Talk:Streets (punk album)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
First discussion
[edit]User:Spylab's changes minimised 'Streets' significance; some of which only became obvious with the passage of time. It was the template for all future 'samplers' of British 'indie' labels. Yozzer66 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- My edits have minimized nothing except for POV-pushing and other problems that made this article fail to meet Wikipedia standards.Spylab (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- NPOV? The description of the album’s significance was not a Wikipedian’s but a fully referenced source. If you do not believe it is a fair description then find a contradicting source and fully reference it. Yozzer66 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was one critic's POV from the obscure trakMARX website, presented as if it was objective fact. There is already one sentence with a link to that website. Wikipedia should not be copy & pasting that site word-for-word.Spylab (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't stated as 'fact' but as opinion. Good articles should contain referenced assessments and reviews. As for your cut and paste remark, don't be petty. Yozzer66 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the way the article is worded now, it is stated as fact, not the opinion of one obscure punk website. Stop deleting the ad tag and cleanup tag until the NPOV, formatting and other problems are corrected. As it stands, this article is merely a commercial for this record, and needs copy editing to meet basic Wikipedia standards.Spylab (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to reach a consensus on the content of the article, then use more appropriate tags. It is the reasoning described by the removed tags which is disputed! Yozzer66 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: "Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one". User:Spylab should have utilised this discussion page but chose to be petty. Yozzer66 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have used this discussion page and have clearly explained my edits in my edit notes. The current state of this article is basicly just an advertisment for the record, and there are several formatting problems that need to be fixed. I added the highly-appropriate tags because you kept reverting my necessary corrections. Making required improvements as per Wikipedia guidelines is not being petty; it is what all Wikipedia editors should be doing.Spylab (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Update
[edit](1) As an indicator of its importance, this compilation is also referred to in the relevant band biographies on www.punk77.co.uk: A history of UK Punk Rock from 1976-79 which features an A-Z of punk bands and in Joynson, V. (2001) Up Yours! A Guide to UK Punk, New Wave & Early Post Punk, Borderline Productions, Wolverhampton.
(2) The word "seminal" is not mentioned in the source although it is implied. What the source says is that these comps were "essential" in defining "the zeitgeist" of punk.
(3) The author's name is Johnny Forgotten not Normal.
(4) The citation currently goes to an index page.
ACTION: (3) and (4) can be fixed by inserting the following:
Johnny Forgotten (2004). "Punk Rock Compilation classics". Retrieved 2007-11-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)