:Parliament-Funkadelic

message: I removed the inappropriate content tag because the article does not have inapproproate content in it.
Having dry formalised encyclopaedic language would be inappropriate for a discussion of P Funk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofoerectus (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 July 2006
:Inappropriate?  Not in an encyclopedia, which this is!  It does not have to be "dry" (in fact, I think it would be better if it's not), but it certainly has to be factual, well-referenced and cited, and, generally, encyclopedic.  If you want a "discussion of P-Funk", you are in the wrong place, and would be better served by finding one of the many fan sites that host such discussions.  If you want to contribute to an encylopedia article about P-Funk, however, this is the place.  :) Xtifr tälk 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs images --AW 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I've given this quite a bit of thought, and I think the articles should be merged and re-organized. Here are my ideas:
* Parliament-Funkadelic would have two sections. First it would tell the history of the Funk Mob, including the spin-off groups. Then it would describe the different musical styles of Parliament, Funkadelic, and the P-Funk All-Stars. (The musical styles of the smaller groups could be dealt with either in the history section or the second section.)
* Parliament (band), Funkadelic, and most of the other articles about the various P-Funk bands would be turned into discographies. See some of the articles in :Category:Discographies for examples.
I've read the comments from other editors who feel that the articles shouldn't merge. To be honest, I don't understand their objections. The bands were all part of a single collective. For the most part, the line-up of Parliament and Funkadelic at any given time were identical. You can't tell the Funkadelic story without telling the Parliament story. In addition, every "solo" project featured contributions by other members of P-Funk. Even spin-off groups like Bootsy's Rubber Band had contributions by P-Funk members who weren't "officially" members of the band. It's ridiculous to pretend that there were bright lines between the bands.
On the other hand, the various groups did have different musical styles (for the most part). That's why I think the article should have a section that describes the bands' musical styles.
I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts about my suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger and re-organization 

message: Has anyone every considered starting a WikiProject for Parliament-Funkadelic and the whole P-Funk universe? It would be a nice way to coordinate the quality of articles and build a community of knowledgeable funksmen and funkswomen. As we know, there are literally hundreds of Wiki articles associated with P-Funk. Many musical artists with far less history and information have special projects. (See here: []) 
I am a member of a few other special projects (e.g. Led Zeppelin), and it can be a fair amount of work to set up but it's great for coordination of effort. A Portal would be pretty hip too. I could get started on this with a few other willing volunteers, and if there is a critical mass of funky enthusiasm for such a project. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd participate in a P-Funk WikiProject. In fact, in the past I've thought of proposing one but I didn't know how to get the ball rolling. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, I can look into the procedure for getting a Project started, but if we get one going we will need some serious community participation. It will be an intense long-term endeavor. The marathon. Not your average 50-yard dash of funk. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a WikiProject 

message: While I can appreciate this discourse regarding separate P-Funk articles, I really don't think it's necessary. Parliament and Funkadelic are separate only in the conceptual sense.
Anytime P-Funk goes into the studio, they record tracks, not albums. Any song that they record can end up any George Clinton-related project, whether it be Parliament, Funkadelic, Bootsy's Rubber Band, etc.. A couple of examples would be the following:
* Oh I - a track that was originally intended for inclusion on the last Parliament album, but later ended up on the last Funkadelic album (sans horns).
* Flash Light - a song that was originally recorded by Bootsy's Rubber Band, but for various reasons ended up with Parliament.
* Disco To Go - a track by the Brides of Funkenstein that was supposed to serve as the backing track for the song "Ahh...the Name Is Bootsy, Baby!"
I can cite other examples, but I think you can get the point. George's approach of signing essentially the same band to several different labels may have derived from the record industry's despicable treatment of African-American artists for decades. He's basically beating the record companies at their own game. So to make editorial separations like the ones being proposed would, at this late date, seem gratuitous.
That being said, I personally don't mind that there two separate articles for Parliament and Funkadelic, in that each article can focus on the discography with greater detail. I also feel that a greater analysis of the evolving concept behind the Parliament albums should be featured in the Parliament page.
I hope that I can be of further assistance to all who share in the mission of giving proper documentation to this invaluable musical legacy. I've been archiving this music for 31 years, so if anyone would like to bounce off some ideas, please feel free to do so.-Groovemaneuvers 21 November 2009.
: I'm not sure what the issue is, at least at the present time. Are you referencing the above discussion about merger and reorganization? That discussion took place more than two years ago. As for separate articles, I and several others spruced up Funkadelic, Parliament, Parliament-Funkadelic, and The Parliaments back in 2008 with hotlinks between the articles for anyone trying to follow the history. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving the articles the way they are 

message: A few funkateer editors have been cleaning up the WP articles for the whole P-Funk universe for a couple of years now. In particular, I have been trying to reduce the repetition among the articles for Parliament-Funkadelic, The Parliaments, Parliament, and Funkadelic. When information in multiple articles is similar but written by different people in different ways, I believe strongly that this can cause confusion among readers who are new to the funk. So today I cut back this article fairly significantly, removing some historical details and album info that is already covered extensively at the other group articles. I then added some easy bluelinks to help the reader jump around among these four articles. Also, the Key Members section of Parliament-Funkadelic is full of unencyclopedic fancruft and puffery that makes the whole section very inconsistent. So I am cutting down that section as well and will also add bluelinks to each person's specific article. I don't think I've removed anything crucial overall during this whole process, but I have made some effort to organize info that the interested funkateer can locate with some skillful Wikipedia navigation. Hope this helps. Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made some nice progress. Good work! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Trim the Funk 

message: Is there a definition of a "key member" of Parliament-Funkadelic? I have trimmed down this section of the article but I'm not sure if the section itself is useful or informative. Much of information in the various entries repeats stuff that is in the main history section of the article. Any thoughts? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one wouldn't miss it if it went away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Member section 

message: Robert "P-Nut" Johnson (born 1947) died on March 12, 2017.  Details here, here, here, etc.  He doesn't seem to gain much of a mention in this article, or any other article.  Perhaps he should?  I'm no expert in the world of P-Funk, so I'd like it if other more knowledgeable editors contributed...  but, I'll return to see if anything is done.    Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ghmyrtle. Johnson made significant musical contributions to Bootsy's Rubber Band, which deserves but does not yet have an article of its own (it redirects to Bootsy Collins, which has two short paragraphs about the band). His contributions to Parliament and Funkadelic mostly came after 1979 or so, when the Rubber Band lost its name (it was sued successfully by a little-known country band that claimed it had used the name first), and were not as significant to those groups (which were in their death throes) as his contributions to the Rubber Band had been. (Beside Collins, Johnson and Gary "Mudbone" Cooper were the only singers in Bootsy's Rubber Band; Parliament and Funkadelic had dozens of singers.) My guess (and it's only a guess) is that he probably is not sufficiently notable for an article of his own, but he would certainly merit discussion in an article about Bootsy's Rubber Band. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert "P-Nut" Johnson 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Parliament-Funkadelic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421120313/http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-9312904/ParliamentFunkadelic to http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-9312904/ParliamentFunkadelic
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article opens with "Not to be confused with Parliament (band), Funkadelic, or P-Funk", but then the next sentence begins "Parliament-Funkadelic (abbreviated as P-Funk) is ...". So, despite being told not to be confused, I am. - Hyperlynx2 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not to be confused with" confusion.