Talk:Ben Haenow (album)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ben Haenow (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
November 2015
[edit]I reverted the article back to its stable version because:
- The guideline "Genre(s) cannot be included without within a "Composition" or "Critical reception" section within article" doesn't appear within the Template:Infobox album nor the MOS:ALBUM.
- The genres are actually discussed within the composition section with reliable sources
- Renaming the image on the infobox without replacing one will prompt a WP:RED response.
- Another thing, the image is already in the PNG format and is in a sufficiently low quality to qualify for fair use (per Template:Infobox album).
Discussions about these points may start here. Chihciboy (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per the template, genres cannot be added until cited by reliable sources in a "Critical response" or "Composition" section. Haenow's own description of the album does not constitute what the album's natural genre is. We must wait for reviews of the release, which will likely not come until closer to its November 13 release date. Also, the new image is of lower resolution, which is highly preferred per the fair use policies. Also, your reverts removed citations concerning the worldwide release of the album and not just the UK release. As well, your reverts are removing mass-amounts of changes, which is against Wikipedia's policy on mass-changes without discussion, which can be seen as controversial. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Despite his words, The Independent already published that the album is a pop album (it's in the refs). Also, where is this guideline about the genres? Another thing, why didn't you just upload a new version on the same filename instead of filing another one for redundancy? Also the catalog number is in the Sony Japan ref. Didn't you even bothered to look at the sources? Chihciboy (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- If this is the article you are referring to in regards to The Independent, all I have read is that he speaks of keeping it in the "pop vein", but that it doesn't explicitly state that the album itself is a pop music album officially. The standard has always been to wait for reliably sourced reviews, which present a third-eye and non-biased review of the album and its music, which is partially why its always been that the iTunes Store is not a creditable source for genre(s), since a lot of times its what the record label and/or artist has requested it to be filed under. As for the catalog number, I do apologise for that one; that I shall remove the {{Citation needed}} template. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered the second question on the image? And to quote that Independent article verbatim on your first answer ("Ben Haenow, isn’t a rock record. It’s a pop album, with some of the genre’s most esteemed songwriters involved.)" Chihciboy (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also to answer the worldwide release, the IFPI already mandated for international releases at the beginning of the latter half of 2015 to be released on the same day (such as the one discussed on the The Official Chart article). Putting a note about the New Music Friday will seem asinine as almost all worldwide major releases at this point were on a Friday (unless the physical version has a different release date) Chihciboy (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm still in the firm belief that we should hold off on listing a genre until a full album review if posted; basing an album off of five tracks is like basing a book or television series off of one or two episodes within a whole series of a multitude of episodes. As for the image, yes it very well could have been uploaded as a replacement, but to edit-war it to your own preferred version of the page is a slight case of ownership, since you are the main editor of the page; and your revert shows removal of one other editor's edit for your own base of the page., which to me is not entirely of good faith, wouldn't you say so? Also not the first time we've come to a bit of a conflict with how to edit music-related articles, though, which I do find unfortunate on some kind of level. And you're mis-understanding my comments concerning the worldwide release; I'm not debating that it is not the mandated release date; I'm merely stating that only listing UK releases is not quite valid, especially when other citations do exist, to provide more substantial faith of a WW release. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have never even said nor wanted to make the image on my preferring, but you could have just uploaded the new version on the same file. And it doesn't make me look like WP:OWN, but rather you because there's a link on it if you want to upload a new version, but instead keep orphaning the one you deemed too excessive (just like on Piece by Piece article). And didn't I put a good faith reason on the rv? The rv automatically reverted the image to its previous filename as the page keeps displaying a redlink response (as if the replacement file wasn't even there). Another thing, I've only put the UK because it's the artist's country of origin, instead of putting every single country on Earth. Chihciboy (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- It goes beyond the image, Chihci, as you removed the entirety of the edit that i infact made, reverting it back to how you left the page, exactly, which is what shows the ownership. And you're missing the point on the WW release — whether it were a WW or each separate release, the citations would've been included regardless, so that (to me) semi invalidates the claim that it should be the person's origin only, as per your own explanation. You're twisting my words, I'm stating the removing the entirety of the end was not entirely of good faith, as you claimed, as you removed valid sourcing and changes to meet certain template regulations and policies; I'm not getting the feeling of civility from you right now. I'm sensing that you're getting extremely agitated, and while I may be wrong, it's how I'm perceiving you by how you're typing right now, and that's not the direction I am wanting this discussion to take. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you instantly took the rv personally and keep saying that I twisted this situation. The rv was automated, and since I was the one who started the discussion, I felt that the page should be rv'd first to its stable version before controversial changes. I understand where you're going on the WW release, but you have put like a lot of links in there, now the formatting of the reflist has left a huge gap between the last 2 refs (on the Chrome browser). I say that we put the US, UK, and Ireland release there as those are the three countries this album is guaranteed to chart, yes? Also, you're comments here have shown some WP:IDL behaviour. I asked for any guidelines on your reasons, and you still haven't stated any. I'm merely basing this article on the MOS:ALBUM guideline, among others. Chihciboy (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I do not believe I'm avoiding a discussion; I answered the questions. Maybe not to the degree you would have liked but, I did answer (as there is a lot of discussion happening as of right now on this talk page discussion thread). Based on my own history editing musical articles, it's always been pointed out to me, by other editors, that concerning a music genre that it is best to wait for reviews of an album; it isn't a biased viewpoint of the album, and that it also avoids the potential of original research and fan-cruft editing from other editors from adding what they, themselves, believe to be a genre for an album release. As for leaving on IR/UK/US links, I would like to say yes but, the spacing for the links can easily be fixed once additional refs are placed into the article. It's merely because we're using the 30em parameter instead of "2" that it is like that. Once the article is expanded more so over the coming days and weeks, it'll surely even itself out. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I get where you're going, that's how some editors have been for some pop albums but following guidelines will also suffice on article development. I just follow it based on my experiences on nominating for WP:GAN for articles. The quickest and best way for articles to achieve GA-status and above is to follow the guidelines accordingly. That's the reason why I keep on asking you for a guideline-led degree of reason. Chihciboy (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- It just feels premature to add it, given that we're still more than one-week away from the album's release, and that The Independent's calling it pop is based of of five-songs from an album, which features more than five tracks. I mean, would it hurt? No. But something about it seems very unsettling. If you feel it for the best of the article, then I'm sure it could be added. However, I do feel it necessary to keep the note, at least until the album's release, to avoid potential IP edits, etc. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- The BBC and the OCC refs have also reviewed the album's sampler and they reported that the album is indeed pop rock/pop, to quote the OCC (the title has "Ben Haenow has previewed his debut album and it's full of powerhouse pop-rock" and in the article "We’re saying mini because we only heard four songs from it, but it was enough to give us a good flavour of the full 14-track album.") and on the BBC ("although the tracks he previews for the BBC are an unexpectedly straight-up pop songs."). I've left a footnote on the refs section so that the genre on the infobox can justify its existence. Chihciboy (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I will wrap up in stating that if you feel it okay to list the references, based on reviews of the promo/previews, then that's fine. I just hope it does not open Pandora's Box from other editors. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- The BBC and the OCC refs have also reviewed the album's sampler and they reported that the album is indeed pop rock/pop, to quote the OCC (the title has "Ben Haenow has previewed his debut album and it's full of powerhouse pop-rock" and in the article "We’re saying mini because we only heard four songs from it, but it was enough to give us a good flavour of the full 14-track album.") and on the BBC ("although the tracks he previews for the BBC are an unexpectedly straight-up pop songs."). I've left a footnote on the refs section so that the genre on the infobox can justify its existence. Chihciboy (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- It just feels premature to add it, given that we're still more than one-week away from the album's release, and that The Independent's calling it pop is based of of five-songs from an album, which features more than five tracks. I mean, would it hurt? No. But something about it seems very unsettling. If you feel it for the best of the article, then I'm sure it could be added. However, I do feel it necessary to keep the note, at least until the album's release, to avoid potential IP edits, etc. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I get where you're going, that's how some editors have been for some pop albums but following guidelines will also suffice on article development. I just follow it based on my experiences on nominating for WP:GAN for articles. The quickest and best way for articles to achieve GA-status and above is to follow the guidelines accordingly. That's the reason why I keep on asking you for a guideline-led degree of reason. Chihciboy (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I do not believe I'm avoiding a discussion; I answered the questions. Maybe not to the degree you would have liked but, I did answer (as there is a lot of discussion happening as of right now on this talk page discussion thread). Based on my own history editing musical articles, it's always been pointed out to me, by other editors, that concerning a music genre that it is best to wait for reviews of an album; it isn't a biased viewpoint of the album, and that it also avoids the potential of original research and fan-cruft editing from other editors from adding what they, themselves, believe to be a genre for an album release. As for leaving on IR/UK/US links, I would like to say yes but, the spacing for the links can easily be fixed once additional refs are placed into the article. It's merely because we're using the 30em parameter instead of "2" that it is like that. Once the article is expanded more so over the coming days and weeks, it'll surely even itself out. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you instantly took the rv personally and keep saying that I twisted this situation. The rv was automated, and since I was the one who started the discussion, I felt that the page should be rv'd first to its stable version before controversial changes. I understand where you're going on the WW release, but you have put like a lot of links in there, now the formatting of the reflist has left a huge gap between the last 2 refs (on the Chrome browser). I say that we put the US, UK, and Ireland release there as those are the three countries this album is guaranteed to chart, yes? Also, you're comments here have shown some WP:IDL behaviour. I asked for any guidelines on your reasons, and you still haven't stated any. I'm merely basing this article on the MOS:ALBUM guideline, among others. Chihciboy (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- It goes beyond the image, Chihci, as you removed the entirety of the edit that i infact made, reverting it back to how you left the page, exactly, which is what shows the ownership. And you're missing the point on the WW release — whether it were a WW or each separate release, the citations would've been included regardless, so that (to me) semi invalidates the claim that it should be the person's origin only, as per your own explanation. You're twisting my words, I'm stating the removing the entirety of the end was not entirely of good faith, as you claimed, as you removed valid sourcing and changes to meet certain template regulations and policies; I'm not getting the feeling of civility from you right now. I'm sensing that you're getting extremely agitated, and while I may be wrong, it's how I'm perceiving you by how you're typing right now, and that's not the direction I am wanting this discussion to take. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have never even said nor wanted to make the image on my preferring, but you could have just uploaded the new version on the same file. And it doesn't make me look like WP:OWN, but rather you because there's a link on it if you want to upload a new version, but instead keep orphaning the one you deemed too excessive (just like on Piece by Piece article). And didn't I put a good faith reason on the rv? The rv automatically reverted the image to its previous filename as the page keeps displaying a redlink response (as if the replacement file wasn't even there). Another thing, I've only put the UK because it's the artist's country of origin, instead of putting every single country on Earth. Chihciboy (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm still in the firm belief that we should hold off on listing a genre until a full album review if posted; basing an album off of five tracks is like basing a book or television series off of one or two episodes within a whole series of a multitude of episodes. As for the image, yes it very well could have been uploaded as a replacement, but to edit-war it to your own preferred version of the page is a slight case of ownership, since you are the main editor of the page; and your revert shows removal of one other editor's edit for your own base of the page., which to me is not entirely of good faith, wouldn't you say so? Also not the first time we've come to a bit of a conflict with how to edit music-related articles, though, which I do find unfortunate on some kind of level. And you're mis-understanding my comments concerning the worldwide release; I'm not debating that it is not the mandated release date; I'm merely stating that only listing UK releases is not quite valid, especially when other citations do exist, to provide more substantial faith of a WW release. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- If this is the article you are referring to in regards to The Independent, all I have read is that he speaks of keeping it in the "pop vein", but that it doesn't explicitly state that the album itself is a pop music album officially. The standard has always been to wait for reliably sourced reviews, which present a third-eye and non-biased review of the album and its music, which is partially why its always been that the iTunes Store is not a creditable source for genre(s), since a lot of times its what the record label and/or artist has requested it to be filed under. As for the catalog number, I do apologise for that one; that I shall remove the {{Citation needed}} template. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Despite his words, The Independent already published that the album is a pop album (it's in the refs). Also, where is this guideline about the genres? Another thing, why didn't you just upload a new version on the same filename instead of filing another one for redundancy? Also the catalog number is in the Sony Japan ref. Didn't you even bothered to look at the sources? Chihciboy (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Singles
[edit]How "Something I Need" is not the first single if it was released as a single in December 2014 and is on the album? --TriniDemGirl55 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's definitely the lead single from the album! Livelikemusic apparently doesn't understand the concept of a lead single. "Bleeding Love" was not the first single for Leona, nor the Kelly Clarkson he mentions too. Go by the example of James Arthur, "Impossible" was the lead single from his self-titled album, as clear that "Something I Need" is first from Ben Haenow. — Tom(T2ME) 11:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)