Talk:Europe '72: The Complete Recordings

Europe '72 "Swinging" Singles

It looks like Rhino is releasing each of the 22 Europe '72 shows individually for between $24.99 and $29.99 as Dead.net exclusives. The first six are currently available (4/7/72, 4/8/72, 4/11/72, 4/14/72, 4/16/72, 4/17/72). What do you think is the best way to publish this info on Wikipedia? Should they be listed at all (they are Dead.net exclusives, but so were the Road Trips Bonus Disc's, and they were at least addressed in their respective Road Trips articles, though not in the Grateful Dead discography article)? If they should be listed, should they be included in the Grateful Dead discography article as individual entries or merely noted under the Europe '72: The Complete Recordings entry that the shows were also released individually (I favor this latter solution)? Also, should each release/show be given a separate article or merely be listed under the article for Europe '72: The Complete Recordings? My own thoughts are that (1) this would be a good opportunity to address the cumbersome task of tackling the Europe '72: The Complete Recordings article, (2) placing all of the info into a single article would make it unwieldy, (3) creating a separate article for each show would make the project more manageable and readable and also permit the individual cover artwork to be displayed, and (4) each show could be listed on a single line in the main Europe '72: The Complete Recordings article (which is the current case), with a link to its respective individual release article. I don't believe there is a single right answer here, but it's probably a good idea to discuss the pros and cons of the various possibilities before embarking on such a big project. Thanks. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 22:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question -- or series of questions. If it's agreed that there should be individual articles for each of the 22 single concert releases, then it would certainly make sense to have links to them from the concert list in the Europe '72: The Complete Recordings article, and to leave the track listings out of the Complete Recordings article. I'm inclined to think that in that case, it would probably also make sense to have links to the 22 articles from the Grateful Dead discography article also, unless there's a compelling reason to leave them out. So I guess the main question is, should there be 22 articles, one for each concert release? My initial reaction is, maybe! These are Grateful Dead albums, after all, even if they're being released on a somewhat mass scale, and I definitely agree that the fact that they're dead.net exclusives doesn't matter. So those are points in favor of individual articles. Do you think the individual concert releases meet the notability criteria at WP:NALBUM and WP:NOTE? I do, but mine is not the only opinion that counts. Also, if the individual articles are not created, the same material could be incorporated into the Complete Recordings article. That would make the article really long, that's for sure, but that's not necessarily a problem. So not having individual articles is also a viable option, in my view. In conclusion, so far I'm somewhat in favor of having individual articles. Let me know what you think, and, as always, other interested editors are strongly encouraged to join the discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you. I do think that the notability criteria are appropriately met. I also agree that these releases should be given their own individual articles. After all, they are being released individually, and at somewhat staggered times, it seems. Citing previous series such asDick's Picks, Download Series, and Road Trips as precedents (although these products were released over much longer periods of time), it seems more logical and proper to create individual articles for the Europe '72 individual releases, as well. I couldn't imagine, for example, having all of Dick's Picks in one long article. I also wonder if these releases will be individually reviewed (e.g., AllMusic). Having infoboxes and reviews for each album also begs for individual articles (although, admittedly, they could be placed in one long article). I, too, would be interested in feedback from others on this topic. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to start creating the 22 individual articles, I think the dead.net names of the albums should be taken as definitive, and therefore used as the names of the articles. So the first six article names would be:

• Europe '72: Wembley Empire Pool, London, England (4/7/1972)
• Europe '72: Wembley Empire Pool, London, England (4/8/1972)
• Europe '72: City Hall, Newcastle, England (4/11/1972)
• Europe '72: Tivoli Concert Hall, Copenhagen, Denmark (4/14/1972)
• Europe '72: Stakladen, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark (4/16/1972)
• Europe '72: Tivoli Concert Hall, Copenhagen, Denmark (4/17/1972)

Just sayin'. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm having second thoughts, and wondering if life would be simpler if there were no individual articles, just one big one at Europe '72: The Complete Recordings. To try this out, I've added the track listings for the first three concerts / albums to the main article. Let's see what people think. Also, I'm moving this discussion, from Talk:Grateful Dead discography to Talk:Europe '72: The Complete Recordings. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I haven't had much time to work on things this weekend, but I did manage to get some of the track info and liner notes for The Complete Collection. I also spoke with Rhino about the official release dates for the individual shows. I was informed that the first six were officially released on 10/3/2011, and that subsequent shows will be released approximately monthly in batches of 5, 6, or 7 at a time. I imagine, then, that it will take 3-4 months for all individual shows to be released. I think it would be desirable to include such data as release date, production info (which I think will be fairly constant for all shows), band info (some shows credit Garcia on pedal steel guitar on "Looks Like Rain"), and liner note authorship. It might also be informative to include some historical info specific to each individual show. Do you think a unified article format will be as conducive as individual article format to the inclusion of this additional info (assuming you agree that such info should be included)? — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that such info should be included. I'm still really open minded about whether or not there should be individual articles for each album. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mudwater: Since most of the releases in the series do not yet have their own articles, I’d be happy to make them - I just want to make sure they’re still considered notable enough for their own articles before I do so. Just to avoid a situation in which I went through the trouble of making 20 or so articles for nothing! Thanks Elephantranges (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elephantranges: Hello! My current thinking is that, by a strict reading of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC#Albums, the 22 individual concert albums are not sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia articles. As you know, a couple of them already do have their own articles, but I would not recommend creating any more at this point. (Definitely notable, however, is Lyceum Theatre, London, England 5/26/72, which -- as discussed elsewhere -- got its own new album last year.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fine with me. Should the 4/7 and Beat Club articles remain up? Seems weird to have articles for a couple of the shows but not most of them. (5/26 being an exception, obviously) Elephantranges (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elephantranges: Yes, it is a bit weird to have articles for those two albums and not the others. That said, my initial thought is that it might be best to leave things the way they are now. I'd be open to further discussion, though. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Individual album covers

Recently the individual album covers were removed from the article, with the edit summary "rm non-free album covers used in discography, per WP:NFC". WP:NFC is the Wikipedia content guideline for the use of non-free images and other non-free content. It does in fact say that album covers should not be used in discographies. But, this article is not a discography. It's an article about a box set, the contents of which are also being released as 22 individual albums. This then raises the question, what's the difference between a discography and an article about a bunch of albums? A discography lists all the albums of an artist, in summary form. It does not include track listings or other detailed information. An example is the Grateful Dead discography article. This article by contrast is about a bunch of albums -- the box set itself and also the individual albums. Since album covers uniquely identify albums, and are allowed by the free content guideline in articles about the albums, the album covers are allowed in this article, and should be restored. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• This has been debated many, many times before. The result has always been removal of the album covers. There's also been plenty of debates about trying to decide whether something is a discography or not. That really misses the point. The point is to reduce non-free image use to as little as possible while still ensuring we remain encyclopedic. Placing 12 album covers on this article is not necessary to that purpose. For similar debates, see this debate, which was about the following articles; Down to Earth and High Cumberland Jubilee compilations, Jimmy Buffett sound board live albums, Jimmy Buffett greatest hits compilations, and Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night. You will note the absence of any album covers on those articles. This is one of many debates like this, spanning years, and as I said they always end with removal of the images. If you believe this article is somehow unique that it is different than all those other debates, you can make a case for that at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the article is about a box set which also happens to consist of 22 albums, each of which has been or will soon be individually released. The article neither contains a discography nor lists artist album compilations; rather, it discusses the box set both collectively as well as individually with respect to its component albums. The individual albums are included within this article, rather than in independent stand-alone articles, for enhanced readability. While the content currently primarily reflects only the track listings of these albums, it is important to note that this is a relatively new article, and is a work in progress. It is likely that additional information regarding each album will be added as the article develops. The artwork for each album is significant, since it not only uniquely identifies the individual albums, but is historically important, having been created by artist Stanley Mouse, well known for his Grateful Dead album cover art, including the original Europe '72 work. I therefore feel that there is no violation to the WP:NFC guideline, and believe that such artwork is important with respect to the article and the discussion of the individual albums therein. I am, accordingly, in favor of restoring this artwork. If it continues to be objectionable, the alternative would be to create an individual article for each of the 22 albums, each with its own infobox containing the respective album cover artwork. I believe that either one of these alternatives should be acceptable. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you believe you can create an article with enough secondary sources to sustain independent notability, then fine, an album cover can go on that article. Not here. If you insist the artwork should be retained here, I strongly suggest you start a thread at WT:NFC. As is, this article can not sustain the artwork. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)