Jump to content

Talk:Folklore (Nelly Furtado album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Nelly-Furtado-Limited-Edition-C-367637.jpg

[edit]

Image:Nelly-Furtado-Limited-Edition-C-367637.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore

[edit]

Well, here's a reference for 3 million copies sold.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://hitplague.com/category/nelly-furtadoManas justice (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

[edit]

Yet another reference for more than 3 million copies sold. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0004069Manas justice (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 3 million copies sold

[edit]

Here's another reference for Folklore having sold more than 3 million copies worldwide. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.sheridanroadmagazine.com/article.php/vol/4/issue/4/title/article-Nelly-FurtadoManas justice (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore review

[edit]

A favourable review for Folklore.....Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.avclub.com/articles/nelly-furtado-folklore,11661/Manas justice (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Folklore (Nelly Furtado album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Folklore (Nelly Furtado album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Folklore (Nelly Furtado album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folklore (Nelly Furtado album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017 genre warring

[edit]

There have been dozens of reverts of edits to this album's genre in a very short time. Please explain here your reasoning before making further genre edits. Please address the substance of the change. Hopefully, some consensus can be reached. Please be aware that, per the three-revert rule, "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption." Thank you. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the work of a vandal. No vandal, no revert. Kellymoat (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may be obvious to you, but I have not previously been involved. Comparing the two versions, it looks to me like a difference of opinion between two plausible versions, rather than clear-cut vandalism on either side. Regardless of who made the change, could you advise why your version should be preferred? Or else, if the other editor is some sort of mass vandal whose work may be properly undone without paying attention to the details of the individual changes, could you provide details? Thanks, and I do appreciate your commenting here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go into too much detail because - I am not sure it is in my place to say. Nor do I want to say something out of place.
But, yes, you hit the nail on the head. With this particular person, any edit they make should be reverted simply because they are the ones making it.
Kellymoat (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The related IP edits appear to be from sock puppets of indefinitely banned _and_ blocked editor User:MariaJaydHicky--see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive. Further such edits are apt to be referred as evidence to WP:SPI and WP:3RR to have accounts blocked. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fully protected because this was getting ridiculous. If it's such a clear-cut case, where is the rangeblock? The edit itself looks only partly broken. With so much effort being put into reverts, perhaps one might salvage the parts that are worth keeping - with all the genre warring going on, referenced genres sound like a really good idea to me. Samsara (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked for a range block last night on the 2A02:C7F:DE24:AE00: range. The page was deleted because I didn't file it properly.
      • But, hell, you saw how many different people reverted those edits. And how hard he tried to get everyone else banned. This isn't the first time he tried it, there's even more than one instance on your talk page. Kellymoat (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know about "how hard he tried to get everyone else banned". On the scale of drama that I see on my talk page, the message was at a fairly restrained level. As a long-term perspective, we need to all make an effort to keep the level of antagonism at a level that isn't much higher than it absolutely needs to be. Samsara (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • By "get everyone else banned", I think Kellymoat meant this. I understand not every admin has the time to familiarize themselves with sockmasters such as MariaJaydHicky, okay, I totally get it. But Kellymoat, Binksternet, several other trusted editors, and myself can all attest that these IP's were indeed MariaJaydHicky. Per WP:DENY it's standard to revert MJH's edits, so it's not edit warring/content dispute when you're reverting socks. Full protection is overkill. Please change the protection level from full to semi. Sro23 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not just that sock puppet investigation, but over the last few weeks, there have been sock accusations, 3rr reports, ANI reports, and page protections. I am the subject of number 11 and 20 on Samsara's talk page (open the contributions page for the editor that made number 11, blocked as a sock of MJH). My name has been fairly active since the new year compared to previous months, being accused by a lot of British IP users and new accounts - most of which end up being blocked, as evidenced by the amount of strikethrough comments are on my talk page. I think the one 3rr report, he reported me after one revert because he got confused with other pages he was vandalizing, lol. Kellymoat (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodyear, Kellymoat, Samsara, Sro23, and Binksternet: I arrived here because another editor within that IP range had undone one of my efforts to clean up after 47.187.246.16, another genre-warrior vandal; I'd blocked the range because I assumed they were the same person (without realising one was in the UK and the other in the US). When I made this edit, I hadn't realised the article had been protected so that only *admins* could access it; FWIW I can't detect the colour change because I can't see it. I was still under the assumption that the vandal and the 47... person were the same, and I also hadn't read any of the discussion above. I'd never heard of a MariaJaydHicky person before reading this discussion. I'm going to downgrade the protection of this article to semi, because I don't think this would cause any harm. Graham87 11:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully with the range blocked, it will slow him down for awhile. Kellymoat (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

The "Label change" section is nearly irrelevant to the article (and has a commercial feel to it). I suggest deleting all but the last 2 sentences, and deleting the section heading so that it merges with the section above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I've downgraded the protection to semi (see above), so you can make that edit yourself now. Graham87 11:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: WP:DENY is not policy, but WP:V is. You have joined the edit war on the side of people inserting content not supported by sources, and you have not only ignored, but subsequently removed full protection to do so. It is common practice to self-revert in this situation, once one has realised one's mistake. Samsara 12:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: WP:EVADE is however policy, and that's more applicable in this situation. If I'd thought what I did was a clear-cut mistake where there were two good-faith sides to the argument, I most definitely would have reverted myself. I don't see that being the case here. Graham87 12:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: From EVADE: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand). You not only reverted, but undid protection without consultation. I'm waiting to hear from you how you propose to resolve the situation you have created here. Samsara 12:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Samsara 12:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Feel free, while it's not fully protected, to make your changes unrelated to the dispute. Failing that, post specifically what you want that section to read as I'm not quite sure how you intended it. I ran it through in my head with only the last two sentences preserved, and it seemed to lack context even more than it currently does, so maybe I didn't think it the way you did. Having said that, I prefer to remain "uninvolved" here as much as possible, so if you give me a version and there are no objections (or policy violations, obviously), I will implement it verbatim should full protection be in force at the time. Samsara 12:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I'm not sure, actually ... I'll leave that up to the main editors of the article and consensus above I find Binksternet's arguments compelling (I was looking at the Allmusic source for "worldbeat" and missed it the first time myself). I've also seen your message in the other section. Graham87 13:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I'll confine myself to proposing wording for the "Label change" section, viz:

"After Universal Music Group purchased DreamWorks Records and folded it into the Interscope Geffen A&M umbrella label in January 2004, Furtado's recording contract was absorbed into Geffen Records.[7][8][9]" Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre workspace

[edit]

Here are some prominent reviews of the album, with respect to genre.

  • AllMusic – No strong statement about genre: "...the dogged seriousness and didactic worldview become a bit overbearing not long before the album is a quarter of the way finished, particularly since the fusion of worldbeat and adult alternative pop often seems heavy-handed... an awkward transitional album."
  • New York Times – The artist and album are generally discussed within the pop genre: "...a wildly uneven collection... her pop competition... most current pop..."
  • AV Club – No particular genre specified: "...Folklore mainly loses that balance [the previous album's balance of girl-pop, hip hop, folk rock and worldbeat], emphasizing the roots instead of the mainstream byproduct."
  • Music OMH – Discusses the artist as coming from a teen pop background, this particular album as falling within the pop genre, but without the commercial potential.
  • BBC – No particular album genre: "There isn't a frothy pop song to be found on this album... a remarkably eclectic range of styles... the diversity of instruments and vocal styles on this album is breathtaking... eclectic..."
  • Spin – No particular album genre: "Folklore finds yet another pop kid struggling to grow up."
  • Guardian – Discusses the album as moving away from her commercial pop past.
  • Rolling Stone – Discusses the album as the same stuff of the previous album, but without a giant hit single: "A slick multiculti hodgepodge... mechanized drum loops and assorted world-beat flourishes... [one] hip-hop tune..."
  • NPR – "...diverse influences..."
  • Slant – "multi-cultural... Mellower than her debut, the album includes a number of restrained yet evocative pop ballads... [She is] writing in a hermetically sealed, pop stardom-induced vacuum."

None of these reviews set an explicit genre for the album as a whole. Instead, the album and the artist are discussed in the context of pop, and the songs themselves are discussed as being widely varying in genre. So I recommend removing all genre from the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this review [1] there is talk of Folklore as a pop album ("dropping a surprisingly mature, diverse take on modern pop with Folklore") Ikcir (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Folklore (Nelly Furtado album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folklore (Nelly Furtado album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folklore_(Nelly_Furtado_album)&oldid=1211185627"