Talk:Child Is Father to the Man

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Untitled[edit]

My copy of this is simply titled "The First Album", with no mention anywhere of "Child is Father" Drutt 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture section[edit]

Over the past several days, one or more anonymous editors have added a new "In popular culture" section to this article, which mentions an indie band whose latest album cover is an "homage" to this album's cover. I felt the addition to be thinly veiled linkspam, and reverted it. The following is the resulting discussion, which I have moved here in order to bring it before a wider audience of interested editors. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit stuff out if it is fact. I removed the redlinks from the previous poster's entries, but he backs it up with an external link. Use common sense. What was entered is fact and relevant to the cover art. At least make an effort to do more than delete. Your job isn't to be a Wiki-nazi. Get over yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.184.151 (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my editing. I would ask that you please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

The section you added is about a band with no Wikipedia page of its own. If this band is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, write the article about them first.
The link you included is to the band's own site. Not only is this not a reliable source, it amounts to linkspam.
Calling me a "Wiki-nazi" is not only a personal attack, it also weakens your argument on account of Godwin's law.
When posting comments on a talk page, it is considered good form to sign your post using four tildes.

Cheers, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the original was not promoting the band or writing about the band, only their art work as it applies to the artwork of what is considered a pretty notable cover for album artwork. In no way was he promoting the band.

Second, if you are going to use Godwin's law as defense, don't have many posters on your talk page citing several events where you basically delete things without them being well founded. Nevertheless, Godwin's Law would apply if we were having a debate. There is not debate here. You are simply bent on deleting good resources, so here I will use another word: Wiki-troll. That suits you better, because you troll other entries looking to delete. That's not a personal attack. You deleting good information and resources is. A personal attack would be saying that you have to cite Godwin's law because you are defensive douche bag with the intellect of an ant, but I never said that. I cited your actions, not your person.

Third, removing the broken links counters your argument of the band being important and the external link shows verifiable evidence of stated facts. This isn't uncommon and there is no rule stating that facts must be backed up by a wikipedia entry.

Fourth, the additions supplies information to any viewer who might be interested in cover art and its influences on pop-culture. To delete this is counter-intuitive to the very purpose of wikipedia, which is information. I have no personal alignment to the band mentioned and have no knowledge if the user you initially deleted does either. For graphic designers, artists, and even publishers this information is very informative and due to the fame of the original album should be mentioned. I often read pages on BS&T because of my fandom and noticed the link missing after your vandalism. The homage interested me and in time would interest others. To be following a page and then to see something vital deleted is enough for me to comment on your page because after seeing what others have said, you have issues with the conveyance of knowledge when it doesn't come from you.

Get over yourself and allow Wikipedia to be what it is intended to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.184.151 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, your accusations on the Child is Father to Man page seem to be bordering on delusional. This is a pretty popular group you keep saying is not just because you have never heard of them IP 69.143.184.151 doesn't have a responsibility of forming the article of the band because he is mentioning the homage only. There are plenty of popular subjects and stories that are either red-linked or have no links on Wikipedia at all. Right now, it looks like you just have a personal vendetta and seem to recognize anything outside of Wikipedia to be inferior. In no way is it link spam or vandalism and if you continue saying such, I will see what I can do to get the article locked from you if you continue to be proven wrong by three different contributors. As said above, it does look like you have issues, especially with your mention on 69.143.184.151 's talk page. Have a good day and to quote the previous poster, get over yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.151 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place for this edit, if anywhere, would be on the article about that album, not Child is Father to the Man; to add it to the latter does not improve the reader's understanding of the BS&T album — it only serves to raise the visibility of a less-well-known indie band. If it's such a popular group as you claim, why has no one bothered to write a Wikipedia article about them? In short, why not write the article first? In addition, the only "citation" provided has been a link to the band's own site. This is not a reliable source, it is linkspam. If you must, go ahead and take this to an administrator; I'll abide by the decision of a disinterested third party. Cheers. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Reception Section Is it possible to find articles to reference for the album at the actual time of it being released? While the Allmusic Guide can be useful, however the guide did not exist until 1991. This album is from 1968. This makes the article naturally biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]