Talk:Boy (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why are you so bent on having two review scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year?[edit]

Why not, @Y2kcrazyjoker4:? Because the maximum capacity for this ratings template is 10 scores; awkwardly cluttering one row in this box with two scores still makes it two scores, for a total of 11. And because it is blatant favoritism to one particular publication, of no benefit to the reader. Pick a score, the three-and-a-half or four stars, but we do not need both to bludgeon readers with the fact that Rolling Stone liked the album in 1981, at the expense of eliminating a more useful representative in the ratings template. Which is what we'd have to do if you continue to pursue this special treatment for another damn row of gold stars attributed to Rolling Stone. Dan56 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You know that you're addressing more than one editor. I initially restored the one you removed yesterday and gave you a reason: it's one of the most respected music publications. It's quite common to include two reviews from the same source. There is no favouritism, blatant or otherwise. We do not need several of the other reviews though. I appreciate the addition of the Spin book's review, but if there are two reviews from Spin, we would likely include them both as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is quite common to exceed the 10 score limit outlined by the template guideline, then it is quite clear some editors are doing something wrong. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not quite common to exceed ten reviews, it is common to have more than one review represented in a single slot.
Yes, you are doing something wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that in this unique instance, two review scores crammed together into one slot is actually one review score and it does not total 11 in the box?
You're right. I am doing something wrong: using reason with you. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It’s not unique. Using two reviews for a single publication is used on occasion. It's not one score, it’s two. I don’t care how many reviews are present as long as they fit into the infobox and they are professional, reliable sources. When we have 10 reviews and add Metacritic, we have 11. If AllMusic has reviews for an original release, a special edition and an anniversary release, each by a different reviewer and each with a different score, it makes perfect sense to supply them. If a publication had five, I might think that’s too many, but if local consensus is that each one is needed, I see no reason to override that . If Robert Christgau were to review an album and then revisit the review and change it, it makes sense to list both. The template holds only ten reviews, but as a table, the cell can hold many more and there is no prohibition against that, so if we feel that the information should be conveyed, there is no artificial rule stating they cannot or should be excluded.
And you're not using reason, you're using bad math. I will refrain from any further personal commentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Metacritic is not a review score. Dan56 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template quite clearly says "include no more than ten reviews" Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You're linking to style advice. It's not even a guideline. The template cannot contain more than ten parameters. There are reviews and review scores, and we're discussing the review scores, and the advice does not stipulate how many review scores are permitted per review site. Multiple review scores are perfectly legitimate, unlike changing the talk page comments or !votes of other editors. And your RfC question was far from neutral which is why I changed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Awfully defensive there. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Engaging in personal attacks (and linking to essays) does not help your cause and I am convinced of the case for including 2 scores.WBGconverse 18:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Should two scores from Rolling Stone, from the same year, be included in the ratings box? A recent addition included a second score, bringing the total scores in the box past the limit of 10, and the total Rolling Stone reviews to two represented in the box. Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

!Votes[edit]

  • No - MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template: "Include no more than ten reviews in table form ... keep a neutral point of view". Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely It's been explained why above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - It’s one of the most prominent music sources in existence. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's not meant to burden the reception section with Rolling Stone reviews, but because two different reviews with two different ratings were published, it seems like it's best to present them both instead of choosing between one or the other. Most publications will only offer one "canonical" review/rating of an album, but as mentioned, this appears to be a case where that it is not true. Dave Marsh is a very notable critic, so his review is certainly notable. And on the other hand, the review that is still available on Rolling Stone's site is the Cohen review. If the issue at hand is the exceeding of 10 reviews, I think we can remove one of the retrospective ratings. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 03:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • While we're at it, let's make a special little ratings box just for Rolling Stone, to show readers just how important the magazine is to this article's topic... Dan56 (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Dude, we get it. You don't like Rolling Stone. Time to move on... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 11:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I like Rolling Stone plenty, dude. I do not have to compromise a Wikipedia article like a fanatic just to prove it. The readers will not know that the review is by Marsh from a glance at the ratings box, so I fail to see what good this does: all you are doing is showing two scores without context. Is Debra Rae Cohen a very notable critic? If not, then take hers out. Dan56 (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No We should not give more weight to a particular reviewer. Rzvas (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes there's still only 10 publications in the box, exceptions can be made for cases like these --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There are actually 11 publications, since the source used to verify the score is not Rolling Stone, and even if it were it would be a different issue of the magazine, which is another publication. And the limit defined by the guidelines specifies 10 scores, not 10 publications. An exception to what end? Dan56 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You're not good at counting. Ten publications. One publication has two alternate review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
        • You're not good at English; a publication is a piece of published material; an edition or issue of a magazine is a publication. This is what you choose to respond to? Gzus. So petty, Walter. Dan56 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
          • It's got multiple meanings [1] [2][3][4]. A review, by itself, is not the whole magazine, so it's clear that the writer meant a publishing house. You stated you were going to drop it, so by continuing here, I may be petty but not a liar, like you. Going forward, nothing you say can be trusted. And I would say, pedantic, rather than petty. But I suspect you use that word since people frequently use it in conversation with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Pffftt. What exactly have I lied about? Dan56 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
              • Hmmmm... maybe I won't drop it, just to match your pettiness.😏 Dan56 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

The ratings template was not made to pay tribute to the popularity of any one source, @Sergecross73: Dan56 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Fuck it. If you all want to make this article a touch bit tacky while pretending to ignorance of clear-cut guidelines, go for it. It is merely a U2 article, after all. Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should this addition of a "Legacy" section have been reverted?[edit]

Walter Görlitz reverted in its entirety my addition of a "Legacy" section discussing retrospective appraisals of the album, along with "Retrospective review" scores in template form; my revisions also added a few scores to the section discussing "Contemporary reception" of the album. No reasoning was given in Walter's edit summary; he instead chose to immediately open an ANI complaint against me. This, along with his past bad-faith accusations towards me, impairs my faith in his ability to discuss this with me civilly. So I am opening a request for comment, for other editors to help decide this. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • No Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It should never have been added. I have not seen such a section before and it's nit recommended at the style guide for albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Why did you go directly into an RfC instead of holding a regular discussion on this talk page? This seems like a pretty aggressive thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Because, you came straight here and edited the article again after the last time you were told wasn't a problem, just to make the point that there were two Rolling Stone reviews. You wanted to make it clear to everyone and the rest was just whipped cream on the bullshit you've been spouting for a month. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Walter Görlitz:, I assume your response was addressed to Dan56 and not to me, Beyond My Ken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Walter Görlitz:, Dan56 made a bold edit and you reverted that. It is past now. Please move forward and explain why you think Dan's edit was inappropriate and what, (if any) is your preferred version of the content that Dan added. --DBigXray 17:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @DBigXray: already commented here. It's hard to assume good faith when other editors ping on talk pages of articles that have been on your watchlist for years and they don't read what you've already written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Walter Görlitz, AGF is not optional, Unless there is strong evidence of blockable offence or a policy violation that should be reported, editors are expected to join the discussion instead of attacking each other.  this is not referring to the content but more of an attack, this again is offtopic comment on RfC. Only this is a short one liner comment addressing the concerns. Please remember every time you write a comment on the talk page, the audience is not just the target of the comment but every editor who in future reads that discussion. Personally I would have appreciated if you elaborated your response and made a strong enough argument. This discussion will probably be referred to, in a future RFC, if both of you are not able to reach an amicable solution to this dispute. So please comment keeping that in mind. --DBigXray 22:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to learn to read. I'll let you read what I wrote again. The first is not an attack, it's a clear statement to explain why I went straight to ANI. That the editor upset me and I used poor language to explain what I think of the editor's additions is also not a personal attack. That I believe this is not a valid RfC is not off topic. Feel free to explain why. Please remember that every time you make an ignorant comment, I die a little inside because I have to respond to you. In short, you're nto helping at all. In short, as a member of the albums project, I have not seen an album article's response broken into two sections. I may not work on a lot of "classic" albums, but I'd be happy to see a few. A quick search shows that this does exist on The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road, but not Let It Be, while something similar is at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I suppose I shouldn't have started with the albums at List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums, because there's nothing like this section at The Wall, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Invalid RfC. This RfC is not neutral, which is one of the requirements of WP:RFC. It is an attack on another editor's edit. A neutral RfC would merely state or link to the text of a proposed Legacy section and ask whether it should be included or not. Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a consensus above that this RfC is premature and (hence an abuse of the RfC process). There is no talk page discussion that reached an impasse for the RfC participants to refer to. Accordingly I have commented out the RfC tag. Please continue using this thread for a WP:CIVIL discussion to improve the page. --DBigXray 17:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]

This sentence Lillywhite employed other unorthodox production techniques, is problematic. The "Unorthodox" adjective is wp:peacock. So I have asked the user Y2kcrazyjoker4 who included the "Unorthodox" adjective in the article to provide the entire quote, on which they based their work to include this sentence. [5]. I ask it once again, if not, there will be a rfc.Iennes (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it is not a PEACOCK term in any way, but it seems it's been removed. What could be done is that claim could expanded, which is what I thought was done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Whatever, "unorthodox" is wp:original research. Iennes (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Dismissive much? No, it's painfully obvious when orthodox recording techniques are used and when they are not. If you don't like the term, that's one thing, to fabricate excuses to claim its either PEACOCK or OR are simply wikilawyering. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Unconventional recording techniques[edit]

Y2kcrazyjoker4, here are the quotes of the Joblings' book - page 65.

"Lillywhite encourages the creative input of others"
"According to Kevin Moloney, there was a DIY approach to making the record with some of the more unconventional recording techniques involving hitting a kitchen fork off a spinning bicycle wheel."
You did wp:original research, because a) the creative adjective was used for the musicians, not for Lillywhite's work. b) Unconventional is not experimental: experimental applies for psychedelic bands who recorded loops, cut the tapes, rewind the tapes when recording, made off the wall studio effects... This is not the case at all for this rock album. Lillywhite decided to record the drums elsewhere in the building because the sound was not enough interesting in the studio to his view. Iennes (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
You conveniently left out the full quote: "Both were experimental at heart, but whereas the eccentric Mancunian was more of a dictatorial leader, Lillywhite encouraged the creative input of others". By the way, it's possible to vary word choice (even though I didn't) from what the original source says and not be violating WP:OR, so either you don't understand the guideline or you're intentionally being dense. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 16:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This is wp:synthesis:
This excerpt of Joblins' book "The studio atmosphere Lillywhite fostered was very different from that of Martin Hannett. Both were experimental at heart, but whereas the eccentric Mancunian was more of a dictatorial leader, Lillywhite encouraged the creative input of others [...]According to Kevin Moloney, there was a DIY approach to making the record with some of the more unconventional recording techniques involving hitting a kitchen fork off a spinning bicycle wheel."
is transformed in
"Lillywhite employed a creative, experimental approach as the producer, recording smashed bottles and silverware skimmed against a spinning bicycle wheel for sound effects".
If Lillywhite is Experimental at heart, it doesn't mean that he was on that album but Y2kcrazyjoker4 embellished what Joblins wrote. The page in question is 65, in the reference, not 66-68. Iennes (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
As stated, the techniques were far from conventional, so the choice of wording was appropriate. Also, do not use italics in a quotes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)