Jump to content

Talk:Sum 41 discography

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

Half Hour of Power: EP or studio album?

[edit]

There seems to be some debate whether this release is an EP or a studio album, so to resolve this I figured a discussion should be held to reach a consensus on which on it is. While redesigning the discography I moved it from EP to studio album because that is how the release is categorized on allmusic and Billboard.com. Fezmar9 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sum 41 editors have been over this along time ago. It's an EP, according to the band and the EP itself. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source for this claim? The previous reasons I have seen for calling it an EP were just that it was too short time wise. If that is the case, then I can come up with multiple examples of other short studio albums that are not considered EPs. In my last comment I provided two very reliable sources that call it a studio album. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EP itself says so. i own a copy. I don't know if you can get more reliable than that. I"m working on getting a scan of that. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would constitute as a first-party source. The information should be able to be verified by through a third-party reliable source independent of the band or its members. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there was consensus of the FACT that it's an EP long ago...
in this edit, (that's not the exact edit where consensus was reached, but it's after that and the conversation shows in there...)
The sources that say it's a studio album are wrong. 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.192 (talk)
That is hardly what I would call consensus or a discussion. There was not even a conclusion made, just several users making comments. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And again, it has nothing to do with album length (HHOP is actually only a tad bit shorter than AKNF... ) In the inside of the booklet, it states "This EP is dedicated to the band Closet Monster". That's you're source. It doesn't matter what other sources say, becuase that's the most official source it can get. If a song is called "Blue" on the back of a CD, but rolling stone magazine says the name of the song is "Grey", it doesn't matter, the name of the song is still "Blue". 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First party sources are more reliable than any other source. if amazon says that Chinese Democracy came out March 6th, 2006 (which they did), but Axl rose himself said it won't be out at that date (Which it wasn't), then it won't be out at that date.

If you REALLY want a 3rd party source that says it's an EP, look at it on amazon. i'm fetching the link right now. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here under format "ENHANCED, EP" 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I want one, it's that you need one to back up your claim. Webstores are not considered to be reliable sources either. It needs to be a published article. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the sources say. Sources don't have to report the facts. They can put whatever they want. Sources could say that JFK was never president, but instead an alien invader, but that doesn't make it true.... 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources that correctly label it an EP. herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and i could find much more. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ticketmaster, other wiki pages, Rubin's Discography, PunkNews, and Yahoo Kids are not reliable sources; one of the Synthesis articles called it an album and the other didn't say either way; allmusic stated that it was an EP in the overview but was categorized as a studio album in the discography section - and VH1 copied their artist bio straight from allmusic. You should familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies and guidelines such has WP:RS, WP:V, WP:PG and WP:CON. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wether a source is reliable or not doesn't matter. IT's an EP. The very first edit to the article (second actually, the first was a redirect) properly claims it to be an EP, so it's not me making the claim.[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.192 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information doesn't belong on Wikipedia if it can't be backed by reliable sources, so it absolutely matters whether a source is reliable or not. Reliable sources seem to disagree with each other on this issue, so I think we need to find an official source (the record label or band) that has this information. Timmeh! 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you chose to ignore my request to read up on wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Had you at least skimmed through the links you would have read, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." on Wikipedia:Verifiability. So fine, it may be true that Half Hour of Power is an EP and not a studio album. But I "challenged" it according to the policy, and requested a reliable source to be provided to verify this claim. None were provided, so it was removed. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this debate is officially over. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and also, david shankbone proved long ago that primary sources over-ride any 3rd party sources (there was one article that he was involved with were a reliable, 3rd party source claimed that the person in the article was born in 1958, but Mr. Shankbone provided scans of the person's birth certificate that stated that the person was born in 1955 instead....)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.179.192 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevo responds by saying it's a "studio album EP". That is contradictory, as those are opposite terms. Timmeh! 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here are some sources published back not too long after Half Hour of Power was released labeling the release as an album: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Here are some more labeling it as an EP: [6], [7], [8], [9]. There is clearly disagreement between reliable sources on this issue. Timmeh! 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the poster of the question asks "I have a question that's really been bugging me. A friend of mine can't seem to be convinced that Half Hour of Power is an EP. he's all like "no it's totally a studio album". So please set the record straight. Is Half hour of Power an EP or a studio album (i already know the answer but i need 100 percent proof from you guys or my friend will bug me forever)" The poster there states that he knows that HHOP is an EP, and that his friend is incorrect. Steve's reply includes ". And then tell him that, yes! You are correct. It's totally a studio album EP." In this case, studio album is an adjective describing the noun, (EP), what's he's saying is that it's an EP that is like a studio album.... If that makes any sense. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still isn't a third-party published article. You obviously are not even making an attempt to understand wikipedia policy and guidelines. This discussion has dragged out way too long. Here is my resolution: to go along with notable discographies such as the ones found on billboard and allmusic, Half Hour of Power will be listed under studio albums. It will be listed with a note stating that some consider it an EP and have some of the reliable sources that Timmeh found attached to it. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not going under studio albums because "'2 RELIABLE FIRST PARTY SOURCES SAY IT IS AN EP" ONE OF THEESE SOURCES INCLUDE THE BAND ITSELF. THAT OVER-RIDES ANY 3rd party source. God damn, i wish some people weren't policy nazis, this isn't what jimbo had in mind when he created this place.... 70.242.179.192 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, although caps are unnecessary. Primary sources can be used for information such as what is in dispute. Here's a source with the Sum 41 press release which calls Half Hour of Power a "mini-album", essentially an EP: [10]Timmeh! 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is HHOP an EP

[edit]

Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on this one: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." WP:PRIMARY. Contrary to what some editors might erroneously think, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources. As far as this matter is concerned, there is nothing to be interpreted: either the release is an EP or it is not. The primary source says it is and that should be good enough.

Reliable sources are not free from errors. This is not the only time that Allmusic has made such a mistake. Among other things, I have seen albums from two different bands of the same name listed under the same category. If Allmusic makes an error in categorising an EP as a studio album, then common sense suggests that we should ignore the error and not cite it as a source. As it is, the biography for the band here in question found on Allmusic actually specifies this same release as an EP rather than a studio album. So we have an internal conflict on Allmusic itself, whereby a release is described as an EP in the accompanying band biography but categorised as a studio album rather than an EP in the discography section. The first has an author: Johnny Loftus. The second does not: we have no idea who placed the EP under the studio album category instead of the EP section. There are enough other sources, including Rolling Stones, that describe it as an EP. On wikipedia, there is generally no citation provided for whether a release is a studio album, compilation, demo or something else, even among featured articles. If the band and its record label intended to record an EP, release an EP, market an EP, and various sources agree that it is an EP, then surely it is an EP. Why dispute it?

There might be other sources that describe the release as an album but as mentioned, sources can make mistake. More importantly, it is common for people to refer to an EP as an album because some view EP as an album type, as Wikipedia apparently do too. It is not impossible for an EP to hit #1 on an album chart either. --Bardin (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think a big part of the problem here is that EP, which stands for extended play, is kind of an antiquated term. The words "extended play" can really only properly refer to the vinyl format, where there are physical and technical distinctions between extended-playing and long-playing albums. The term EP essentially became common usage for a release that's "a bit longer than a single, or has too many tracks to really be called a single, but isn't long enough, or doesn't have enough tracks, to be considered an album". In the CD age, the term no longer refers to a physical or technical limitation and therefore its definition becomes incredibly vague and subject to opinion. Yet organizations still attempt to affix technical definitions to the term. The official rules for the UK charts, for example, define the cutoff point between EP and album at 25 minutes or 4 tracks (rules for singles, rules for albums). So in the UK, no matter if the band refers to it as an EP in the liner notes, Half Hour of Power would be classified as an album.
If you judge it based on length or number of tracks, it certainly fits the classic definition of an album (being that it has 11 tracks and comes in near a half hour). As examples show, there are plenty of releases near or under 30 mins that are still considered albums (Weezer's green album and the first Ramones album spring to mind). And there are plenty of acts who have labeled releases as an EP or single when they clearly fit the classic definition of something else. AFI's The Days of the Phoenix EP is the first example that jumps to my mind. "Days of the Phoenix" was the single from The Art of Drowning, and they released a video for it at the same time. The "EP" includes only 3 tracks (the title track, another track from the album, and a b-side from the album) and comes in under 10 minutes. It fits all the classical and technical definitions of a single, yet the band for some reason labeled it as an EP. If Half Hour of Power did not have the phrase "This EP is dedicated..." in the liner notes, it's almost certain that every music cataloging body out there would classify it as an album.
So how should we classify it? In the light of multiple conflicting reliable sources (Billboard, the release itself, and various others), I really don't know. I just wanted to offer some food for thought. If it were up to me, I'd certainly call it an album because it fits the definition in every respect except for that one sentence in the notes. I can call an SUV a light truck 'til I'm blue in the face, but if it meets all the techincal definitions of an SUV then it's an SUV, not a truck. Of course we have to try to balance the fact that we have many conflicting sources (hell, Rolling Stone just lumps all their main stuff together as "main releases"). I guess, when all the chips are down, I don't mind throwing it in with the EPs as long as the Half Hour of Power article itself contains some discussion of the unusual nature of the classification, and provides the refs to the reliable sources that call it an album as well as those that call it an EP. We can have that information in the article, and present it properly, yet still arrive at a consensus that works for Wikipedia as to how we're going to list it. Sorry my response is so long, I was mulling it over as I typed. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other recently reverted changes

[edit]

There were a few other changes made by 70.242.179.192 other than the EP/studio album debate that I thought should be discussed here as well. Thoughts? Comments? Fezmar9 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does This Look Infected Too? categorized as EP: The release was originally categorized as a live album, but was moved to the EP section. While the release very clearly is an EP containing live songs, and could be categorized as either, I feel that because it exclusively features live tracks it would fit better in the live album section. There is no guideline for albums that fall under multiple categories, so consensus will have to step in here.
  • 1998 Demo Tape categorized as demo: This release was moved from the EP section to its own demo section. I don't really have an opinion on this change.
  • All the Good Shit categorized as video album: This release was not moved, just added a second time both in compilation albums and video albums. Because the DVD packaged with this release is a bonus disc just containing music videos and not its own video album release, it probably does not belong in the video album section.
1. DTLI2 is an EP which contains live songs. It is not a live album. there is a difference.

2. 1998 demo tape is a demo, not an ep. if it were an ep, it would have been called "1998 EP" 3. ATG/8YOSBT have DVD's along with them, which catogorize them in the DVD section.. 70.242.179.192 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain?

[edit]

Can anyone explain the difference between "music videos" and "other videos"? Why aren't these sections combined? - eo (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music video to "Hit That" is not listed

[edit]

There's a music video for "Hit That", that for all purposes seems to be a regular music video (as in: it's on YouTube's OffspringVEVO channel, and I remember it being passed on MTV). Is there a reason that it isn't listed on this page? —ljacqu (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sum 41 discography. 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) 01:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sum_41_discography&oldid=1205110410"