Talk:Offramp (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pat Metheny Group-Offramp (album cover).jpg

Image:Pat Metheny Group-Offramp (album cover).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 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 07:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Offramp → Offramp (album) – WP:ASTONISH, WP:CRITERIA, per this. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support, and redirect offramp to interchange. Not a very significant album. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support User:Nohomersryan's proposal or at least a DAB page. —  AjaxSmack  19:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW am proposing assuming a redirect as Nohomersryan. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Features" vs "includes"

"Features" has ambiguities which makes it an unideal word. Another word might make the lead less ambiguous. "Includes" does not rectify this ambiguity—it has directly incorrect implications, namely, that there are other people playing, which there aren't. TlonicChronic (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll talk to myself if I'm just going to be insulted.

"Features" can be used in many capacities in music. For instance, an album can feature love songs (meaning "is composed of love songs")[1], or an album can "feature a song"[[2]] (meaning "includes a song").
"Includes", by definition, means element(s) or subset(s) of a set (or, I suppose, class). While S is a subset of S, there is a reason why mathematicians call it an improper subset. "Includes" very strongly implies a partial list. The problem, here, is the word can't simply be "comprises", because I tend to omit the leader of the group if it's redundant. "Consists of" is a little better, but feels like it suffers from the same problem. Simply always listing the bandleader and biting the bullet of "comprises" works, but "features" works, semantically. TlonicChronic (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Since everyone refuses to have this conversation in a neutral place, where things aren't simply deleted: The New York Times also uses features for quartets[3] TlonicChronic (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Another very unambiguous use of the NYT using "features" in the way discussed[4] TlonicChronic (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Another[5] TlonicChronic (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

[6][7][8] TlonicChronic (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

[9][10][11] If you don't trust the new york times TlonicChronic (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

[12][13] And two more NYT if you do TlonicChronic (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd stay away from "featured" in this context. "Featured" is often a specific role in music - as a one-off guest role of sorts. It's more of a "guest vocals on a single song" situation more than a "backing band on the entire album situation. It's probably technically acceptable, but there's also no reason not to choose another word with zero chance of misunderstandings.

Side note - article talk pages are generally more like "exchanging emails" than texting or a "live chat". Responses often take a little bit, and responding to yourself 6 times is going come off as impatient or...strange. It's best to leave a note and then move on to something else for a bit... Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you miss the context for the multiple replies. The person that started the edit war only responds selectively on their talk page and deletes my messages. I'm responding to them here, where they should be engaging, but they refuse. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's passive aggressive, definitely, but not without cause. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the context here is more jazz (ProjectJazz) than music as a whole, or pop/hip-hop. Jazz (and classical) have a history of using feature in this context hence a quarter century of NYT articles on quartets). I'm open to a change, but "includes" seems a worse option in my opinion. It's a word choice that will affect more or less every ECM article, and so affects around a thousand pages. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This strikes me as a very trivial wording issue. I'd recommend moving on and not getting bogged down on minor details like that. This sort of thing happens to everyone all the time. Edits get undone. Contributions get tweaked. You've got to get used to it or Wikipedia is going to be a difficult experience for you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not the undoing that matters, per se, it's consensus. I want to discuss consistent wording, not engage in an edit war. That's why I started the talk. Minor wording edits don't make a difference, but I'm standardizing the leads for all albums released by the label, so the word, as trivial as it is, is important to me. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for absolute standardization on minor word usage like this. It's great that you want to discuss issues - so many newbies struggle with this aspect of Wikipedia - but this is trivial and not really a good use of one's time. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't really care about the wording on this page. To be honest, it's more two thing: the first is I'm planning on adding the word "features" to around 500 more articles, and I care if someone has a serious (not feelings based) disagreement and a suggestion to improve it.

The second is pure theatrics to get User:Drmies to engage, istead of the smug condescension and lack of argument or desire to discuss. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

My two cents would be to not add it here or the other 500 articles. Be sure you read WP:POINT too. Good luck out there. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated about a policy, I'm frustrated about a moderator starting an edit war and refusing to engage rationally. But I appreciate your two cents. I'll spend them wisely. TlonicChronic (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

(Technically an edit war begins on the third revert. You may want to read WP:BRD and consider it for the future: You make an edit, someone opposes, you stop and discuss it. That's not what happened here. You made an edit, it was opposed, and you started the edit war at that point.) -- ferret (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that. The second sentence states: "this process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy".

I made a BOLD edit. He made the FIRST revert. I made the SECOND revert. He made the THIRD revert. That's the start to the war. I took responsibility for my actions, do the same, ferret. TlonicChronic (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this: Wikipedia:Edit warring TlonicChronic (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Which after reading (pretty hard in this gas-light), I'd say this isn't even a war, closer to a skirmish, because it's three per person per twenty four hours. But still. You must agree that this was a war if you were willing to blame it on me. TlonicChronic (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Try not to quote the deep lore to experienced administrators. "It's actually just an essay or a guideline" never works well for anyone. -- ferret (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Fun fact: did you know ferrets are actually weasels? TlonicChronic (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but I'm again encouraging you to abandon this time-sink and find something more constructive to focus on. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)