Template talk:Robert Crumb

Amendments

Moved from User talk:Woodensuperman § Template:Robert Crumb

Hi, you basically gutted this template, and from what I can tell, the older version should be restored. You're taking a very hardline, black or white, no ifs, ands, or buts approach to editing, and frankly that isn't conducive to building the encyclopedia. The rules are meant to be applied with good reason, not to the detriment of content itself. I'm afraid I'll have to ping User:Randy Kryn on this one to get his input. Feel free to move this entire discussion to the template talk page if you like. This discussion concerns your edits here. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks or the ping. Yes, I've reverted most of the good faith changes as each one is arguable as to its merits and relationship to a good navbox covering Wikipedia's collection about a subject. The one I agreed to was to remove 'collaborators' which, when relating to an artist, writer and humorist added on too many tangential topics to this navbox. I did link 'Crumb family' as the section title of 'Family' but in the case of an biographical navbox each of the close family members are appropriately included and the stand-alone navbox for the family is not needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What surprised me the most was to see that woodensuperman had removed links to some of Crumb's most notable album covers, which are widely discussed in the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woodensuperman can be called a minimalist navbox editor, at least in some aspects (I don't know if he agrees with this). In this instance the removals are arguably not justified, when compared with the long-time regular additions and styling of specific navbox topics or sections. The genre section could be discussed, it all depends on if the Crumb navbox would be acceptable on that page (i.e. Underground comics seems to be applicable, as Crumb is a major pioneer in the field). On the topic you mention, yes, Crumb's album covers are among his most well-known works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are about the albums, not the album covers. As far as the family members go, {{Crumb family}} has it's own navbox so this is substantial duplication, we do not need both. --wooden superman 09:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, always good to drop by. I can feel the "navbox respect" from you and your work, not as common as it should be. Yes, the small family navbox isn't needed. As for the albums, much of their early and later "fame" comes from the use of Crumb's covers, especially Cheap Thrills, which are as much a part of the article as the albums themselves. The Cheap Thrills cover was so unique it should have its own niche in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the album not the artwork. For the artwork to be included in the navbox, it should have its own article. Crumb did not create the album, merely the cover. --wooden superman 15:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what a cover! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that at all. Why would the artwork have a separate article from the album? That's not how any of this works. We discuss the artwork in the article about the album. That's how it is done. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An artwork such as the Cheap Thrills cover could have its own article, especially if the original was exhibited in a museum. But yes, albums are the complete package (or at least used to be), the record and the cover art as conjoined creative works. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't how this is done. We do not have navboxes for album art creators as the articles are about the album. We do not have navboxes for the cover art of Peter Saville, Roger Dean or Storm Thorgerson (to think of a couple of very prominent album artists), and nor should we. Look at The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead, there's hardly in-depth coverage of the album art, just a single sentence. It is WP:UNDUE to include this in a navbox. --wooden superman 09:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather have a stub article about the Cheap Thrills artwork? The way this is set up now seems fine, covering both the notable album and notable artwork on the same page. Robert Crumb's work on Cheap Thrills is certainly notable, and adding it to his navbox is just common sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More integral to the production of the album is John Simon, but we don't have navboxes for record producers either. --wooden superman 12:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the mix-up is that you are viewing the album cover as production when it is actually a prominent artwork (covered by the Visual arts Wikiproject). Would be interesting to find out where it is now. Here's an article about the artwork, and there are more. The album reproduces the artwork but its Wikipedia page covers it as the artwork that it is. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]