Talk:Daisy (Brand New album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Post-hardcore Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of post-hardcore and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Post-hardcoreWikipedia:WikiProject Post-hardcoreTemplate:WikiProject Post-hardcorePost-hardcore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Track lengths

Where did the track lengths come from? It isn't cited and I can't find references on the cited links. -- ^The True _Sora

They were posted by a forum user on AbsolutePunk a few days ago and confirmed by Jason Tate. Still not reliable though, I think. I'm removing them. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the title of track 6 changed from "Be Gone" to "Begone"? Every source I can find lists it as the two-word spelling. -- Quovadis42

The track lengths are legit. The album leaked, that's probably where that came from. Why are we not supposed to put that the album leaked in the article? It's been put in past articles about albums...there was a whole section about leaks in the 21st Century Breakdown article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.85.75 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you say there was. Not anymore. Shouldn't have been there then, isn't there now. Leaks are not notable here, just stupid fodder, it happens to every single album these days. It is never sourced (no media outlets want to advertise it) so it shouldn't be added here uncited. Sure, if there's some big controversy surrounding it, then yes, we can use the reliable sources which cover this controversy to cite it properly in the article. Until that happens, it shouldn't be here. Those lengths discussed above were from a month ago, rumours, now it's okay I believe. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimers

What was removed from the article was actually an invisible comment not a disclaimer. As far as alerting other editors (mostly IPs) not to add leaking information, I can say that this has proven to be a useful method outside of protecting the page. Generally people will give up adding that an album has leaked once it has been officially released, at which point the invisible comment is removed. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with leaving your average invis message, but for someone to claim that they're the record company? I don't know what would be stupider, some fan pretending to be the RC or the RC actually trying to intervene here. I just don't see a point, we can just revert it. I suppose preventing could be helped by a note, but there's no need to cover up half a page with multiple messages. And yes I am going to revert someone without thinking something through if they just undo my edit because they have their own agenda. Too late for this. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the album has leaked

It is not longer a future album. The future album template should be removed

The Future Album template just disclaims that "The content may change as the album release approaches and more information becomes available." Since a finalized version has leaked onto the internet, it is evident that no more changes or information about the album itself will become available.

71.185.30.202 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. It has not been released, end of story. That template is being deleted anyway. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just put in a depreciated template. I don't think you know what depreciated means...

SignedOutSteven (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

The Apollo's Cred review is as valid as anything written by Alternative Press. Just because it has "blogspot" in its name doesn't make it less professional. You could at least leave it until the bigger publications release their reviews. -- Spidercomrade (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I'd agree with that. But wikipedia has a policy of accepting only reviews from professional sources. So I'd say that your review Spidercomrade can't stay. And it's the same thing for the other reviews from blogsites.

It's a pretty simple exclusion, WP:ALBUM states: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Blogs also fail WP:RS, as they are self-published and unless they have an unarguable supported claim, they are usually amatuer. In other words, as a general guide, blogs should never be used unless the reviewer is someone of say, Robert Christgau's credibility. Which this blog is definitely not. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search turns up a significant number of professional articles written by the same writer. Is he Robert Christgau? Obviously not. On the other hand, he has established more credibility of being able to review a record than you have of being able to edit a Wikipedia article in an unbiased manner. Spidercomrade (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding blogs is not a bias, it's a policy. If you believe this specific review blog is notable, then take up your issue with WP:ALBUM. Also, please try to keep the focus of discussions about the article and not the editors. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Spidercomrade (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]