This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music 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.IndustrialWikipedia:WikiProject IndustrialTemplate:WikiProject IndustrialIndustrial music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
An editor recently added Template:undue-section, so I'll start a discussion here. I don't see a problem with the level of detail given for the Godflesh release. It's all sourced (a little oversourced at one statement), and it's unlikely the amount of information given is going to be much more than this. What the real issue seems to be is that the Slaughter section is lacking in information, which is not an issue of WP:UNDUE. I'm going to suggest removing the Undue tag (again, I don't think it's applicable here), and instead add Template:Missing information with a short description saying that there needs to be more info on the original Slaughter version to the top of the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. While I was starting the article, I've found very little information regarding the original song. I also don't believe that undue weight tag doesn't apply here and totally support your solution. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made that change. But I am open to discussion if anyone else has issues with the current version of the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. I agree that the extent of missing information is a reason why the Godflesh content appears undue within the context of the full article. I'm considering significantly trimming the quote in the 'Background' section because its length indicates it may be not be in accordance with WP:NFCCP. Any thoughts? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do you think the quote violates WP:NFCCP? It appears to meet all 10 criteria, as well as non-numbered criteria in the discussion above ("Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method."), as far as I can tell. What would you trim from it? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
