Jump to content

Talk:Let Them Talk (Hugh Laurie album)

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

Date format

[edit]

It currently seems that Martinevans123 keeps formatting all the dates as UK, in spite of acknowledging the fact that the article is written about an album made in US, its genre being blues – American, and Laurie himself being a US television star (the highest paid, too) although happening to be English. Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I had hoped to have made clear, I have no particular axe to grind over this, and have been editing mainly for the sake of consistency. Yes, he's British and all his dates shouls be UK format at his own article. I don't think we can argue that Blues music as a whole should always get US style dates. As for labels, it's rather different these days when music releases seem to largely transcend national boundaries (although interestingly, and ironically, still not release dates!) And I'm not sure how many major record labels are actually British these days. But I am swayed by the argument of national notability: WP:LINKS might be the most relevant consideration, as with the recent edits at Grace Jones. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it's made in the US but Laurie is British I wouldn't say it has particularly strong national ties, although it is probably shifted slightly to the US side. I don't, however, think the ties are strong enough to warrant a change from original date format that was used, which is the UK format. Italienmoose (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original – meaning...? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what the genre is, where the recording was released, where the label is or any of those side issues. What matters is that Laurie is English therefore British style dates should be used. SQGibbon (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this logic, we should apply the same to House (TV series), since Laurie is the main performer... but it's obvious that in both cases, there is much more ties to US than UK. The previous consensus is obviously not strongly in favor of UK dates, therefore I am restoring the US dates until a strong argument is made against using US dates (as concluded before and now, Laurie's passport is the only UK factor, out of many non-UK factors). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy does not hold. House was created by an American company intended for American distribution that just happened to have a British actor in the starring role speaking an American accent. They could have hired any other actor and the show would have essentially been the same. This album was created by Laurie, it belongs to him. No one else could have released this album using his name because the album is his and his alone. House was not created by him and it does not belong to him. That is they key difference (among many). Also, you appear to be the only one arguing for the American style so if anything the "closest agreed upon style" is the British style -- the argument in your edit summary is entirely wrong. Also, your claim that Laurie is an American TV star (first post above) is only partly true, he is an American TV star but he was already a British TV star long before House went on the air. In fact many Americans knew him as British before House began airing.
In the meantime I have asked for input from the album project. SQGibbon (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree; British artist = British date format. Nothing else is relevant, particularly elements such as genre – what about genres like rock or heavy metal? British / American? You could argue for ever. House is not remotely relevant to this either, no more relevant than Fry and Laurie or Blackadder. He is not an American TV star – he's a (British) star of American (and British) TV. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Bretonbanquet: House is very relevant, as well as Fry and Laurie, because the first is a US production featuring Laurie as the main player, and the latter is a UK production featuring Laurie as the main player. Both feature Laurie as the main player, but each article uses a format that is relevant to the overall production, not Laurie's nationality. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, neither of those are relevant, because neither are albums. Why would TV shows and albums have the same treatment regarding date formats? Let Them Talk is not a US album with a British guy as the main player, it's a Hugh Laurie album. Albums on Wikipedia are not handled like TV shows. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting hairs or not, it's how Wikipedia works. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see:
    1. Released by Warner Bros., a US company;
    2. Produced by Joe Henry, a US producer;
    3. Co-produced by Allen Toussaint, a US musician;
    4. All musicians are US musicians;
    5. All guest stars are major US music stars, including the Welsh-born Tom Jones;
    6. The album is Laurie's tribute to the great American blues songbook, as stated by the artist himself.
  • Considering all that, Laurie's nationality is nothing but a mundane detail as it bears no relevance whatsoever to any part of this album, and the article is about the album – not about the artist. Therefore, as this is a major US related production, US format should be used. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally would opine that the fact that he is a British musician would be a stronger and more secure argument to use British dates. Sure, while blues is an American originated genre, and while Hugh Laurie has close ties to America, but he is of British nationality. Also, more people appear to be siding with the British dates anyways. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) To Hearfourmewesique: By that token you could end up with different date formats used on two different album articles by the same artist, creating hideous inconsistencies in an artist's discography. Anyway, I'm not sure how you can consider the nationality of the artist to be a "mundane detail" compared to the nationalities of the producer and co-producer, and the backing musicians, most of whom aren't even mentioned in the article. Many albums are released on different labels in different countries – what then? Incidentally, Tom Jones might object to being claimed by the US – not so much "Welsh-born" as Welsh. The simple rule of thumb, widely used, is that the style of English follows the nationality of the artist, leaving no room for argument. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about their nationalities, I care about where they operate. In other words, this entire production is made in the US, by people whose livelihood is chiefly in the US. In other words, the production itself has no ties to the UK whatsoever. As for the rule of thumb you are citing, where is is stated? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so if an artist changes where they record an album, we change the date format and the style of English? Why would anyone want to make it that complicated? If Madonna recorded an album in the UK, using British musicians and producers (and maybe she has, I don't know), and I tried to write the article in British English, I'd be blown away in a torrent of reverts, and rightly so. The rule of thumb is everywhere, in thousands of album articles on Wikipedia, and endless argument (like this) has been avoided because of it. Albums by the Beatles, Stones, AC/DC, David Bowie = British English. Aerosmith, Aretha Franklin, Captain Beefheart, Prince = US English. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to split hairs, but AC/DC are Australian, so would expect articles related to them to use Australian English ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! True, and luckily BrEng and AusEng are pretty close. I still have to revert regular edits claiming they're a Scottish band though... ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're perilously close to violating WP:3RR, I notice. Might be worth backing off a touch while this is being discussed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - and claiming consensus for US dates from May 2011 is not justification to revert. There was no consensus based on the above exchanges, and the article has been stable with British dates for at least 18 months. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The logic here is completely "bass ackwards"... but hey, the majority has spoken so I'll retract. Just for the record, there was a consensus over two years ago, as I have rightfully stated:
  • Martinevans123: "I am swayed by the argument of national notability" (referring to my argument about the record being a US record);
  • Italienmoose: "it is probably shifted slightly to the US side".
There was an attempt to refer to a concept of "originally", but since the original stub was created by myself, the argument merited no value. Just sayin'. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that as consensus, just an inconclusive and incomplete discussion. In any case, no changes seem to have been implemented at the time, as article has been with British dates since then,[1] and it is this stability we should stick to in cases of WP:BRD. Anyway, no matter - we seem to have resolved the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone makes a revert in complete spite of the talk page, and you call that stability... but I "edit war". The discussion, incomplete as it may seem, stopped at favoring US dates, so whoever changed it to UK without leaving a word on the talk page violated all possible edit warring rules in a completely dickish manner, and should not be rewarded by regarding their edits as "stable". But then again, this is pretty consistent with that same "bass-ackwards" logic that has been present here so far... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - the article has correctly been at British dates since the above discussion in May 2011, so it would appear that the non-existent "consensus" that you claim was never implemented, and quite rightly so. Have a look at your revision from around that time,[2] showing British dates. The article has used British dates ever since. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, to paraphrase you, it's perfectly fine to edit against consensus if you don't like it, or don't personally deem it as "correct" or even "existent". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: the only reason the revision you've brought up contains UK English is me being courteous, awaiting an answer that never arrived. I should have reverted back then, but I forgot about this article for a fairly long period of time. The only "justification" for the stale version that has been mistaken for consensus is WP:SILENCE, but even that is trumped by the presence of a conversation on the talk page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no consensus, just a couple of "I don't really care either way" responses in an unresolved discussion. That the article has existed for two years with British dates, and multiple editors have added dates in this form, together with the accepted practice of using British dates for albums by British artists, is closer to a consensus than that which you claim. The article was not a "stale version" but has been actively edited and built upon. However, we now have a clear consensus which mirrors current practice, so we don't have to worry. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US release date?

[edit]

It seems surprising that neiiher this article, nor Hugh Laurie, has any US release date. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any definitive sources for a US date. Some say 17 May, some say 17 September. All seem to date from around March. Itunes and Amazon US don't appear to stock it but don't give a release date. Italienmoose (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Edition

[edit]

Does anyone have information about the 3 bonus tracks of the limited edition (that unfortunately I don't own) and the 44-page photobook? Can you please add it to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.206.228 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_Them_Talk_(Hugh_Laurie_album)&oldid=1245135151"