Talk:The Flenser

Untitled

From what I've seen there isn't one specific website that has the record label ID (FRXXX). I've gotten as far as I can with RateYourMusic listings, but I'm afraid it isn't a super reliable source. If anyone can manage to find a site that has all the according data in a convenient form, let me know or feel free to update the discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DontAskMeAboutThis (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve updated the discography to include the catalog numbers, using the label’s official listing here: https://nowflensing.com/pages/the-flenser-catalog-historical ––Burdflybird (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Discography Scope and Structure

I removed the complete discography listing from the main article because it contained over 150 entries. Per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a comprehensive catalog of a label’s releases, especially when a number of the entries lack individual notability.

The article previously included a curated “Notable Releases” section that focused on albums with extensive third-party coverage or critical recognition, which I suggest reinstating. Given the size of the catalog and the amount of available reference material, we could also consider creating a separate page—such as Discography of The Flenser or Flenser Artists—to house the full release or artist list with proper citations. This would likely reduce some of the ongoing debate about relevance of output and keep the article's scope focused.

––Burdflybird (talk) Burdflybird (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with including a comprehensive catalog of something if they are of encyclopedic interest; NOTDIR does not prevent that, and we have many articles with (attempts at) comprehensive listings of discographies. Notability is not the sole criterion for inclusion in a list; WP:CSC gives several criteria that could be used. I removed the "notable releases" construction for several reasons - "notable" is a Wikipedia-internal term of art and such terms are discouraged per WP:ASR, because they are used here in special ways that are not obvious to the casual reader. Furthermore, notability was not the criterion for inclusion in the "notable releases" section; there didn't seem to be criteria, and the section was rife with promotional-seeming prose (for instance, it was nearly obsessed with Pitchfork Media's "Best New Music"). Finally, the comment about having "little evidence" for the book operation is patently absurd - that section is sourced and the books are still on the label's own website. Is this a joke? Chubbles (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I would be in favor of condensing the discography section for readability's sake, but agree with Chubbles' overall comment. Delukiel (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)