Talk:Garbage (album)

Track four

I added a little bit about "As Heaven is Wide" being in the game Gran Turismo (video game), as the song lacks its own page and the game's page refers to using it. I also think the Release and success section of this article is pretty huge. Could it be broken up a little, either by singles or release dates? Just a thought.

Kresock (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1001 edit

Moved from article to here:

"This album was also selected as one of the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die."

It was inserted in the introduction (quite awkwardly in its own line) and needs a cite before it goes anywhere on the page. Probably not in the lead though. Kresock (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Annklu3xhan2k

--CactusBot (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Reviews section as per: Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews

| Reviews =

• Allmusic link
• BBC link
• The Guardian 10/01/1995
• Kerrang! 09/30/1995
• Music Week 30/09/1995
• NME (8/10) 09/23/1995
• Q 10/01/1995
• Robert Christgau link
• Rolling Stone link
• Select 10/01/1995
• Spin (7/10) 10/01/1995

Archived here for future use --Breakinguptheguy (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Per WP:RS ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"), WP:OR ("Wikipedia articles must not contain original research."), and WP:SUBJECTIVE ("articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art."), you need genres sourced. It doesn't matter what other articles say about genre as bands change styles and you need to find appropriate ones per album. It also doesn't matter if other articles don't use citations, they will need them eventually. We don't use wikipedia as a source from other pages. If you can find sources, please add them. If not, refrain from adding uncited material about genre to articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Album genres

This album notably incorporates multiple genres, particularly within the alt rock umbrella. Indie rock is one of them, noted back in the mid 90s and recently stated by the band themselves in a video interview (as well as evident by anyone with ears) and downtempo elements are blatantly incorporated, as I stated in edit summaries, particularly in the songs Queer, Milk, and A Stroke of Luck. Trip hop is noted in the album's wiki page, as well as noted in Milk and Queer's wiki page, and trip hop is derivative/a sub genre of downtempo, or downbeat. Downtempo accounts for much of the sonic nuances within the parent genre on the album.

User Andrzejbanas seems intent on creating edit war as he objects, before discussing it here (I commented on his talk page with no reply).

I must also note, user Homeostasis07 is personally not a fan of me, so I expect him to object as well.

Other editor opinions to reach a consensus will be helpful. --Lpdte77 15:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem here is that you can't use band statements. per WP:RS you need "third-party sources". and per WP:SUBJECTIVE, works of art needs views from other people. Not the band itself. Bands can call themselves or anything or deny that they are anything. It's not appropriate here. So sorry, there is not "oh it's obvious", because we don't published original research. If it's obvious, find some sources. Trip hop is in the pages, but it's not cited either. If you have no sources, I suggest you read my post above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, when you comment on my page, give me a minute to reply. I've been editing here for years and have contributed to several Good articles. I'm not a run of the mill vandal. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the sourcing for alt rock? or most other bands' genres?

I never said the band stating it would or should confirm it, is was merely one of the reasons given. If trip hop isn't cited why is it there? why is any of the genres on this album's page and the rest of their albums there without citation (and citation from whom? a music discovery site, a critic review?)? it's inconsequential; genres/sub genres generally don't and shouldn't need sourcing, unless they are ones that deviate from the main cited genres of a band (such as a rock/metal band also having the genre hip hop). So far, this is a personal objection - you don't want the genre(s) included for whatever reason - because you clearly are not removing the other genres that are not cited, here, on their other albums, or in any other artist/band's page.

Garbage is obviously, by all accounts, popular and critical, a band that fuses multiple genres, including pop, electronica, rock (including alt, indie, industrial, electronic), etc. So the reason for your fundamental objection is yet a mystery.

I'd like to hear other editors too, especially neutral editors' thoughts. --Lpdte77 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Re your edit to your first reply here: I didn't think or state you were a run of the mill vandal or not a long time editor by any means. And I last commented on your page a over a day ago, not a minute ago. I am merely objecting to your aforementioned approach to this issue. [edited because of editing interference that messed up the format for some reason] Lpdte77 (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged alternative rock as needing a source as well. You've given me a lot of opinions, but have failed to address how genres pass over the rules I mentioned above. I actually, don't really with you on the genres, but I just wanted them to have sources. If you look at my recent edit history on the article, you'll notice that I've cited other things (dates, the entire release section), require sources as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you doing? You're removing a bunch of past statements and contributions from other editors in various Garbage pages. Are you an administrator, or are you just an editor like any one of us, excepting thinking you're arbitrator, rummaging through this band's pages removing things as you please? --Lpdte77 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you aren't giving me any indication that you've read WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:SUBJECTIVE, I'll go by the old standby.

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...

–Jimmy Wales

Any further questions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I've read it before, and don't dismiss it. You on the other hand seem to have a messiah complex, hiding intentions behind general articles, and believe yourself to be arbitrator here, going through band's pages deleting editors' contributions, engaging in edit wars, et al (and targeting this particular band's pages for some reason, out of the other thousands bands' pages that have a multitude of uncited [that most of the time proper citation can't be found for anymore primarily because it's old] but factual statements) - it is too against Wiki tos. Users like you, who approach things like you, are who dissuade other users from contributing to Wiki. I will be contacting an administrator. --Lpdte77 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest other editors/users who also see the problem with this user's approach do so too. Lpdte77 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

One clarification, I didn't know about About.com, but I was referring at the prose itself in the Allmusic review. We can still call it a rock record; a term general enough. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The Garbage band or the album? The band is very often cited as an alternative rock band (that too mixes multiple genres, as many alternative rock artists do), since the beginning, you can easily google that. It'd be fine upon consensus to have the band as a "rock" band (for what purpose though?), but the Garbage album has also long been cited as an alternative rock record (as all their records have), and that's too indisputable. Again, can easily be verifiable. --Lpdte77 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at this jerk (Andrzejbanas), stomping all over, ordering people around. He really's got a messiah complex. Anyway, for editors: last fm lists alternative rock and indie: http://www.last.fm/music/Garbage (also, first line: "Garbage is a Scottish-American alternative rock band".) --Lpdte77 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Myxomatosis, good point. I've added a "quote" section to clarify that. if it's easily verifiable Lapadite, go find the high quality sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User Andrzejbanas has made it his prerogative to be the sole arbitrator and interpret information and genres as he pleases. He's edited the album as belonging to pop, and added alternative rock as an afterthought. It isn't going to fly anyway, but I guess my report will be expanded. --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I don't know why you think I'm biased. I'm reflecting what's written in the source. If you could expand on that, I'd be greatful. Otherwise, I would advise against the removal of cited material. Am I misinterpreting the source in some way? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Pop is never cited as primary genre for the Garbage record. Since you were keen on finding your own source for alternative rock, you can easily continue checking sources, by all accounts the album is considered primarily an alternative rock record that, like all their records, fuses melodies with noise, to put it short. However you are dead set on having pop as the primary genre, with no credible reason, with no discussion. No, It's not going to be there unless there is a consensus here among editors that pop should be the first genre there, or that it should even be listed as a genre. Otherwise, you're just vandalizing. You've already been reported by another user just so you know. You need to wait for other editors' input, and for a consensus; there's no time limit on here. Everything points to you having a personal agenda. And please, keep engaging in edit wars... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I've found several sources. I just wanted to show you that there is more than one source looking for pop. It's not exactly a crime. Your other sources aren't very strong. The Guardian is using sources from last.fm, which states itself as a "User-contributed text is available under the Creative Commons By-SA License and may also be available under the GNU FDL". That fails WP:RS. Not sure about the notability of Wowmoscow, but it's referring to the band, not the album specificly. Not sure what Liveriga is, but again it's talking about the band, not the album as a whole. JSOnline is fine, but needs to be specificly about this album. Ditto for Frontier Touring.

For the record, I don't disagree with you that they are an alternative group, but you seem to be the one acting more like a genre warrior. I just want better cited material.

Sure sure; you merely saying you don't disagree with me that they're alternative means nothing. Why are you adamantly adding and searching for "pop" instead, an umbrella genre that was never there in the first place, instead of alternative rock - which everything points to? And you do not care for other editors' objection to your edits and disruptive, contentious approach. You think your intentions are not transparent?

All all the links I provided are legitimate and oft cited on wiki. You dismiss everything that doesn't come from/adhere to your biased perspective. Again, who are you kidding? Quit adding it unless a legitimate source specifically states the album is sonically pop, and not merely as an afterthought (e.g., "alternative rock fused with pop hooks", which is blatant and also stated by themselves that they like melodies and hooks along with noise). --Lpdte77 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, I have the Entertainment Weekly article here that clearly states "Genre:Rock". There, Easy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Rock. Oh wow.

If that's all you have to say on your talk page, you aren't actually trying to find a consensus. I've found sources, you've found several which violated several basic wiki standards. I've checked your user history, and you have not attempted any mediation from outside sources at all. I'll do that now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually stopped editing because it was not publishing the edits for some time. The rest of my reply to that post is that you state nothing of relevance there, as "rock" isn't in the argument; alternative rock is. You're creating a smoke screen to appear as collaborative by posting irrelevant but "positive" notions to the issue at hand, yet contributing nothing genuinely constructive in the actual article editing. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment

There is only one sourced mention of "alternative rock", and that's in the infobox (AllMusic's review), and there is only one sourced mention of "pop", and that's also in the infobox. Considering WP:SUBJECTIVE ("common interpretations") and WP:UNDUE, equal weight should be given to both. The only rationale I can think of for not keeping "pop" is if you can prove it is a minority viewpoint and that "alternative rock" is a majority viewpoint, but as of now, there's just one source for both genres. I would recommend incorporating professional critiques like AllMusic's review and hopefully more that comment on the album's genre, adding them into the "Composition"/"Music" section before deciding what or how any genres should be incorporated into the infobox. Otherwise, because the only source cited says the album has "trappings" (i.e. superficial signs) of "alternative rock ... but comes off as pop", I would lean towards having it read "Pop, alternative rock". But I would strongly recommend finding more professional critiques if they exist, and they prolly should. Dan56 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The user Andrzejbana removed that source he originally used for alt rock to use it to create and loosely cite a loose "pop" genre. Alt rock doesn't have a proper source because he wanted to use it instead to suit his pop labeling agenda.

Of course there are loads of critical reviews and most if not all will state rock/alt rock but they might also include phrases like "pop melodies" and "pop hooks" which is clearly enough reason for the aforementioned user to include the umbrella genre "pop". It is not, again, they mix multiple genres with pop hooks (like manny alt bands); it does not make the album pop music. Some reviewers said they were post-grunge as well because of former sensibilities of producer Butch Vig. Doesn't mean the music is actually post-grunge.

One reviewer's perspective isn't enough to cite an umbrella genre that is not blatantly and fundamentally the sound of the record, particularly when multiple genres are at play. If another legitimate source states the record is pop music then it might be justifiable to add it. However, I can find you dozens of reviews that varyingly state rock, alternative, industrial, indie, grunge, and so on and so far, and many of them will mostly likely phrase it with something that includes "pop". So what then? do we add all the genres stated in whatever review is found? Pop is too big a "genre" (it's not even a proper music genre), an umbrella term that refers to multiple, varying things, that doesn't define genre-defying bands like this. It is a blanket term that is used, especially for such bands, to indicate that there are sensibilities within the pop umbrella incorporated in the record. Britney Spears is pop, Lorde is pop, Michael Jackson was, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac incorporates pop sensibilities, Garbage incorporates pop sensibilities (such as melodies and hooks) - see the massive difference in sound and style from such artists. Specific genres/subgenres need to be cited instead, not merely the "pop" umbrella. In reviews, iif electronica or downbeat or trip hop or any other specific genres/subgenres are mentioned, then they should be added instead. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminding you about WP:GOOD FAITH, I'm trying to help the article, and I promise my only agenda is to follow the rules. It's not up to us to choose genres, we just find sources. You have stated things like "pop is not even a genre" and tons of opinions on who and who does not fit genres. If you can find sources, please add them, but do not remove other cited material without a consensus unless you really find it leaning towards WP:UNDUE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated actions are too transparent, your edit wars, your disruptive editing & vandalism (such as repeatedly removing legitimate sources I added, like the article sourcing Rolling Stone for the "innovate" statement, with the laughable, untruthful justification that one doesn't cite in the middle of a statement.

You nitpick for convenience and deliberately ignore everything I wrote; not once did I state that the notion I merely put forth - that the "umbrella 'pop' isn't really a music genre" (which I elaborated on a bit, and isn't unique at all: Google) - is at all evidence for anything. It's merely a notion I put forth supplementing other statements for consideration. By the way, Wiki talk pages are there to put forward ideas, notions and to discuss them. Look at Wiki pages for genres. They were formed after much discussion and different notions exchanged between editors, then coming to a consensus. You do not listen to any argument that doesn't fit your view/agenda. You've ignored, dismiss, or misinterpreted everything I've put forth regarding this genre issue and other parts of the article you consistently reverted my edits on. Regardless of what you profess you're doing or not doing, your actions speak louder. And you should know much of your recorded editing behavior is against specific Wiki tos and it is being reported. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the revert edit you made for "critically acclaimed" (for the band's page), saying "it was acclaimed, but this statement requires a source"- you've research it a lot, know it was acclaimed, and yet do not cite it; you clearly have no interest in actually constructively contributing or even discussing. In truth, to an outside observer, you just appear as a 'troll' here, vandalizing and/or disrupting, pursuing your own agenda on this band, masquerading it as "helping and following rules". --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was uncited. It's not a fact like the sun is hot, it's basically weasal words and needed source. You added one, and that's the action a new editor should take. Give me a break about being a troll, I've created over a dozen Good Articles, I'm not here for that kind of business.

I think it's pretty clear I wasn't calling you out on reverting uncited but accurate (which you know it is) material, but on your admission in the edit summary, that speaks to your, hitherto, lack of constructive contribution. You're aware of the acclaim, have recently read it but made no effort to actually cite it yourself (or cite anything you remove that doesn't include the "pop" label you're obsessed with). That is all. Up until now you're agenda here has been from the begging to remove accurate uncited statements (that reflect positively on the record or band, not coincidentally, as you've removed none of the other non-positive or neutral statements that are uncited, and there are many, and right next to the ones you did remove). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt from here onward but if you ask me I expect you to only continue removing accurate uncited material (without bothering to cite it yourself) and legitimate citations I make, push for your misleading "pop" label, as well as continue to cherry pick and take things out of context, and that's it. Just my personal prediction. Hopefully you prove it wrong, with actions not words. --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we got off on the wrong foot. Let's work together to make this a better article. :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Change of direction

I was alerted to this discussion via the albums project talk page. I don't really care one way or another what the album's genre is or isn't, but what should be happening is a full, referenced discussion of the genre should be created in the "composition and style" section of the album and the genres in the infobox should not be referenced. That way if a single source states they're retro zydeco, it can be noted there, but if six or seven state that they're death metal, then that's supported there. Those genres that are supported by the majority of RSes should be moved to the infobox regardless what they say. I'm curious why the RS reviews were removed though. I won't reply here unless I'm notified of the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully not by editors that have yet to contribute as that would be unfortunate that they'd rather alert another than personally contribute input.

Thank you for your input. I'm not sure I understand where you're getting at though; do you mean that a discussion of the genre should be in the "composition and style" section of the album page and genres listed in the info box don't need reference? (can you elaborate?) Can you also specify what you mean by "RSes"? --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly correct. Infoboxes are simply to be a summary of information contained in the article. That includes genres, album length, producers, etc. That means discuss the genres in that section and then incorporate the most common in the infobox. RSes is short for WP:RSes. I thought that was linked above already. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is what I said initially, genres in infobox don't need citing, and user Andrzejbanas does not subscribe to. Thanks. --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly true. Infoboxes should summarize what's in the article, genres need sources just like anything else per WP:RS, and WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

What Walter Görlitz is saying is the genres can be sourced in the article, in the composition/style section perhaps. The info box summarizes info in the article. The most common genres should be included in the infobox, and, outside of alt rock, discussed here particularly if there is disagreement on the use of an umbrella genre. --Lpdte77 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you point that out to me? I did a quick scan of the article and outside the prose I just added, there is one uncited statement about genres in the lead, and several mentions about radio format, but that's kind of weak. Could you show me what I'm missing? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion, I'll be making edits based on an assumed consensus in a few days. Thanks to all who participated! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks and there has been no further discussion and no edits to attempt to expand the article beyond the genres already mentioned. I'll remove the uncited material now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Which assumed consensus?

By the way, again, the information should be included and cited in the Style/Composition section; the infobox summarizes the information. If the statement you wanted is already sourced in the article the citation next to the genre in the infobox is unneeded and redundant. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(general comment) Reviewer Stephen Thomas (the one cited for 'pop') seems to have a contrary opinion to a general consensus and is either oblivious of certain known facts or deliberately omits them; such as, here, "thin, airy voice", in reference to Manson's, when she is/was known and praised for an intense, sultry singing style; also, "thanks to the production of drummer Butch Vig" - all members are credited as co-producers. Anyhow, if he is to be used as a source for the loose opined likeness to an umbrella genre, he can be used as a source for the inclusion of other genres mentioned by him, particularly for the Garbage (band) page. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What general consensus? No further genres were found to discuss it. plenty of time was given, unless you have further citations to show, I feel we are just going around in a circles. As for the comments on Erlewine, provide sources specificly talking about this album to back this one up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus proposal

I'd like to first say that, evidently, I am far from the only one with objections to User talk: Andrzejbanas and his methods (e.g., edit warring) and biases, particularly with respect to genre changes and interpretations; note: User_talk:Andrzejbanas#West_Coast_.28song.29 -starting in that section, all the way down. Many objections. Apparently, he was blocked because of his edit behavior.
To my point; there should be a vote on whether "pop" is concrete or substantial enough for the record to include in the genres, in order to establish a consensus/majority. I repeat my position: one questionable proposal from a dubious critic who has written statements that are factually incorrect and misleading and statements largely in opposition to critical consensus as illustrated above, "comes off as pop because of glossy production" is not remotely sufficient for the record to be inherently pop, a pop record, and catalogued as such in genres box. Reason for Alternative is it is the majority critical viewpoint, majority classification; it encapsulates the record (and too, of course, the band). There are many sources throughout the years that mention various genres, including trip hop, electronica, industrial, indie, even grunge, too in their descriptions of the influences, approach and soundscapes. From what I've read, if there's a mention of 'pop' it is in reference to either a sleek production (which is true of trip hop and electronica) or structure or hook/melody, i.e., certain pop sensibilities in the construction; not that the album is pop record. This isn't a Michael Jackson, or Madonna, or Lady Gaga record; obviously couldn't be more sonically different. I found multiple sources that state trip hop and electronic/a and I've cited them in the infobox. The prevalence of trip hop and electronic should override vague genre-less mention of pop.--Lpdte77 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'd like to say that I don't particularly like how random IPs come along and add random genres with tenuous ref's to support your particular proposal. I'd love for an Admin or two to get involved with all this, because I'm fairly sick of undoing edits to Garbage articles from genre-warrior IPs. An RfC wouldn't go amiss here, me thinks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So, going through the new additions added we have the following:

Sputnik: Is a user added review. We can not use it per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. N

Triphoppin Can you clarify the reliability of this? It appears to be a fan site, which would fail WP:RS. ?

PBS, no author in this source and it doesn't specify the genre for this album in particular. ?

CD Universe, no author and this is a site for shopping, which fails WP:RS, it's has no real credentials to be a serious source. N

Ultimate Guitar Archive, fails WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. N

Chicago Tribune Good source! But not cited properly, the quote you are taking it from says "In general, there’s less reliance on the electronic layering that characterized the quartet’s early albums and more on straight-up rock-combo performance." Electronic layering doesn't make them an electronic group. However, they do say "Back then [1995], the quartet ran off a string of hits by playing off the tension between Scottish singer Shirley Manson’s no-nonsense personality and the precise, robot-like rock thrown up by her studio-geek bandmates from Madison, Wis., including uber-producer/drummer Butch Vig (Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Foo Fighters, Green Day)." So this is a good source for rock at least. ?

"Simpson, Dave (1995-03-18). Modern Life is Rubbish. UK: Melody Maker. pp. 42–43.". Could you add a quote to clarify what they are saying here? ?

So some of these need clarification, while the others flat out should not be used. Please reply so we can get to the bottom of this. I'm still better with the allmusic source as it at least explains itself in it's genre and is the most detailed so far. I'm getting the idea you don't want it in because you don't like it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that the Sputnik is a user review, my mistake. 'No author' doesn't matter; it comes from a reputable/credible source. And obviously it has one.

"Electronic layering doesn't make them an electronic group" - is this a joke? It is what MAKES UP the music; layering; the makeup, the core. Yet you want to cite 'comes off as pop' to label them a pop group? For the dozenth time, when people describe and categorize music, particularly music such as alternative music which typically incorporates various styles, they describe it as having layers or elements or sensibilities of such styles they note. In case you're oblivious or in denial of this too, genres alongside the first included in music artists' infobox indicate the styles the artist incorporates or fuse in their music, as sources too note. And this band in particular is famously hard to pin to one genre, beyond the encompassing genre of alt rock as they have over the years incorporated - or their music is made up of, if that goes down easier - a myriad of styles like rock, downtempo, dance/techno, grunge, power pop, industrial, et al. Go to Alice Coopers' (artist, and band) page for instance, see genres like glam rock, art rock, psychedelic rock, protopunk - they are not a glam rock band per se or a psychedelic band per se, or an art rock or punk band per se, but it has been long been noted they have incorporated such styles into their music; such styles constitute their overall sound, as an artist/band or for particular albums; it makes up their music, the sonic layering, if that's still not clear enough. Chicago Tribute is a reliable source, a credible citation, and yet you unsurprisingly question it, as you have done everything else you disagree with and don't want included. If you just want to have it as "alternative rock" and ignore/discredit all other sources (except the one you want of course) that note various genres they fuse in their music then that's fine with me. This is a joke already, I don't care anymore for this pathetic back and forth genre fixation. Clearly, no other editors want to contribute to a consensus on specifics. And don't come retorting with your 'good faith' smoke screen, as I said before, and it continues to be evident, what you've generally done as an editor since arriving at this band's pages is be destructive and disruptive in your approach, including pursuing your won agenda, and evidently in the midst of getting blocked twice for disruptive behavior in relation to pursuing your own agenda with other articles. Have at it as you wish WP:TE. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Now as you've done in another of this band's page. Lol, you are insufferable. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've discontinued the whole discussion a while ago and I'm not sure how far the editors progressed in terms of consensus but this source seems to categorize the album as pop rock. ([1]) It is also meaningless to keep the dubious sources on the infobox with a huge dubious template.

On the Melody Maker source, I think we shouldn't use it until a picture or screencap of the exact article is posted here. This would really, really be helpful. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy even with a direct quote as I want to assume good faith, but with the addition of those other sources, I'm kind of leaning towards it not being particularly helpful. That AV Club one is good one! We should add that to the prose on the style of the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Source for "power pop": http://books.google.com/books?id=Zw4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=billboard garbage power pop&source=bl&ots=DDfhELmOW3&sig=l9Zu76QgnJo0KuB9PdyQT3OnvfA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eoUbVJW4EMWqyAT-u4C4Bw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=billboard garbage power pop&f=false (highlighted). As opposed to a weak, vague use of "pop".

Myxomatosis57, why did you remove all genres? you should not have removed them, as they include ones that are cited and agreed upon, and those that are still tentatively argued. The questioned genres or sources have markup, there's no need to erase everything. But you and Andrzejbanas knock yourselves out.

I'm good with Power pop even if I don't agree with it, but I don't think it should invalidate other genres we have searched out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

With regards to "pop", yes. Power pop is both specific and encompassing for a sonic aspect of the record. "Power pop" replaces a vague 'pop' allusion, and the rest of the cited genres can remain. No rocket science. --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not replace it, because they are two separate sources. I also you don't approve of edits removing content here, especially when I'm asking for more information. Currently, there is no source for electronic rock. No source says it, so you are adding incorrect information. The CBS source isn't specificly talking about this album, and as requested last month, we're still waiting for a quote from that magazine. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you decide to reply after warned? I didn't say it replaces sources - clearly, all those genres are referenced in the article - I meant that, out of the 3 genres from 3 different sources that mention 'pop', it should be the one included on the infobox. As I stated before "Power pop is both specific and encompassing for a sonic aspect of the record. Power pop replaces a vague 'pop' allusion". Power pop is far more relevant to rock and alternative rock, and specifically to the record, than "pop" or "pop music" alone, as that is beyond vague and alludes to a boundless assortment of sounds, styles, and especially artists you would ultimately not musically identify together or categorize under the same particular genre (e.g, Madonna, The Beatles, Elton John, The Bee Gees, Lady Gaga, etc). Again, it is long highly debated whether "pop music" is a music genre, and not merely always referring to/a shortening of "popular music", or the music from whatever genre that is popular at a given time, as it is regularly used. Popular is not a genre. Power pop is a specific genre, with specific sound/style/approach characterizations, specific to and actually relevant to an aspect of the record, and it is directly mentioned and even briefly characterized by source ("e.g, thrashes out..."), unlike the other's feeble, throw-away reference to 'pop'; such reviewer does not bother to even briefly expound on his allusion to 'pop', however he does refer to alternative pop, which you notably ignore, and which would be an adequate, representative inclusion. So, you're talking about and thinking in terms of "replacing" and "invalidating", i'm talking about best representing with respect to the infobox. And what I do again question is your motive and edit conduct; after getting a genre with 'pop' in the infobox, which you wanted, you disregard it, disregard other editor's contribution and remain dead-set on specifically the one you wanted in from the start, which is, to the point of this discussion, not inherently adequate to represent the record there. And you have the audacity to claim otherwise or accuse others of doing the same. Need I remind, WP:TE,WP:DIS,WP:WAR, things you got blocked twice for before. I would like to hear other editors' on this, as always, but if no one bothers to provide input, power pop should representatively stay in the infobox; it is directly reference and specifies and denotes all allusion to 'pop' and particularly within the context of and/or in combination with rock, the primary genre. Or, alternatively, alternative pop can be used, as it too qualifies the same. --Lpdte77 (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To avoid you resorting to edit war again, with respect to your tags, both citations for electronic are referencing the album: the first: "Garbage's self-titled 1995 debut was remarkably of-the-moment, a prototypically '90s record full of pumped-up, electronically enhanced..." ; the second: "there’s less reliance on the electronic layering that characterized the quartet’s early albums ...", and both of course are legitimate sources. The second legitimate source for trip-hop is contextually including the album: "Garbage’s sound became the gold standard of ‘90s electro/rock, trip-hop...", and what do you know another mention of electronic rock. Don't know why you have a hard time grasping such evident things. As for the first trip-hop legitimate source, I did not add that, it is old, and it is probably outdated; Melody Maker is defunct. --Lpdte77 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like someone has found their way to warning templates. In all fairness @Lapadite77:, you've gone about this the wrong way. If you wanted to discuss this civilly in the first place, you wouldn't have immediately brought up Andrzejbanas block history the way you did. And I have to admit, it seems to me like you've been searching Google for "Garbage [random genre]" for quite some time, adding the most tenuous of sources to support all your additions. I can't say I disagree with any of @Andrzejbanas:' reverts. But then I've watched some mysterious IPs come along and revert his edits, immediately followed by you giving Andrzejbanas a warning. I'd suggest you stop adding genres to all Garbage articles until this issue here is resolved, because I don't think either of you are working constructively. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your condescension is not of significance to me. Neither is your sad paranoia. I'd assume you'd already desperately tried to track down administrators to look into those ips following this article; didn't go well? Not the results you wanted? Don't make me laugh, you dislike me since before Andrzejbanas came here. Learn the meaning of civility; contextually referring to someone's recent block history and their current edit misconduct is not a lack of civility; throwing out profanities is. Also, your biased presumptions on how I find sources are worthless to me, they have no weight. And the sources I've personally added are clearly legitimate and remain in the article, aside from the ones I agreed are ultimately not for one reason or other (e.g., user review). Stick to giving your input as an editor on the matter at hand. You've, not once, opined on the specific issues that have been brought up with respect to the infobox. "I don't think either of you are working constructively" - again, don't make me laugh. You've contributed nothing, I on the other hand have been leading these discussions and asking for editor input and consensus from the start. All you've done is pop in and out every so ofter, taking character sides and whining about random ips. Any editors actually care to discuss the genre infobox issue with respect to what's cited in the article?

@Myxomatosis57:, I'd like your input on this before making edits on things that haven't been resolved, such as the inclusion of a pop genre (see above for my stance). How can you say the electronic references aren't verifiable, of course they are; again, see above, or check the sources yourself (the AV club source itself too mentioned electronic)--Lpdte77 (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we have more sources for pop earlier? Sorry if I'm losing track, I'm following several articles and if I slip up, I'm sorry. Personally, I think the infobox looks much cleaner now, but I think we just focus on finding genres related to the talking about the album's style specifically, not just "early garbage", because that could related to the second album and many others as the group has changed styles dramatically in their career. I'm not against noting the band's electronic leanings, but none of your sources say the genre you are trying to add, and adding goes against WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: The only sources we've had with pop are in the article (3 I believe). It does look cleaner, but I seriously think electronic rock should be up there because it's mentioned in most reviews actually in one form or other. Reviews don't concretely list music genres pertaining to albums, most of them actually mention them in context of "genre"-sensibility or "genre"-enhanced/induced or "genre"-sound or "genre"mix/fusion, and what not. Why editors here are being so stringent to this genre thing in this article is beyond me. Such things are interpreted and deduced easily in most other music articles. If many reviwers note a strong element of electronic in the rock, then electronic rock should certainly be in the infobox. Just like editors decided a genre with pop should be in the infobox, because more than one source suggested the word, even if in different forms (pop rock, power pop). And on the subject of 'pop', please comment on whether Powerpop or alternative pop or pop rock should go on the infobox. @Myxomatosis57:. I don't think more than 3 genres should be on there for the purpose of simplification and representation. My stance is alt rock one of the genres with 'pop' (i've given reasons above as to why power pop is the representative one) electronic rock. We can just have a couple of the sources that note electronic in the article and then include it in the infobox; the genre in the infobox does not need citation next to it if it's supported by the content in the article. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that's exactly the reason why I have removed them. "Electronically enhanced" does not particularly refer to electronic rock. However, I recently started to believe that we're taking a too radical/orthodox approach on the genres issue; since the majority of the sources are citing the heavy electronic leanings of the album, something descriptive of it can be at least included on the infobox. (Or it can stay just as it is right now.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to, but we have no specific name used. Like how do we interpret it? Electronic rock? Trip hop? I don't think that's really up for us to decide because WP:OR says we can't interpret sources in a way that's not what they are saying. This is why I'm in general, i'm against having genres in the infobox, as they don't really help users. But that's for another conversation. I'd say use those quotes about the electronic backing or whatever in the prose, but don't try to shove some words that aren't there in the infobox, as it's not what the citation says. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Electronic rock

Things are getting confusing, so I'm setting up a sub-section here. I'm against adding electronic rock, because per WP:OR, "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided.". In other words, if it doesn't specificly say that genre, we can't just place it there thinking "oh, well, that's what the mean". This isn't just my choice to do this, if it's not there, we can't use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What's confusing? WP:OR doesn't pertain to this. With respect to electronic it's not really open to multiple interpretations because the 'electronic' is actually referenced multiples times (across reviews). Again, what is confusing, why do you say it's doesn't specify the genre? What is specifying a genre to you, a reviewer strictly stating "this album is an electronic rock album", "this album is this, or that" (insert any other genre/style there)? Again, that is not how reviews are articulated (especially for records that mix multiple genres and styles) , you should know that, it's not how sounds, styles, elements, layers, influences, etc, are described; no one writes like that - see above for my example (which I'm suspecting you always ignore because you never respond to them specifically). I am not following your thought process here. If enough sources state electronic, then clearly electronic is significant, to the critical community as a whole as a notable sonic aspect of the record. Therefore, it can be up there. As one of, maximum, 3 genres if you ask me. --Lpdte77 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much confusing as it is inappropriate. It can be up to interpretation because they don't actually say whether it does or does not belong to that genre. Specifying the genre would be saying the genre's name yes. I understand it's difficult to write articles about albums that are tricky (see articles I've worked on for Glass Swords and Quique for example). I'm not ignoring you, I encourage you to add them to the prose (which you have! great!) but we can't just say it's electronic rock because that is WP:OR. What's "electronic rock" to you, might be "trip hop" or "synthpop" to me or someone else. Genre is subjective and we aren't allowed to interpret it as we please. So please don't add information in the infobox that's not what an article says directly. If anyone reads the article, they'll have an understanding of the sound from the prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But are you following? the genre is specified. Again, you want to read concretely "this album belongs to this genre and that genre" and that is, again, not how reviews are written, not how sounds and styles are described. You want it spelled out for you, and it rarely is, particularly with records that incorporate various styles. Albums that do not strictly belong to or adhere to one genre are not described as such. What is it that you don't understand about qualifiers such as "fused" "enhanced" "influenced" "layered", etc, that are often used in reviews and that describe the styles of records? These refer to the notable styles/genres a record incorporates. "What's 'electronic rock' to you, might be 'trip hop' or 'synthpop' to me or someone else" - no, because we are not reinterpreting the term electronic as any other genre, we are using the term 'electronic' as reviews state 'electronic'. Seriously, you're going on tangents. Electronic is mentioned in many reviews, therefore it is significant. You are confused; WP:OR - Original Research - has no relevance here. You are merely denying a term that is evidently referenced by multiple reviewers. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced, because we are interpreting of what things are described vaguely into a genre. None of them say electronic rock, several say electronic this or that, but none with the genre you are trying to add. If the view was actually said by multiple viewers (it hasn't), then we can't add electronic rock because there is no even real definition of the genre, not on the Electronic rock page anyways. Is it just rock with electronic stuff jammed in? I'm not buying it, and if you are just going to repeat stuff which I've read over and over again, you are going to have to go to mediation as everyone else has given up on this so far. If you can find me rules that say "you can interpret this or that as you like", than go ahead. Otherwise, call for mediation! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"we can't add electronic rock because there is no even real definition of the genre, not on the Electronic rock page anyways" - You're really saying this? First off, it's ironic given how much you wanted to included "pop music" something that actually isn't a genre as it's not defined at all and refers to any type of music that becomes popular, and second, electronic rock is clearly defined in the second line as rock that is generated with electronic instruments; that uses technological developments - that is the definition of it and if you've read any articles on the band, the record, their approach, precisely what characterizes it. What you've admitted to here is actually interpreting things your way, not 'buying' anything else, willfully violating WP:TE, WP:POV. No one's 'given up' on anything, because no one else has bothered to comment on it in the first place. You're the one making an issue of it. Myxomatosis57 comment above indicated he was on board, however if no one bothers with it, then no matter. The infobox can just stay as Alternative rock, as it is right now. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant there was no section discussing what the genre stands for. " What you've admitted to here is actually interpreting things your way", that's interesting, could you point that out friend? I'm just not convinced by your arguement which has nothing to do with WP:TE or WP:POV. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You're just meandering. Yes there is, it's clearly stated. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Which source supports "electronic rock" again? Dan56 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: Out of those that had been cited for support, I believe they were [2], [3], and this is another [4]--Lpdte77 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for digging those out, I thought there was more than the Chicago Reader one, but wasn't sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56:, I think it was this [url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-21/entertainment/chi-garbage-album-review-not-your-kind-of-people-reviewed-20120521_1_album-review-garbage-shirley-manson this article here] being used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those support "electronic rock". None of them mention it. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56:, none of them mention electronic? Andrzejbanas, those were the ones I could find in recent edit history. --Lpdte77 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Electronic rock"? No, none of them mention that genre. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56:, No, I stated "electronic" in my question. However, here are a few more sources: [5], [6], [7], [8] --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on electronic/electronic rock sources you incredulously asked for? --Lpdte77 (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Give people time to reply @Lapadite77:. Your BBC source doesn't specify this album, the guardian one dosen't either. New York Times, doesn't mention this album or "electronic rock", and the KROQ one doesn't specify this album. A good amount of these would be great for the article on the band itself, but you need specifics for this album, which you haven't provided. Good luck with your research! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Andrzejbanas, I said so because he at the time was clearly active making edits to his comments here and on the article and ignoring my replies to his comments. BBc source notes: "Garbage delivered consistently anthemic electronic rock that occupied airwaves with conspicuous ease in the mid-to-late-90s" (unless one is absolutely lacking in english comprehension one knows they are referring to albums Garbage and Version to 2.0, the albums released in 1995 and 1998. They even qualified it in the following sentence mentioning singles from both albums if the use of 'mid to late 90s' isn't enough evidence they are referring to the albums in the era). The guardian source states "the American electronic rock band she joined in 1994" (indicating the band's music has significantly been electronic rock since 1994, but I'll give you that one, it's not spoon-fed as concretely as you'd like). The cbs source states: "Not Your Kind of People is an energetic comeback that’s full of the sexy electronic rock that once earned Garbage quadruple-platinum status" (again, barring reading-comprehension ineptness, quadruple-platinum status factually referring to both 90s albums, Garbage and Version 2.0, which sold 4 million - readily available information and right here on Wiki too.) The other sources use 'electronic' to describe album. Here is another source that mentions electronic (P.S, "electro" is a short word for "electronic", just in case): http://books.google.com/books?id=ZHP-r9-eqdAC&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=garbage album alternative rock&source=bl&ots=nIIuO8dtVP&sig=47Tcgtg6DDmwhP_BTP4JoOJBV90&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L7QrVJCfBsiPyATZhYCADg&ved=0CHIQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=garbage album alternative rock&f=false . Now, there is 7 sources mentioned here alone that refer to either electronic rock or electronic and you continue to deny the significant of the genre (in case you're not aware, electronic refers to music using electronic instruments/technology and electronic rock refers to specifically rock music using or enhanced with electronic instruments/technology; both described in their respective wiki pages).--Lpdte77 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you state "electronic" in your question when you want to include "electronic rock" in the infobox? Dan56 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why can you not structure your replies correctly? It is very difficult to follow this when the replies are all over the place. Look at the number of colons there are before the comment you want to reply to, and then add one more to that amount before your own comment, which you place below the comment you reply too. To answer your question, I didn't say I wanted to include electronic rock, I'd said before that there is sufficient mention of electronic or electronic rock across reviews and bios for it one to realize it is considered a significant sonic aspect of the record, therefore that it should be represented. That specific question of mine specified electronic as I saw you have questioned the mention of electronic; however right below it I referenced more articles that mention electronic rock or electronic. You're going to ignore them too? Let me put one of the here, just FYI: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/gwhf --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

None of those sources refer to this album as "electronic rock". Dan56 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. Just to be clear, this is because they don't actually use the term specificly, correct? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think it's even implicit in their reviews. We shouldn't have to make interpretations. If it's a widespread enough viewpoint (that a genre of this album is "electronic rock"), then some source out there would have said it explicitly. Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't even respond to any of my replies to you. Did you read my comment on structuring your replies correctly? "Yes. I don't think it's even implicit in their reviews" - unbelievable. Can we get some editors here who are actually fluent in reading comprehension and that don't have such a strong biased agenda that they willfully blind themselves to conspicuous information? "We shouldn't have to make interpretations" - Oh, the hypocrisy (see pop subsection below) -- Lpdte77 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Power pop, alternative pop, etc

For specific discussion on which of these ought to be included in infobox, if it was to be included (all cited in body of article). My stance is expounded above, in second half of Concensus proposal. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a source for power pop, and even if I don't think it's the best term to describe it. It's totally acceptable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm more and more convinced you have a hard time following or processing this stuff. I clearly stated all are sourced, the subsection is for any discussion that pertains to the use of any of these in the infobox. I'm glad you think one of the sourced genres you personally disagree with is acceptable, but my point is if other editors have something to say regarding any of these particular genres for the infobox then they can voice it here. I'm too fine with power pop representing in the infobox. But like I said before, I'm also fine with just having alternative rock in the infobox, especially if any other genres in there is evidently cause for such confusion or perpetual disagreement. Unless others gives their input specifically on this, then I suggest not editing anything else in the infobox and keeping Alternative as the genre there. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think if this article could be improved in every aspect, not just the genre, but to a comprehensiveness for GA or FA promotion, then the genre thing will take care of itself, because the most reliable sources on the topic would have been found and could help in deciding which genres should be given what kind of weight, rather than finding sources for the sake of supporting certain genres that come to our heads when we hear this album. But till then... I think "power pop" is clearly supported by the Billboard review. I also think " all the songs are well-crafted pop songs" (Allmusic) supports "pop", which is often used to refer to popular music for short, but also to pop music, which I think it does here if other writers feel it has enough "pop" to use "power pop" and the like. I don't think it's neutral to omit "pop" if "Alternative rock" is in the infobox and comes from the same source that stresses "pop" more than it does "alternative rock". I would approve of the infobox listing "Alternative rock, pop, pop rock, power pop", or maybe "Pop" first before "alternative rock", considering AllMusic's wording. Dan56 (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"if "Alternative rock" is in the infobox and comes from the same source that stresses "pop" more" - No it does not. Alternative rock is not there because of the Allmusic source. Could your comments be any more skewed? --Lpdte77 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Like you mistakenly attribute lack of definition in electronic rock, here actually popular music/pop music is ill-defined and in talks of being merged with pop music because it refers to the same thing. It is a page still under construction and is not to be used as reference or support. Pop music is popular music and it is not defining anything with respect to genre, power pop however is, as is alternative pop, both of which serve to represent. Either would be fine, although power pop is more strongly supported. None of them in the infobox would also be fine (i.e., keeping Alt rock), since they're cited in the body and readers can refer there. You again are meandering, as the issue is not on omitting pop, but on using power pop to represent. Including all those genres you propose is not best, for purposes of simplicity and representation; one, or maximum three different ones on account of consensus on them, is fine. You persistently giving significant, undue weight to Allmusic, one reviewer's, wording to include the one you want is an example of WP:TE, WP:POV--Lpdte77 (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if others don't give input on this/no one agrees on which to put down in the infobox, then alternative rock will stand alone in the infobox. Readers can refer to the body for more information on styles and genres. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd agree with Myxomatosis57's sentiment here that no genres (including alternative rock) will be listed without consensus. Dan56 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No genres apart from alternative. That is my stance as well. --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You edited your comment to include alternative rock. No, because Alternative rock is the original and parent genre that is cited everywhere, by the vast majority of reviews and bios. Your favorite review that you want to use as the basis for everything is insignificant here; WP:TE. The issue is with the inclusion of other genres. Evidently, the quality and accuracy of the article is not a primary concern for you. --Lpdte77 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your arbitrary citation of WP:TE. Myxomatosis57 removed all the genres in the diff I referred to, including removing "alternative rock", which you subsequently restored. Dan56 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Because an editor does something doesn't mean it was correct or that it should be replicated at another time. After disagreement about other genres to include Myxomatosis57 made a radical decision to remove everything there until there was an agreement on what was being disputed. Myxomatosis's reasoning was not yours (i.e., obsession with one reviewer's phrasing and interpreting its words in the way that you want). You don't understand why you are repeatedly engaging in WP:TE? Well that is a problem. Read over it. --Lpdte77 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't keep "alternative rock" without "pop" if AllMusic is citing the former; the review clearly makes a stronger case for "pop", and they make the distinction for us whether it's "pop" (the genre) or "popular music" (the musical form, cf. art music) they're referring to--"alternative rock" is also under the popular music umbrella, so why would the reviewer phrase his words in this vein: "trappings of alternative rock ... but comes off as pop". He's making the distinction between the two as though both are genres. Dan56 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"We can't keep "alternative rock" without "pop" if AllMusic is citing the former" - in your view? What kind of logic is that? You can't blindly rely on ONE reviewer to make the case for representation in the infobox. There are OTHER reviews that are cited in the body too, which make the case for other, actually specific genres. Diminishing their weight by giving extra and unusual to one in particular is I repeat in violation of WP:TE, WP:POV. "and they make the distinction for us " - no they do not, and that is merely a three-sentence review, unlike the others; WP:POV and WP:OR. ""alternative rock" is also under the popular music umbrella" - precisely, reason for the fact that popular music only depicts styles of music that become popular. "why would the reviewer phrase his words in this vein: "trappings of alternative rock ... but comes off as pop" - again, you are engaging in WP: OR (wasn't it recently said we should not be interpreting phrases?), and why? poor phrasing and ill-defining (he doesn't even define anything; what 'pop'? Madonna, Beatles, Michael Jackson, Katy Perry's? Dance, trip hop, electro, synth pop?) on his part (do you believe all reviewers are infallible, all-knowing, don't have bias or their own agenda? Reviewers/music writers are infamous for molding or incorrectly attributing (or trying to redefine) terms like genres, particularly vulnerably vague ones, to their contextual advantage (e.g., under Power pop: "Author John M. Borack has stated in his book the genre has often been applied to varied groups and artists with "blissful indifference" noting incorrect labeling of the genre to Britney Spears, Green Day, The Bay City Rollers and Def Leppard"). One reviewer opining this is this manner is not remotely enough for representative inclusion in the infobox; his opinion is included in the body. There's a reason records, particularly those that don't utterly fit into one particular genre (and for that matter the bands themselves) inspire varied, even polar opposite, interpretations on their styles (refer to % below). As has been implied before here (and has been funnily contradicted), you don't try to interpret critical phrasing, especially dubious ones, you use the terms that are best supported and representative. One reviewer making an ill-defined, throwaway allusion to 'pop' in a 3-sentence critique, especially in light of other cited reviews that do specify a pop-including genre, is not grounds for representation. You insisting directly on Andrzejbanas's reiterated pov can only make me suspect of the reason Andrzejbanas requested your input here. For the dozenth time, if there's no agreement on this, no neutrality, alternative rock remains itself there - does not detract and everything is expounded on in the body (including varied opinions) - which is the point of the infobox. --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

% - See band Hole's Live Through This Critical Reception: One of the reviews, from NME, states "a personal but secretive thrash-pop opera of urban nihilism and passionate dumbthinks" (not included in infobox). See album Celebrity Skin's Reception: Review from Allmusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine states "a glaze of shiny guitars and hazy melodies, all intended to evoke the heyday of Californian pop in the late '70s" (not included in infobox); various reviews there include different terms with pop, and others different genres altogether; genre in infobox is alternative rock.

Here is another source, just FYI, which has been used in the article, that mentions power pop: [9]. --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're argument is inspired more by personal views rather than a concern over the quality of this article or the spirit of WP's guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Projection is transparent. That is exactly what your and your buddy Andrzejbanas are evidently doing here. Funny, you bat 100% for his interpretations. You prefer to try to interpret one critic's dubious phrasing, using the meaning you attribute to it to fulfill the personal wish of its inclusion, as if on top of it it represents, and in the process ignoring all other cited reviews and in silent opposition of just keeping Alternative rock in the infobox in light of no agreement. And you do not bother to engage any of my specific points. The quality of the article and the spirit of WP's guidelines, as you put it, is second to a campaigning of a personal will. Transparent. --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles you're pointing to is other stuff that happens to exist. It would also help if we could describe the sources rather than introducing them as "this source", since I took a glance at it and it happens to be some blog (WP:STICKTOSOURCE → "research the most reliable sources on the topic") Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, like Andrzejbanas, you deny all other legimitate sources (none of them are blogs)? What a shock. Do you even read what you link to? WP:OTHERSTUFF has literally nothing to do with any of this; that is based on creating and deleting articles. Evidently, neither of you have any plans on considering anything else (including reviews) that isn't your personal stance or currently contributing anything constructive to this whole matter. Alternative rock alone can stay. --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Pop can be included as well. Dan56 (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lapadite77, I genuinely appreciate your research, and I know it's hard to find the terms you want, but you have to source things as they say it in the article. You can't interpret "crunchy guitars" and decide it's a rock album as much as you can say "electroninc layering" makes it "Electronic rock" or whatever. You have to be verbatim to the source. I know writers don't always write like that, that's why I'm generally against having genre in the infobox. If you find that electronic rock source for this album specifically (which I'm sure you will), then be my guest. Until then, don't attack other editors who are providing. I want to assume good faith with your edits, but you are making it really difficult. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the subsection on 'pop', not electronic rock. And spare me backhanded compliments that imply I'm looking for things I want, especially given the hypocrisy at hand. You two are blatantly pursuing an agenda and engaging in WP:TE, WP:OR, and WP:OWN. You are not providing anything constructive or useful but ignoring an editor's actual contributions and persistently trying to interpret a reviewer's phrasing in the manner that you wish to suit your agenda, whilst giving undue weight WP:UNDUE to that reviewer's phrasing, over all other cited reviews. "that's why I'm generally against having genre in the infobox", yeah that's why you've pushed for more genres in the infobox. "You can't interpret "crunchy guitars" and decide it's a rock album as much as you can say "electroninc layering" makes it "Electronic rock" or whatever" - I have not said that, you're putting words in my mouth and completely ignoring all the sources that explicitly state electronic or electronic rock. I will bring these repeated violations to note to administrators and it's strongly suspect, given your (Andrzejbanas) block history and that you have not made any edits with respect to the matters discussed here but Dan56 has after you requested his participation, that your editor buddy is doing your dirty work for you. No worries.--Lpdte77 (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Dan is right, it doesn't make sense that he would be referring to pop in any other sense of the term with this sentence. Basic English. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Butch Vig did refer to the album as "a pop record", but I don't know if every genre the band employs in its "music blender" deserves a mention in the infobox. igordebraga ≠ 01:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Oh, yes, I know, but we can't use band members' interpretation of their own material, otherwise indie rock for example would also be on the table. I agree, and I am for keeping only alternative rock in the infobox, but a couple of editors obviously here a skewed agenda to push. What say you on giving undue weight to one reviewer, and ignoring other reviewers' style descriptions? Interpreting such reviewer's vague phrasing and allusion as suitably desired? Or making an edit in Style and Composition where reviewer's opinion is restated so as to emphasize editor's standpoint [10]? --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"a couple of editors obviously here a skewed agenda to push", what agenda? Please assume good faith. Everyone here is trying to make things follow the rules, not push their own points. I'm really disappointed that you are doing this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made a further research on alternative rock, recently. Before mentioning what I've found, I'd like to clarify that I support the inclusion of pop, as well as power pop (sourced somewhere above in the discussion) and pop rock (The A.V. Club source, already cited in the article). I've found this print source [11], which states: "Garbage's self-titled debut album has an impressive swirl of acoustic and electric guitars, keyboards and swanky pop hooks that actually push alternative rock in a new direction." What are your opinions on this? Would this be a valid/useful source to be included in the prose or infobox?

Also, I found this source [12], which can be included in the prose. I'm not sure how to precisely do it, though (especially when I am on mobile, which makes editing harder and more complex). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Myxomatosis57:, that is a great source (Newsweek) for inclusion in Composition and Style. How did you come across the statement in it? Are you able to give a page number and author? If you have the information you can use this Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_style as a guideline. I can do it if you're not able to or up for it. RE the Spin source, what statement(s) in the source are you referring to? --Lpdte77 (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was able to view it as a snippet in Google Books. However, I couldn't find out the page number and author due to restrictions. On the Spin source, I was particularly referring at the statement: "That wise eyed ambition is heard all over Garbage's self-titled debut,... A pristinely recorded crunch-up of sinister new wave, industrial fuzz-buzz, clubby beats, and despite-all-my-rage guitar, Garbage flashed hot pink against the colorless, better-than-Silverbush fake-grunge horizon." This statement sounded useful for composition and style section. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Myxomatosis57:, They're great finds. Google Books does identify the statement in the content inside, you can view it as a snippet [13], but apparently it doesn't allow you to view the page. I'm trying to find reference to a page number or a title/section for citation; its not a requirement, the date, publisher, volume, and cover title is available, but it would be helpful. The Spin quote is great for the prose, but stated more succinctly. I read over the piece, and I believe there were a couple of quotes there re the debut that might be useful. The About source's section on the debut is good; include it in the Composition section if you want; e.g., "The band’s 1995 debut was steeped in alt-rock, but hits like “Only Happy It Rains” had a dance element to them that distinguished the band from many of their angst-rock peers".--Lpdte77 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll include it since I'm already editing the section. --Lpdte77 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I found an web-version of the newsweek article: [14]. Easy to reference now. --Lpdte77 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit all over the place honestly to be use. I think I understand what they are saying, but if I were seriously working on this article, I wouldn't use it and try and find something a bit more simple. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've also found this About.com [15] source regarding the genres. Tim Grierson, the writer of this article, appears to be considered reliable. (He is listed on table of critics as such.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: genre infobox dispute; Power pop & electronic rock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

'Pop' is vaguely referenced and phrased by one reviewer who is being given undue weight; other cited reviewer's style descriptions (such as Billboard's power pop) are ignored. Electronic/electronic rock is being disregarded as legitimate, even in light of multiple sources provided that use such genres. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See penultimate subsections; Andrzejbanas & Dan56, the latter's involvement suitably requested by the former, push for giving undue weight to one reviewer's vague phrasing of a style for use in the infobox, ignoring other cited reviewers' descriptions that are much more concrete in nature and representative. Electronic/electronic rock is also disregarded, even in light of multiple sources provided that evidently state the genres. Editors have engaged in multiple Wiki policy violations in the process, including WP:UNDUE, WP:TE, WP:OWN, WP:OR. Refer to both subsections for full details: electronic rock, power pop.--Lpdte77 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style has been edited with more cited sources, providing a much more significant and useful synthesis, which includes multiple specific, relevant genres.--Lpdte77 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic bad faith accusations

Here is evidence that Dan56 (similarly, to Andrzejbanas, who's history on such matters has been alluded to before here) has a history of cherry-picking, genre warring, neutrality, (the same issues he's carried here) and evidence of course, of hypocrisy here. I quote some excerpts: One Dan56 post: "He obviously prefers Allmusic's cited quote that the album defines "the sound and style of '70s hard rock", but The Village Voice{{'}]s Christgau is not only a more reputed rock critic than Allmusic's Erlewine, but his characterization is more explicit--he plainly says that this is a heavy metal album. Y2kcrazyjoker4, please get a consensus for this change you've been pushing before restoring it." "I think it'd be common sense for the most explicit quote from the more notable individual holding that interpretation (WP:SUBJECTIVE) to be given more weight." -An editor in reply: "I strongly agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4, and I assert that this is yet another of Dan's pedantic genre arguments that is based unduly on just one source's opinion. Dan, please try to get your brain around the concept of using a preponderance of sources, and stop fixating on pushing only what one or two critics think among thousands of writers; I think Laser brain told you that last month." "I also agree with Lewismaster's position, which I think can be said to be the running consensus here. Dan is playing yet another of his endless: 'I found sources that say what I want, so that's how's its gonna be!' games. Dan has problems a) understanding the meaning of a preponderance of sources, b) that a diversity of sources are a good thing, and c) that Christgau should not be pushed as the voice of all genres on Wikipedia." "I strongly dislike your serial genre warring and I think that you waste lots of good-faith editing time across a broad swath of articles." -Another editor in reply: "Dan56, stop imposing your point of view. A consensus has been reached but you're still struggling to keep "heavy metal" first in the infobox. I just realized it's not the first time you've got troubles associated to your genre warring behaviour. Your childish reaction is pathetic and you should learn accepting a consensus instead of thinking you're absolutly right.Christgau called Zoso a "heavy metal album" but he's not alone on Earth and "hard rock" has also been extensively used to describe the album. I totally agree with GabeMc edits and you should accept them instead of blindly reverting him." -Another editor in reply: "Dan, I think I made it clear above that interpretation of this sentence in Guitar World is a minor point in the whole genre discussion here. But it's an example of where your interpretation of text can differ so radically from others', from much of what I've seen. Just on articles I work on, I can think of three occasions where, in my view, you've clearly misunderstood the point being made (usually going for the more negative slant, I have to say)...The problem is, you're frequently – I don't think that's an exaggeration – imposing your interpretation over those of other editors, with the ubiquitous stick to what the sources say, and I don't think you interpret correctly what the source is saying much of the time." All other editors there too disagree with Dan56 on the matter. More evidence that Dan56 is a genre warrior: [16] user contribution history. All relevant to this matter as it supports his (and his buddy Andrzejbanas) primary objective and bias, on top what has already been pointed out/is readily apparent throughout this discussion. --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC) More evidence that Dan56 engages in all stated above, as it implicates too in his evident ways here: -Continued receipt of warnings from various editors, which he reverts, e.g, [17], [18], [19], [20] -Misleading inclusion of a band member's statement in the RfC poll below to emphasize his point, and a silent neglect to remove it. -Recent direct examples in an open RfC of Dan56 advocating against things he is completely using as his basis here: RfC 1, RfC 2, and I do not need to quote as it is the first commentary in both. What he is criticizing there is exactlyBold text what he’s engaging in here and people are supporting. --Lpdte77 (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Again, this user and his accomplice Andrzejbanas, whom requested Dan56's involvement, are only pushing for a biased pov, giving undue weight to one reviewer insofar as editing said reviewer's cited and vaguely stated opinion in the article to repeat the reviewer's sentiment so as to emphasize editor's standpoint: [21] --Lpdte77 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Poll: Inclusion of pop

• Support per referenced material in Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style → "take those influences and make them work in the context of a pop song"^[18], "the style sounds like pop ... Erlewine characterized all of its songs as pop..."^[19] Dan56 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Dan56. Note that the reviewer isn't just tossing around a genre and actually explains it as well which I think makes this one a specifically stronger source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Dan56. The reviews cited - AllMusic especially - actively go out of their way to describe the album as pop above all other genres. "Garbage's self-titled debut has all the trappings of alternative rock -- off-kilter arrangements, occasional bursts of noise, a female singer with a thin, airy voice -- but it comes off as pop, thanks to the glossy production courtesy of drummer Butch Vig." Open and shut, if you ask me. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• No support. "The reviews cited"? What reviews? Allmusic is ONE review, that is being given undue weight by biased editors. And shocking that Homoeostasis who dislikes me and constantly goes against me claims support. --Lpdte77 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account the recent addition of multiple sources in Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style, which is sufficing with referenced specific styles, it is even more inappropriate to give undue weight (WP:UNDUE, WP:RSUW) to one reviewer's vague allusion to a vague umbrella term, 'pop', out the many others cited whose descriptions are direct and concrete. From the Composition and Style section, there is a selection of Power pop, alternative pop, electronica, trip-hop, dance; and alternative rock itself is noted by multiple reviewers. --Lpdte77 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sign your posts, Dan56 --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Where didn't I? Dan56 (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per @Dan56, Homeostasis07, and Andrzejbanas:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed, in the Poll above Dan56 is quoting band member Butch Vig to support his view: Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style → Vig explained that as in his opinion "the most exciting bands are those who incorporate all those elements of punk, funk, techno, hip hop, etc." Garbage would attempt to do the same and "take those influences and make them work in the context of a pop song. --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that Lapadite77 removed "Erlewine characterized all of its songs as pop" from the article, even though it's clearly relevant to the section and verified by the source cited. Dan56 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you still bother trying to misconstrue things? The reason for removing your WP:TE edit is stated clearly in the edit summary, anyone can see that: [22] and my other edit when you tried to put it back I'm: "the information IS stated, but editor wants to repeat phrasing to emphasize personal view.WP:REDEX, WP:TE, WP:IMPARTIAL,WP:DUE, WP:EW)" [23]. Reviewer's cited opinion was not removed, Dan56's reiteration of Reviewer's opinion (the one he wants to give undue weight to) was removed. --Lpdte77 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Lapadite77's correct that including a quote here from a member of the band – Vig saying: "take those influences and make them work in the context of a pop song" – is not on; it should be removed immediately. (And I wonder if any of those supports read the words as having come from a professional reviewer? Long shot perhaps.)

But really, Lapadite77, I think you've got to let it go. From my point of view, that BBC article's mention would be enough to merit inclusion of electronic rock as a genre: "Formed in 1994, Garbage delivered consistently anthemic electronic rock that occupied airwaves with conspicuous ease in the mid-to-late-90s." There's no mistaking there that the reviewer's talking about studio recordings, and we get a timespan starting in the mid 1990s, when the only Garbage music that could possibly have been "occupying airwaves" was this 1995-released debut album. But that's not the way Wikipedia works – which is unfortunate in many ways, but that's down to how people want to see it work. Although I sympathise, you've got to find the statement you want, from a reliable source. (Incidentally, I think you're wrong to blame Andrzejbanas. From what I've seen in the past, they've tried to eradicate this sort of problem by proposing that the genre field be removed from infoboxes. That makes a lot of sense, imo, but only to quell the behaviour of the few genre obsessives out there.)

Anyway, you asked me along here – all I can find is this from MusicHound's 1999 Rock: The Essential Album Guide: "The band's debut, Garbage [4 out of 5 "bones"], combined rock with dance music before such a combination was in vogue, and in a way that rock and dance acts are still trying to achieve – mostly without success." The entry also mentions the influence of Vig changing his musical direction with Garbage, "two years before the record industry began putting its eggs in the so-called 'electronica' basket"; also, that "Vow" showed "the band could have gone the full industrial route had it wished to do so." But unless "combined rock with dance music" helps you, it's all implied – nothing explicitly stating that "electronic rock" belongs here. Had a quick skim through some of the articles available at Rock's Backpages … nothing so far, I'm afraid. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Andrzejbanas clearly stated above he's ok with the inclusion of "pop, power pop, pop rock" beside Alternative rock. I've stated many times before I've no problem with the inclusion of Power pop (cited by Billboard I believe) and recounted by Vice. I've also proposed leaving Alternative rock in the infobox. His removal of all genres, including alternative rock, was not to quell anything but because he claims pop is dependent on alternative rock and that either can't be present alone there. The issue is giving undue weight to one reviewer who's phrasing is vague and who's merely alluding to 'pop' and without any definition. Again, what pop? What specific genre? Is it akin to Michael Jackson's pop, The Beatles' pop, Katy Perry's pop? What it is sonically? Is it trance, dance, electronic, power pop? Pop is popular - any style of music that becomes popular. Power Pop or alternative pop are both specific genres that are cited in the article. That's my point. Nothing else. And I seriously dislike giving undue weight to one reviewer to suit one's pov (which is against Wiki policy), especially when it's coming from a genre warrior who has clearly a history of doing that and has violated a plethora of Wiki policy's in the process. @JG66: Do you mind telling me why there is support for giving undue weight to one reviewer's vague phrasing, over other cited reviewers' specific genre depicitions (e.g., Billboard's)? Why is the Allmusic quote taking precedence, and not say the Billboard quote? Re: electronic rock, "you've got to find the statement you want" I'm not looking for a statement, but from the reviewers I've read, the sources put forth state either electronic or electronic rock in the context of the album, but again I only pointed this out because it's clearly considered by multiple reviewers a significant genre sonically present in the record; I actually don't care if it's in the infobox, as I said before. See, your MusicHound citation there, "combines rock with dance music" illustrates a specific genre of popular music - dance. That would be one that could be used. --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lapadite77, I can see that, in the Wikipedia scheme of things, if alternative rock is to be included, then pop has to be also – because they each come from the same (AllMusic) source. I agree that Erlewine uses the term "pop" inconsistently, but at least one of the mentions there is pop as a genre/style. So when you say "I've also proposed leaving Alternative rock in the infobox" but not pop, well, I don't think that can happen. That's not to say I would support the inclusion of pop (I wouldn't, because I think it looks ridiculous to have pop and power pop, the last of which should definitely be included of course). But neither can I oppose it, given the guidelines. What I'm saying is Wikipedia advocates … I'm tempted to say "blind stupidity", but let's call it "redundancy". I wasn't including you among the "genre obsessives", by the way, but again I'm seeing Andrzejbanas' point of view, regarding an aversion you appear to have to "pop" being a recognised music genre. Yes, of course there are the blanket terms "pop[ular] music", "pop[ular] song", but right or wrong, "pop" is most definitely a genre. (As I say, ideally I'd want to drop "pop" from a list that might otherwise read "power pop, pop, alternative rock", in the interests of avoiding redundancy. But that's not on-message with the guidelines [misguided-lines?].)

JG66, "if alternative rock is to be included, then pop has to be also – because they each come from the same (AllMusic) source" That's an incorrect assumption that is now being made, the premise of which was originally used by Dan56. Alternative rock isn't there and hasn't been there since the inception of the article because Allmusic (a recently cited source for 'pop') mentioned alternative rock, but because it's the primary genre noted by most reviewers and bios, from back in the 90s and today. Regarding pop and Allmusic's phrasing, please see my reply to Andrzejbanas below for more specifics. You yourself understand that it is vague and inconsistent, so why still support giving undue weight to it, particularly when there is another cited review, Billboard's, that directly specifies a genre of popular music, Power pop, for the record, and denotes alternative rock: Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style → "Garbage thrashes out power pop with enough skill and passion to rate among the cream of the alternative crop". Like you say, in the interest of avoiding redundancy, and for the sake of simplicity, it should be actually be reading alternative rock power pop. And you put forth above: MusicHound's 1999 Rock: The Essential Album Guide, quoting "The band's debut, Garbage [4 out of 5 "bones"], combined rock with dance music before such a combination was in vogue, and in a way that rock and dance acts are still trying to achieve – mostly without success." - There is a specific popular music genre there -dance- and that can too be included, or at least stated in the article. Do you mind providing a link if you can?

And when is Dan56 going to remove his intentionally misleading use of a band member's statement? --Lpdte77 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Lapadite77, you've lost me. Where are these other sources for alternative rock? Right now – and I'm sorry if I've misunderstood something along the way – but, to my mind, the only sense you're making is that Dan56 needs to remove that misleading statement from a band member regarding the album's genre. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

JG66, Where did I loose you? There is one already in the article, as I stated and I quote from above: You yourself understand that it is vague and inconsistent, so why still support giving undue weight to it, particularly when there is another cited review, Billboard's, that directly specifies a genre of popular music, Power pop, for the record, and denotes alternative rock: Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style → "Garbage thrashes out power pop with enough skill and passion to rate among the cream of the alternative crop". And I also said, regarding pop and Allmusic phrase, please refer to my reply to Andrzejbanas below. So what did you not understand specifically?

Myxomatosis57 noted one in an above subsection: [24] which states: "Garbage's self-titled debut album has an impressive swirl of acoustic and electric guitars, keyboards and swanky pop hooks that actually push alternative rock in a new direction." Why are you assuming Allmusic is the one source that uses and would use alternative rock, when it's common sense the parent genre would be the most noted across reviews and bios.--Lpdte77 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Have to say, @Lewismaster:, I can't really see anything in those Rolling Stone and Record Collector reviews that states that the Garbage album is pop. I think the case for electronic rock, via the BBC article mentioned above, is a far stronger one in comparison. JG66 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Note, MTV's review on Garbage's 2012 album, which is cited by Andrzejbanas himself on its page: "This crunchy electro-rock record might just turn out to be my favorite pop album of the year." - It defines it as an electronic rock record and notes it might make his favorite pop[ular] album of the year. Note the denotation. That is what is missing in Allmusic's 3 sentence review. It is not representative. Under Wiki's recommended sources page MTV "Primary Focus" is listed as "popular music". Why a continued ignoring here of the fact that pop music is itself NOT a genre, not a defined sonic style -it's an umbrella term, like indie/independent music is- (not to mention that one reviewer vaguely alludes to it and in an inconsistent manner), and should not be used in the infobox?--Lpdte77 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I didnt' cite it, I expanded it. It really sounds like you are having issues with pop music being a style or not. I'd suggest bringing that more serious matter up with WP:GENRE instead of here. Countless albums are categorized as pop friend.Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's right, it was an expansion on quotes. No, that is not my issue here, I've clearly stated what it is. That is an underlying problem itself, one that is misconstrued, but the issue is with Erlewine's (Allmusic) vague, inconsistent phrasing given undue weight by editors and used as the sole arbiter for the infobox, if I haven't stated that clearly enough. Yes countless albums and bands are denoted pop albums or pop bands, but they are not referring to a band's or album's specific style/genre, but a classification of the band or album as popular/popular music. Like, I repeat from above, MTV stating "This crunchy electro-rock record might just turn out to be my favorite pop album of the year" - electronic rock is the genre, pop album is popular music album. MTV reviewer would not be saying "my favorite pop album" if the genre of the album was, say, death metal, because that is not a popular music style/genre. So, MTV would not be stating "this crunchy death metal record might turn out to be my favorite pop album of the year". I don't know why it's so hard to understand this or why users here are in denial of it. To expand on my point, if someone tells you 'oh there's this new great pop band or artist getting a lot of radio play' do you not question or find out what kind of music they play, what their actual sonic style is? What the music consists of? If they're doing dance, or trip hop, or disco, or synth pop, or power pop, or electro-rock and whatnot; e.g., if the pop artist is doing music like Adele's or Rihanna's, or Katy Perry's, or The Beegees', or Michael Jackson's music (those are all pop artists doing different styles/genres of music). That is an obvious response, because someone saying something is pop doesn't denote anything aside from that it's popular music, because pop isn't anything specific. Someone stating something is dance, or electronica, or any other specific genre is informative and categorical. So such is the case with the reviewer's statement you're all exalting. Evidently that fact here goes over the head and is repeatedly disregarded with something to the effect of 'this reviewer states this, so the term from what they stated will be used'. Allmusic's phrasing, apart from being vague and misleading is entirely inconsistent. Alternative rock became popular music in the 90s so him saying it has 'trappings of alternative rock but comes off as pop' is nonsensical per se. People here are either, in a completely blind and knee-jerk fashion, just cherrypicking a loosely-used term from the phrasing and using it to prove a point, or trying to interpret an inconsistent and vague phrasing to suit a point. Both are entirely troublesome and discouraging, and too rooted in violation of previously cited Wiki guidelines (like Undue, Cherrypick, and OR).--Lpdte77 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi JG66, thanks for your comment! My support was in favor based on the Allmusic quote, the edit history I think can vouch for that. And yes, I've been trying to suggest exactly what you said. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, mainly per Allmusic source. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Pop is cited together with other genres in the AllMusic and Rolling Stone reviews. It is also cited in this Record Collector review [25], where Garbage early production is defined as "industrial grunge with a shiny pop sheen". On the other hand, the review by Kyle McLaughlin at page 753 of the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die remarks the use of "loops, tinkering, thick layers of samples and keyboards", which characterizes both electronic rock and industrial music. In the Entertainment Weekly review, Steven Mirkin compares the band to The Golden Palominos, which were an alternative rock band that adopted a heavy electronic-laden sound in the 1990s. Maybe the inclusion in the article of a genre related to electronica and/or industrial music should be considered. Lewismaster (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @Lewismaster:. Can you explain why "industrial grunge with a shiny pop sheen" (sheen meaning, a 'soft luster on a surface") is apparently explicit enough to represent, but something like "electronically-enhanced" or "electornically-infused" isn't? If this is legitimate, and there is no bias here, where is the presence of industrial or grunge in the infobox? Or even in the article? --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we are using that source specificly, we are focusing on the Allmusic review for the source, so why did you bring it up? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Lewismaster brought it up. --Lpdte77 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The poll is about the inclusion of pop which I think should be there. At the same time I think that a genre with reference to electronica should be there. Lewismaster (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"I think that a genre with reference to electronica should be there" - Why so?--Lpdte77 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, personally I wouldn't think it's fair for us to interpret that as "electronica" unless that's what the source says. But that's for another poll I guess. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it fair enough? Weren't you hammering down the point that terms need be explicitly stated otherwise they can't be used? Where does electronica come from, I would like to know. --Lpdte77 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the previous posts: "Maybe the inclusion in the article of a genre related to electronica and/or industrial music should be considered.", I was replying to @Lewismaster:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please structure your replies correctly, below the comment you want to reply to. Your comment is below Lewismaster's post that states: "At the same time I think that a genre with reference to electronica should be there". Knowing what you replied to now, my comment still applies; Lewismaster's suggestion - "the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die remarks the use of "loops, tinkering, thick layers of samples and keyboards", which characterizes both electronic rock and industrial music. In the Entertainment Weekly review, Steven Mirkin compares the band to The Golden Palominos, which were an alternative rock band that adopted a heavy electronic-laden sound in the 1990s. Maybe the inclusion in the article of a genre related to electronica and/or industrial music should be considered." - doesn't adhere to the notion that the terms should be explicitly stated, not interpreted by editor. --Lpdte77 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm back from a two-day full immersion in my real life. I was requested to give an opinion on the inclusion of pop in this poll, which I did. Pop is explicitly cited as a genre in the Erlewine article and referred to in other reviews, including the Record Collector one. It is my opinion that this is enough to consider pop as a genre covered by Garbage in this album. It is quite hard to pinpoint single genres for this album, as most reviewers write about the fusion of styles and genres in the music. My addition about the ample use of electronic sounds, remix techniques, danceable beats, keyboards and samples is signaled by many sources, but if it is not relevant to this poll, just ignore it. Lewismaster (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lewismaster:, please see updates to Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style. No it is not, it is merely one reviewer's vague allusion to a vague ill-defined 'pop' term, there are many styles cited in the section now. Giving undue weight and over-emphasizing, as Dan56 in particular has done, is against Wiki policy. P.S, did you notice that he intentionally mislead editors in the beginning of the poll subsection quoting a band member's statement, and refusing to remove it?--Lpdte77 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: There are pop elements in their music, mainly the catchy choruses. Of course, just pop isn't enough to describe their music, which is a mix of alternative rock, industrial rock, electronic and pop. Also, it should be mentioned last in the list. Deepblue1 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Question of support is specifically for Allmusic's phrasing for 'pop' over Billboard's Power pop, as cited in the article. It is not based on our personal interpretation of the music. Please specify/acknowledge what your support is for. --Lpdte77 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I believe both should be included. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Which 'both'? Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style has been updated and indicated here in a recent edit. More, direct styles/genres are up for consideration. The cited genres are alternative rock, power pop, electronic pop, electronica, and trip hop. --Lpdte77 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was considering both pop and power pop until I've seen an About.com source that I've given above. It further characterizes the album as a series of rock music genres. (Dance-rock, alt-rock, techno-rock, etc.) Too many genres. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Myxomatosis57, Yes, which overwhelm one reviewer's vague term, which again, should not be given undue weight. --Lpdte77 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of relevant quote

Deepblue1, Lewismaster, Myxomatosis57, JG66? Should what I recently restored to the article have been removed by Lapadite77? It seems like cherry picking to omit it. I want to ask just in case he reverts it again, as he had twice before ([26], [27]). Dan56 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to remove that quote from Vig here, which you've used to support the inclusion of pop as a genre, before you start talking about who's being selective with facts. In the past, on some album talk page or other, I've read your assertion on how a musician shouldn't be seen as a reliable source when it comes to music genres … JG66 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the quote from VIg to the article to begin with, JG66. I was invited to this discussion before I had ever even edited this article. Dan56 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to this discussion with here, I don't really think that it is really necessary anymore since we already invalidated that quote as a source for genre. It isn't the only source/argument for "pop," anyway. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Erlewine's statement is relevant and should stay, in sake of sticking right to the source. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a complete misconstruction, actually complete lie from Dan56, one that he keeps repeating. I've never removed Allmusic's quotes, look at the edits & edit summaries. I noted Dan56's usage of redundant phrasing, reiterating what was already stated so as to over-emphasize a point - see older edits pertaining (including after he continued to edit in redundancy): [28], [29]; a recent "restore" from Dan 56 of such redundancy: [30], and my two recent edits, which include Myxomatosis57's helpful edit in making it more succinct, making it concise and accurate: [31] [32]. This is reflect in the current state of the article. Myxomatosis57, yes Dan56's Butch Vig quote does need to be removed, because it is very misleading and will be one of the first things any editors coming in read and they might not realize it is misleading (that is is a band member's quote, not a reviewer's), especially if they don't bother to read the rest of the discussion. --Lpdte77 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You can take all the petty shots at me you want, if it makes it easier to accept that "pop" will be in the infobox, since that's what it appears this discussion is heading towards. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As always, not responding to specific points. Your attitude and motive is now more transparent to other editors. And no it isn't. Since the Composition and Style major revision, the context/focus of a consensus has changed. Myxomatosis57 has noted he's taken it into account. Alternative rock is cited by multiple reviewers for one, and your campaigned 'pop' phrasing, referenced from one reviewer, is not remotely representative enough to be used in the infobox, in light of the multiple specific styles/genres that are cited by other reviewers in the section. We have a selection of power pop, alternative pop, electronic rock, electronica, and others, and one reviewer you campaign for is not going to be given undue weight or over-emphasized. --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Deepblue1, Re your deleted comment, if you call upholding wiki policies against undue weight, over-emphasizing other notable already mentioned, pointing out the editor, whose fixation on this started the issue in the first place, having a history of throwing policies out the window as convenienced and countless disputes with others editors over the very same issues, willfully violating such policies here through an obsession with one reviewer's lame pop mention and a conviction to restate such reviewer's phrase in the prose... obsessing over it, then sure. Unlike others, I do bother to point out relevant behaviors to the issue that go against Wiki policy, which this blatantly does. Glad you imply you dont' and that you don't mind Dan56's editing attitudes, and apparently too don't bother to read the discussion. Did you notice the major editing on the Composition and Style section? One reviewer's vague pop mention cannot, at all, be given undue weight when there are plenty of other reviewers specifically citing genres. Do you have anything to say about Dan56 citing a band members's quote in the poll above intentionally misleading editors in the RfC, and too refusing to remove it? Or on his call here to reiterate his fixated reviewer's phrase in the content? --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated Poll: Inclusion of genres cited in Composition and Style

Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style. Poll on inclusion of genres Power pop, techno-rock (which is electronic rock), and trip-hop beside Alternative rock (which is itself cited by multiple reviewers). Edit notifying: JG66, Myxomatosis57, Deepblue1, Lewismaster.

• Support per referenced material in Garbage_(album)#Composition_and_style → Billboard's: "acting on the premise that more is more, foursome Garbage thrashes out power pop with enough skill and passion to rate among the cream of the alternative crop." ^[26] , and About.com: "the album "was steeped in alt-rock, but hits like “Only Happy It Rains” had a dance element to them that distinguished the band from many of their angst-rock peers." Grierson also further categorized the album as "dance-rock" and "techno-rock". ^[24] --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. And trip-hop - Addicted to Noise: "surprisingly non-guitar rock mix of ambient noise, shifting trip-hop beats, grinding jungle rhythms and an ocean-size chunk of buzzing noise that, somehow, gels and rises above the din thanks to catchy hooks and killer song construction."^[25], and Metro Weekly: "a heavy mix of electronic pop and guitar rock with samples, electronica and trip-hop beats thrown into the mix."^[26] --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

They characterize the beats as "trip-hop", not the album. Dan56 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "Dance-rock" is verified by footnote 24, "techno-rock isn't. Dan56 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify? I see both are cited by the same source (About.com/footnote 24).--Lpdte77 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who added that text to the article, but About.com's article doesn't mention "techno-rock" anywhere. Dan56 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Myxomatosis57 added the text "Grierson also further categorized the album as "dance-rock" and "techno-rock"", based on the statement "Three years later, Garbage returned with Version 2.0, a more streamlined approach to the techno/dance/alt-rock sound of their debut" in the source.--Lpdte77 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: is About.com even considered WP:Reliable source? I've been searching around, but I can't find it - but I swore I read some discussion before where a bunch of admins were talking about the site not being RS. Something along the lines of About.com copying entire articles from Wikipedia and therefore being classed as a MIRROR. I don't know whether the discussion was just a bunch of admins complaining, or if the discussion blossomed in to something more serious (a Wiki policy), but I'll search around and see if I can find it again (doubt it: this was over a year ago). Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As Myxomatosis57 pointed out before: list of suggested sources and table of critics. --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support power pop and dance rock and Do not support techno-rock per Dan56 Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lapadite77:, could you explain how "techno/dance/alt-rock sound of their debut" is without a doubt "techno-rock"? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It clearly denotes techno rock, dance rock, and alternative rock. It is a short hand way of writing it, without needing to state rock after each of them. Many reviewers do this (normally with slashes, dashes, commas) when noting multiple genres. I don't understand why this is something disputed, it is an obvious practice and direct in what it conveys. What did you think they meant when separating genres with slashes or dashes? Or did I misinterpret your question? --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support power pop, and do not support dance rock and techno rock: Techno-rock isn't even really a thing (according to Wikipedia - the page just redirects to Electronic rock). The 1990's section of the Electronic rock page in particular focuses entirely on Big beat and Industrial rock acts like Ministry, Nine Inch Nails, Coil, Foetus, Fatboy Slim, The Chemical Brothers, The Prodigy, The Crystal Method, Lunatic Calm, etc. The Wikipedia article that Techno-rock would itself re-direct to would contradict the claim: Garbage has practically no similarity to any of those acts list (aside from maybe "Vow (Torn Apart)" and some 1995-era NIN). Even so, it wouldn't be considered a notable enough genre to include in the album Infobox. And a band like Garbage would have no business being directed to Dance-rock at all. According to the article, Dance-rock was an early 80's movement including the likes of New Order, Eurythmics, Talking Heads, Blondie, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, etc. Garbage may have been influenced by the movement, but none of the sources provided establish it to be one of this album's primary genres. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Your argument appears to be mostly based on your personal opinion and interpretation of the genre articles. Techno rock (which, according to the article, is also used for electronic rock) may be disqualified due to wording, which is a completely seperate issue; however, it is a fallacy to think that every electronic/techno rock music produced in 1990s must be a part of the big beat/industrial rock, just based on what is focused in 1990s section. (Also note that music reviewers found industrial rock influences in Garbage's music, according to the main band article.) On the dance-rock issue , Tim Grierson clearly labels it as a dance-rock; I don't really get what is wrong here. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Myxomatosis57, can you state what your support is for? --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Is this a joke? All that was WP:OR. "Techno-rock isn't even really a thing (according to Wikipedia" Reviewer states it, it is a page on Wikipedia, and on the Wikipedia page it clearly states "also commonly referred to as synthrock, electrorock, techno-rock, or digital rock", which is the case for countless of other genres, like, off the top of my head, Synthpop, Baroque_pop, Electroclash, Experimental_rock, Funk metal, Nu_metal. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support for power pop, dance rock, and techno-rock as electronic rock, the more used term. I think trip hop should be in there too. It's cited by a lot of critics, especially for songs like Queer and Milk. Critics have also used downtempo to describe it. Amber5st (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, where are the sources you are getting these from @Amber5st:? You need them to back up your vote per WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with that. Electronic rock is the one more commonly used, the one most recognizable, so it should be written as such, especially given how much electronic/electornic rock is referenced by reviewers with respect to the record anyway. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support for power pop, no support for dance rock, support for electronic rock (rather than techno-rock). Why is alternative rock not included in the poll? Why isn't pop-rock? Is pop-rock synonymous with "dance rock" and/or with "power pop"?

BBC considers it pop-rock.

Rolling Stones references both pop and rock.

NME says they're alternative rock.

PopMatters describes it as pop and alternative rock.

MusicOHM describes it as pop.

The Guardian makes a lot of references to pop.

Stylus characterises it as pop-rock.

Willhesucceed (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support power pop, alternative rock and dance-rock per sources. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support power pop, alternative rock and dance-rock, per Myxomatosis57. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lost master tapes / 20th anniversary edition sticker

When the Absolute Garbage compilation has been poduced, nobody could find the original master tapes. A permanent loss of the original master tapes should become a major chapter of the Garbage (album) page. The 20th anniversary re-issue however, released 2015, wears a sticker saying "remastered from the original analog tapes". Have those been found again between The Absolute Collection (released 2012 in Australia, Only Happy When It Rains still only 3:47 from damage) and remastered Australian collection/20th Anniversary self-titled (both released 2015, OHWIR is 3:57 again on both)?

Version 2.0 material is different on Absolute Garbage as well (sounds of Push It are missing), but the Version 2.0 master tapes were never reported as lost. Why is Push It incomplete then?

It's totally confusing that they did a lot of work with collecting a new master tape from damaged 16Bit DATs and alternate recordings, which is incorret anyway from the damages on the DATs and the incorrect alternate material. When, being in a 16Bit situation anyway, simply extracting a copy of the self-titled cd to a digital image would have been the 100% correct and complete source for a new 16Bit master tape. A possible answer could be, that the DATs possibly were multi-tracks. But why was it more important to enhance the sound of repaired and therefore incorrect individual tracks than to have the correct songs? All Garbage albums as originally released will sound state of the art even in decades from now.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garbage (album). 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/20160305091948/http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50albums-1996.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50albums-1996.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: RfCs

God damn, what a fucking waste those RfCs were, about an album I still haven't bothered listening to... Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of 20th Anniversary tracklistings

Who was the idiot who removed the tracklistings for the various editions of Garbage's first two albums? 174.215.216.255 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

20th Anniversary Edition songs

The 9th song in the CD2 of the 20th Anniversary Edition: I think that's a Vic Chesnutt song, called "Kick My Ass" not "Kiss My Ass" And the track list of the "Super Deluxe" Editions with lots more mixes and demo versions are missing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnLrwmO6cM4