Talk:Legendary Shack Shakers

message: The spelling of JoeBuck (without a space) is correct:
"...guitarist JoeBuck (one word; presumably to avoid confusion with the similarly-named Fox Sports broadcaster)." - PopMatters.com
Kaldari 06:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JoeBuck name spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legendary Shack Shakers. 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/20070125130107/http://www.bloodshotrecords.com/artists/thlegendaryshackshakers/ to http://www.bloodshotrecords.com/artists/thlegendaryshackshakers
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) 19:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legendary Shack Shakers. 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/20061110115741/http://www.yeproc.com/artist_info.php?artistId=985 to http://www.yeproc.com/artist_info.php?artistId=985
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) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Another editor proposed tightening this section, so here's a suggestion of how the section can be tightened. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose just returning to the last clean version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legendary_Shack_Shakers&oldid=1074164664 ) which was perfectly fine (and sourced) --FMSky (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  That isn't an improvement. It's actually a de-evolution because you're suggesting downgrading the quality of the article for no explanation. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

text: * Without wishing to comment on the inclusion of so many genres in the first place, I would personally find this 'note table' style of citations much preferable to the citation soup currently live on the article. For reference, the citation organization proposal was pulled/modeled from the note present in Eagles of Death Metal#Style and influences. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical styles 

message: Related to my notes at WP:ANI, the current wall of text of genre and sources are not acceptable. It's hard to read, and generally lacks the proper context. For example, its pretty poor context to say that the artist's music has been classified as "heavy metal" when the source says that the closing seconds of one song goes into that direction.
So, some ways to fix this - basically, the genre/sourcing should be trimmed way back and given appropriate context.
* Only use sources that label the artist itself. If you wish to classify a musician/band itself, stick to sources that literally and directly comment on the musician/band themselves. Not commentary on individual albums/songs. So, for example:
**If you find a reliable source that says "TLSS are a rockabilly band" - use it as commentary on the band.
**If you find a reliable source that says "Cockadoodledon't is a garage rock album" do not use it as a genre for the band. It would be fair game to move over to the album article, but it would not be used to classify the artist themselves.
*Keep WP:OVERCITE in mind: 
**Unless its a particularly controversial label, you probably don't need any more than 2 or 3. I could probably go and find 20-23 sources that call The Foo Fighters a rock band. But I don't, because it's not likely to be challenged.
**If you've got a glut of sources, trim it down to the ones that are most direct about the description, and/or maybe ones you find at WP:RSMUSIC, so there's less likely to be dispute about the sources not being reliable. 
So in short, re-review the sources, and depending on the context, delete the ones that don't discuss the artist specifically and directly (but feel free to move them discuss respective album/song articles.) And don't add so many in the first place if its non-contentious genre. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs a different approach