Talk:List of psychedelic rock artists

Organization

I see artists from the 1970s too... and as far as I'm concerned, Ash Ra Tempel are not neo-psychedelia. I think the first list shouldn't be including only 60s, but early to mid 70s bands. --186.87.18.30 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Which bands/artists are you mentioning about? They sure can be replaced. A new section in between '60s and neo-psychedelia can be created or, early '70s title can be merged with neo-psychedelia which I'd find more organized. About Ash Ra Temple, they were a krautrock / space rock band which both genres include psychedelic style. Ash Ra Temple's many albums have include psychedelic characteristics. You wouldn't consider them neo-psychedelia, because they were formed in '70? ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, going by Wikipedia's art-- oops, I mean, section on neo-psychedelia, Ash Ra Tempel wouldn't fit into such category because Neo-Psychedelic acts are the ones that appeared after punk explosion/the birth of post-punk (making the earliest bands fitting into that category people like, well, Teardrop Explodes or Echo and the Bunnymen, which didn't appear up until 1978, and well, have also strong bonds with post-punk) and I also think that even if some krautrock bands appearing on the list (except for Ash Ra Tempel) formed during the late 60s, they only found critical (and some moderate commercial success) during the early 70s (first examples of that being Can, releasing Tago Mago, Ege Bamyasi and Future Days during that era; and Amon Duul II that released Yeti in 1970). I don't know, I personally wouldn't find it appropiate to put early 70s psychedelic artists along with the ones of the end of such decade... I just think that the first section should be renamed to "60s/early 70s psychedelic bands" so it would, idk, fit more with krautrock artists? Including Ash Ra Tempel themselves, that have more to do with that late 60s/early 70s psychedelic sound than with the more post-punk/"alternative" influenced neo-psychedelia --186.87.18.30 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see your point. But when the title is settled as '60s bands it wouldn't mean that the bands were exactly active in '60s. There are some bands that were formed in late '60s but disbanded in early or mid '70s, for instance, The Electric Prunes, The Idle Race, etc. The title would state that those bands were formed some time in '60s. The only idea behind not to add Ash Ra Temple was because the band was formed in '70. But if we must consider the band was disbanded kinda before the neo-psychedelia era, it couldn't be just moved up to '60's section without changing any title maybe? I'd like to hear what others think of the situation, too, though. ~ Elitropia (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Idle suggestion, split 3 ways - something along the lines 1) Classic psychedelia 1960s 2) Post psychedelia Early 70s 3) Neo-psychodelia late 70s - present Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wwwhatsup! Thank you for giving your opinion. And, it sounds nice actually. Though, I have to go all through the bands to see which of them would fit in the 'post psychedelia' section. I don't think there are many. I'll see what I can do later, in few days. ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There were really not so many bands fitting the post-psychedelia. Instead of creating the section I simply renamed the first section and moved Ash Ra Temple up there. If you still have doubts, please don't hesitate to discuss. Cheers! ~ Elitropia (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bands with no Wikipedia Article

Good morning, when the list was created, there were bands listed that had no Wikipedia article but by time the amount of the red links increased. Then I cleaned up the list as per WP:REDDEAL. A red link for the band doesn't mean that the band is non-notable though, it could be only that the band has no article created. On the other hand it can be that the band is really not notable enough to have its own article. For that reason it's for now best that we don't add the bands that have no article to the list to keep the list clear. I'd like to hear what others think on this topic. ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I would be prepared to hear suggestions for other bands for which reliable sources can be supplied, but lets not go back to the large number of unsourced redlinks. This is a pretty solid list now, lets keep it that way.--SabreBD (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, SabreBD. When I created the list first my intention was to keep the bands that have no Wikipedia article, supporting them with a reliable source, but this somehow encouraged the editors to add any band with or without a source.. Keeping track then became difficult. As I mentioned earlier, the band could have no article yet or be non notable to have its own. I would like to add a lot more bands that are obscure in here but as I said, I want to keep it clean from the red wikilinks. (black = no wikilink, and red and blue clear) I used to keep them as black as we have one now in the list but then editors started to add red without references, once you have the black in the list even with reference then you get no right to delete the red but go find a reference for it. Either we delete them all, red and black, or we let the red links increase.. The dealing with existing red links article makes it clear though, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article [...]" I don't think any of those red linked bands added here would have a Wikipedia article. ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a fair point. There is no reason to have redlink bands that could not plausibly have an article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, I consider black and red as the same, because the black we have turns out to be red when we add the wikilink. I go for keeping the list without blacks and reds for now. If there are any other opinions regarding this, please let us know. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear then, unless there are arguements to the contrary that is consensus on this article for the time being: no black or redlinks (and sources needed for others).--SabreBD (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's the only way to keep the list clean. I thought you were already in agreement with me. So I went to clean the list : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was. This was just for the record.--SabreBD (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add to the list.

I am a listener of the current Neo-Psychedelic movement that has been active for the last decade. I have been searching for a site that has an interest in cataloging these bands. I can supply homepages to these bands, as they do not appear to have a wikki page. I guess what I am asking is if I can help to contribute to this page.

Thank you,

Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyshone (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Randy, thanks for posting here rather than jumping in to the main page. Unfortunately to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies and to maintain the quality of this list, bands need a reliable source. A band's own homepage is insufficient I am afraid and what are needed are independent reliable sources, like a reputable review for a site like Allmusic or a mainstream music magazine, that describes then as neo-psychedelic.--SabreBD (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cite check

OK, so I've clicked on many of the sources and none of them so far ever use the words "psychedelic" or "psychedelia". Another bogus list.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Do mean bogus as in - its poorly executed/poorly cited; bands are on here that don't belong; or that it shouldn't exist at all? Herbxue (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean there are many "list of [x] artists" articles like this where the sources never corroborate the listing. I don't know whether most of these artists really are "psychedelic rock", but I know that a good number of the sources certainly don't call them that.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, if this article is going to list neo-psychedelia artists, then it should be renamed to "List of psychedelic musicians". There is nothing that suggests "neo-psychedelia" equates to "psychedelic rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Invalid sources

• Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums/Sources:

Do not indicate [AllMusic's] "Album Pick" designation, do not use genre sidebar ... Websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. This may include other general wiki-style sites such as Wikia, and album-related sites such as Discogs, Rate Your Music or Last.fm.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add more reference that you think necessary. But deleting the content which are clearly psychedelic rock artists is not helpful editing. Thanks and cheers. Elitropia (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"Clearly psychedelic rock artists"? According to which reliable sources? (WP:VERIFY)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You deleted 13th floor elevators from the list which clearly shows that you do not have enough knowledge about the topic. Please stop deleting the content. If you think there are bands here which needs better sources, list them to us and I am sure we would find the time to add references to them. Please stop acting on your own in a list page where it was created by many editors and stop deleting the content. Thanks and cheers. Elitropia (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I know 13th Floor Elevators are psychedelic rock, but as WP:TRUTH will tell you:

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.

WP:VERIFY puts it more succinctly:

... content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point and have no objections if you wanted more references for a band which even has its own wikipedia page with references. Then you can make a list and add references to those bands or ask help from others and work on the article. And many of them bands has also their own allmusic page which clearly tells these bands are psychedelic rock bands, it is not just the side bar. We can improve the list altogether. Please do not delete the content. Thanks and cheers. Elitropia (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)