Talk:The Slow Rush

Move request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi @Ad Orientem: Could you move this article to The Slow Rush? Thanks. Ss112 04:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ss112 Please tag the redirect for CSD G6. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Sorry, forgot about that part. Done. Ss112 04:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2019

In this article, it states that the 2019 singles 'Patience' and'Borderline' are definitely on the track listing for 'The Slow Rush'. However, there is no evidence or even implication that those singles will actually appear on this album, which seems particularly unlikely considering that the most recent of those singles was released six months ago. I would like these two tracks removed from the 'singes' box of this wikipedia article, considering there is no reference or citation to prove. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:5089:EC00:DDCE:F3B9:1F88:9566 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is being argued over already (as evidenced in the article history). NiciVampireHeart 18:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. While the single releases are alright for the background section, I -really- don't think they should be in the infobox without a WP:RS, so we don't do WP:OR, right? I presume the involved editors would come over here, or should they be pinged? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, it should probably be discussed here. Pinging @Ss112: and @Jimmio78:. NiciVampireHeart 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having a back-and-forth. Please gain consensus for their removal. We have a source that states they are likely to be included, and I am sure there are more that says this as well. It is not WP:OR to have them be included based on this, and I do not see that it's particularly controversial to go with this until we have a track listing. If you really want to be particular about WP:CRYSTALBALL, we might as well say that the whole article shouldn't exist for now. The length of time ago they were released is not really relevant when it comes down to it—albums have included singles released years prior. There is no further need to ping me on an article I created. Thank you. Ss112 21:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, which source says likely? I did read everything listed here, and a few on the singles' pages, the only thing that mentions a specific connection [1] says "it’s unclear". I couldn't care less, really, I'm just trying to clean up the WP:ER (and learn things), so if it's likely to have more requests, and it's something so easy to comment out, I'd do it. I think the album's pretty confirmed for 1, isn't it? The 'delays' they've experienced would reflect on it? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

So, taking this source by source then:

• The Fader doesn't mention either "Patience" or "Borderline"
• Pitchfork says "This year, the band returned with the new singles “Patience” and “Borderline.”" – nothing about their inclusion on the album.
• Exclaim also just says "Earlier this year, Tame Impala unveiled new singles "Patience" and "Borderline."" – nothing about inclusion on the album.
• Stereo gum says "Bandleader Kevin Parker admitted that the album was delayed earlier this year after they released two singles, “Patience” and “Borderline”" – nothing about inclusion on the album.
• NME says "it’s unclear if the songs Tame Impala released earlier this year, ‘Borderline’ and ‘Patience’, will appear on the tracklist."
• To summarise: 4 x nothing and 1 x unclear.

I'm sorry that you're "not interested in having a back-and-forth" discussion Ss112, but this is a collaborative project, and discussions need to happen when your edits are challenged. As to "gain consensus for their removal": that's not how wikipedia works. WP:V is pretty definitive in stating that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged [...] must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The inclusion of the singles has been challenged twice, therefore as the person insisting on the inclusion, the onus is on you to provide sources. In any case, personally, I think a pretty strong consensus is forming here – both the IP and Jimmio87 disagree with the listing of the singles here. As you have yet to provide sources to back up their inclusion, I also think they should be removed until we have the necessary sourcing. NiciVampireHeart 00:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, NiciVampireHeart, for educating me on what Wikipedia is like I don't know. Don't take what I said to mean something I didn't. But having said that, it appears you need to be told "consensus for their removal" is exactly what is needed and how Wikipedia works. It's called WP:BRD, which I'm sure you well aware of. I reverted their removal by undoing Jimmio78's edit and cited a source. You appear not to be aware of the edit summary I left (literally the most recent edit left on the page—did you even bother to look at its history?) nor the note on the article where I cited Music Feeds saying "likely" here. Please don't condescend to me and cite WP:V and imply WP:BURDEN at me like I'm unaware of them, and like I would have just included the singles without any source saying they're going to be on the album. Also, if you read more closely, I said there are sources out there that say so. I didn't say they were on the article amongst the five sources I added and you just did a whole unnecessary debunk on like I can't read. Ss112 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you seriously just tell me not to be condescending in the middle of a comment dripping in condescension? The fact that your edits are being challenged is not an attack on you, it's what happens in a collaborative editing environment, and your attitude is seriously disappointing.

Yes, I checked the article history, however it was prior to your most recent edit, and I had not checked it again before my last comment; my apologies for that. My apologies for also assuming that, since you managed to cite other sources and specifically said "We have a source that states they are likely to be included", that you would have either included the source in the article where it was visible or mentioned it in your previous comment.

What I did do before my last comment was re-read the article and the sources provided there. I'm still waiting for the source that says that says the singles will be included on the album. "Likely" to be included hardly meets the burden of proof required.

IMO, and of course YMMV, demanding consensus that unsourced material be removed is in direct contravention of WP:V. And, as you're no doubt aware, while both useful and recommended, BRD is not a policy. NiciVampireHeart 07:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I seriously just told you not to condescend to me about specific things, like WP:V. Now this is going to sound like a "do you know who I am?" comment even though it's not, but do you check whom editors are while speaking to them? Obviously not, because I think it ridiculous that you're citing WP:V at an editor who's been here since the mid-2000s—longer than you, I might add. I don't think I got to 400,000 edits, as in made it this far, while not knowing or disregarding what WP:V is. Your attempt at constant one-upping me in this discussion and your attitude of superiority because "I think it's unsourced information so I'm right" is what's really disappointing here. Your facetious apology while really saying "it's not visible on the page so how could I possibly have noticed?" is so extra I don't know why you bothered. You want to jump on the bandwagon of the couple of editors who've complained about it so far? Great. We have a source that states those singles are likely to be included—that's enough for me. It does not bother me that that's not sufficient enough for you, because that's not what unsourced information is to everybody. I'll say it once more, and you can take it as a "demand" all you like: get consensus for its removal in a formal manner, i.e. a vote, or there will be more of a problem if you attempt to remove it before consensus is achieved because you don't have that. And don't get it twisted: A couple of editors complaining in a thread that was originally a page-protected edit request is not a consensus, and consensus is not achieved through arguing with somebody, which I'm done with. I won't have an issue if consensus is achieved in a vote to remove it, but it appears no, you'd rather a back-and-forth so you can continue your already-tired attempt at intellectual checkmating and superiority over someone on Wikipedia. Spare us. Ss112 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"Ok, getting back to the subject (why we're here). I apologise for not realising the source in the edit history and page-note wasn't cited in the main article, which were the sources I checked. As it stands, we could include a line saying something like "Jackson Langford from Music Feeds has said the singles Patience and Borderline are likely to feature on the album [2]." along with commenting them out of the infobox (which I believe is the contentious point), at least until something more official. If you prefer, we can refer to a blog on a Brazilian news website stating they'll definitely be on the album? I would also add the template about future releases, but they seem to have gone, and Template:Current_music-related seems to be about festivals and stuff. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I've added the source to the article. I think we should stick to using the Brazilian news article and only remove them if and when it's proven they're not on the track list, because I just don't see how it's this major an issue to some people. However, given how strongly NiciVampireHeart has taken up the issue and run with it, I don't think this is going to appease everybody, but if the issue is y'all don't personally think the singles are going to be on the album/you want to side with the majority of sources not mentioning them as being from the album, then that's something else entirely and I would say that will need formal consensus, i.e. a vote. Ss112 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, the album has been put on Apple Music for pre-order [3], and aside from the new track, only "Borderline" is included, so that has been reflected on the article now. Ss112 16:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Nici usually just answers the request (as she did here), I'm the one who digs a little deeper to see if there might be a way to improve the article (we were looking through the WP:ER and she got here just before me, otherwise it'd just be me trying to find a source/improve the article). As an aside, I notice you used Apple Music as a source. In what circumstances can we do that, coz I think it's a little WP:PLUGgy, so I'm not sure when to leave it up/change sources? I'm not just talking about Apple, but I've seen links to reverbnation, spotify, deezer, itunes, youtube, instagram, facebook etc. as inline citations for the mere -existence- of the song/film/etc, which (I think) would be better from a WP:RS. Should we leave in the WP:ADV if there's a better source? Thanks for any help :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Streaming services/e-commerce sites are okay to use per WP:AFFILIATE: "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". At this point, no third-party sources are really going to point out that "Borderline" is track 3 and "It Might Be Time" is track 10. Ss112 00:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This will be my last comment here, because quite frankly this has been an experience I don't care to repeat. No, I don't check who people are, because I look at edits, not editors. Congratulations that you've been here longer than me, that you've made more edits than me, that you've created more articles than me, and whatever else you feel like pointing out. I don't care, it's not relevant, and honestly, it worries me that you made it a discussion point at all. Yes, I cite policies to editors, whether they're experienced, new, or unregistered, or I recognise their name or not. I find it tends to keep things focused on the edits in questions. Tends to. (As an aside, you don't vote for consensus. Consensus is formed through discussion. I'd link WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE, but apparently you dislike me doing so.) I am happy with the how the article currently stands; sourced information is included, the poorly referenced speculation excluded. It's what I was advocating for in the first place, and I'm sorry that questioning your edits has led to such a fraught discussion. Goodbye. NiciVampireHeart 22:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring where I literally explained to you why I pointed out my edit count and length of time here—because all editors I know who've been here for as long as I have know about our most basic policy, that of verifiability. Let me reiterate my point: Editors would not get to hundreds of thousands of edits and 13 years here if they made it a habit to add unsourced content. They would be blocked before long. But, well, it's frankly not surprising at this point that you don't check whom editors are or anything about them, because from the looks of it, you just condescend to everybody, regardless of who they are. I don't think citing, I repeat, our most basic policy at people is "keep[ing] things focused on the edits", it's condescension because you think they're not aware of it and need to be educated on it, despite having been here longer than you. As for your "point" about consensus, here you go again, thinking I don't know the damn basics of Wikipedia. Yes, consensus is formed by discussion, but if it comes down to it, a vote to form said consensus is held. Since it was getting nowhere talking with you before ChrisWar666 found a source that said they were part of the album/before the album pre-order became available, that's why I suggested a vote because back-and-forth in a thread was not clear. Like I said though, of course, you just had to have one final go, which proves in this case you care more about a display of superiority than actual content (and "final message"—sure, we'll see, haven't heard that 10,000 times). You should change that approach pronto. Ss112 00:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)