Talk:Ursa Major (Third Eye Blind album)

Untitled

Finally I think we have enough info for this album to have its own page. The song list needs a source as well as any other speculation this article is grounds for deletion under wikipeida's guidelines. I am trying to figure out what record company is going to release the album. They used Elektra Records before but they were bought out by Warner Music Group under the Atlantic Reocrds Group subsidiary. --zrulli 18:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

How do we change the article name to Ursa Major. I saw Stephan Jenkins today (April 16, 2008) speak today at Penn State and he said that the new album would be called Ursa Major and that the B-sides album for their material would be called Ursa Minor. I'm pretty sure he was serious. 68.38.125.137 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been done... I wonder, is there (was there ever?) a citeable source for the claim that the album's title was to be The Hideous Strength? If so we should put this information into the article, and otherwise, we should delete the redirect. Or maybe, if it's all unverifiable rumours, delete the whole article until there's something encyclopedic to write? Anyway, I've unlisted it from WP:RM. Some references wouild be nice! Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... except that in WP:RM the listing was The Hideous Strength -> Ursa Major (Third Eye Blind album) but in the talk page notice it was to Ursa Major (album), and the article had been moved according to WP:RM. I've moved it again, there's no need for the band name in the disambiguator, and created a disambig page as we now have three articles to disambiguate. Hope the name is accurate... Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Before I move for deletion per WP:AfD some time in the near future, can anyone cite some reliable sources to take this out of WP:CRYSTAL range? Erechtheus (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried putting a speech from Stephan Jenkins on Wednesday 16 April 2008 at Penn State University as a source for the name of this album and that it is scheduled to come out in the Fall of 2008. That was taken out down. I was at that speech. I can't find any news articles talking specifically about what he said, but here's a news article about the event. [1] Kriskash (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that doesn't work as a source is WP:RS. It sounds like perfect territory for wikinews, but that's a different project. Erechtheus (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official Third Eye Blind facebook page refers to the album as Ursa Minor now as well. I'm not sure if this is a credible source, but here is the link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Third-Eye-Blind/34254940936 Nightswatch (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklisting

There's no need to emphasize that "Carnival Barker" is an instrumental in the tracklisting. If it must be noted, then add a section regarding it being an instrumental in the article. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I strongly disagree with the deletion of all the information in the "Tracklist Speculation" section. That was sort of a poorly titled section. Re-read the information, it contains some interesting information regarding the making of the album. I can see people finding it very interesting in retrospective years down the line after the cd has been out.

I restored the information and merged it into the history section. I'm not sure if that's the best place for it, but I'm sure it should stay. Sergecross73 (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Most of the "reports" are from bloggers and fans. No reliable sources are given for the data, much of which regards songs that aren't even going to be included on Ursa Major. If no reliable information can be given all of the song "speculation" will have to be removed. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time to look up some sources, although I don't know how many I'll be able to find. Everything in it is true, but I've known it for years, so I don't know where/if I can still find concrete origins for it.

Also, all of the songs mentioned, except Persephone are on the cd, so your above comment is quite the exageration. How closely have you read over it? There used to be much more of it, but parts were slowly removied once songs were confirmed for Minor, such as background info on "Now I Don't Know". Sergecross73 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it closely. It originally mentioned songs such as "Red Star" and "Non-Dairy Creamer" that aren't included on Ursa Major as well, not just "Persephone" so my above statement is not an exaggeration. The whole section that you re-established is based of citationless "reports" and unconfirmed "rumors". Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense on so many levels.

I don't understand how you can be so much of a fan that you care about a band's wikipedia, yet not care about this information or follow the band enough to know that it's true.
Go look at an album page for a band like The Smashing Pumpkins or the Foo Fighters. They've generally got all sorts of b-side, demo, outtake, alternate song names, etc sort of information. They may be more in list form, but still. It's there.
What exactly are you infering with some of these requests for citations? That Summertown hasn't been around since 2005? I listened to it back then! That Non-Dairy Creamer or Red Star were never considered for Ursa Major? These things are common knowledge to fans, and had been said for years by band members.
This stuff hasn't been sourced and it's been up for months. Why is it a problem now? I know you've been around.

Sergecross73 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information needs to be cited. I'm not arguing that these songs have been around for years. I'm not arguing that many of these songs have been written, performed live and reworked with different titles since 2005 or whenever. Information needs to be cited. This is not a fanbased cite nor a place for rumors. Factual information needs to be posted. Not rumors, urban legends or gossip. This is a page for Ursa Major. "Red Star" and "Non-Dairy Creamer" don't need to be mentioned here as they were released last year on Red Star and other than speculation, there are no reports that these songs were ever considered for inclusion on Ursa Major.

Think of this page as an college report or a newspaper publication. You need factual information. Not unsourced rumors, speculation and fanboy gossip from messageboards. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept of citations. It's just usually not necessary to cite every sentence, sometimes multiple times, as you are suggesting. None the less, I'll start looking for sources. I know it's all true, it's just a matter of where I can dig it up. Sergecross73 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's necessary to cite credible references. Even the links you're posting are to fanpages, see Wikipedia:ELNO, particularly #'s 2 and 11. Where are legitimate interviews stating these things? A Stephan Jenkins blog is good, but the "3eb archive" is a fan page, and isn't a respectable place to make a reference. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can't use "Active Musician" as a reference for wikipedia. According to Active Musician: "Artist information courtesy of their Wikipedia entry." That makes it a self referring reference (See Circular reasoning). Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using "Active Musician". I wasn't familiar with the site. As for the fansite, I know they're not the best, but I figured since they linked to concrete, copies of the song that verified the information, it'd be okay. I guess I'll keep looking... Sergecross73 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the Article

Hi guys, I can see that you both care about this article and want to improve it. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore requires its content be well sourced. Any non-sourced material can be challenged and removed by any editor. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" says Wiki guidelines WP:V. I see that currently the article has several inline citations and that is good. However some of the citations are from first party sources ie blogs, chat rooms, You Tube etc which are generally not acceptable sources according to Wiki guidelines. So these will need to be removed. If you are unfamiliar with these polices please read WP:SOURCE. I like that you guys have an active dialogue going and are making good use of the talk page. I am looking forward to working together with you to find some good sources for this article and to make it accurate and strong.--Kbob (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your information and insight are appreciated Kbob. Taking what you just wrote in stride, I am going to remove all non-sourced and all first party sources that have blogs, chat rooms and You Tube as references. Of course, once legitimate sources can be found, which Sergecross73 is currently looking into, they can be restored with the appropriate refs attached. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ 3eb.co.uk - The Village Church Yard
^ a b c Reuter, Annie. "Third Eye Blind Back from Hibernation". Marie Claire. Date Unknown.
^ Amazon.comBoth of the References below are not valid sources and should be removed:

3eb.co.uk - The Village Church Yard
Amazon.com

We can use the web site www.3eb.co.uk to define the subject (like a song list for example, or the release date etc.) because first party sources are OK to use to self define a topic. See WP:SELFPUB However the page of that website which is currently cited is the 'forum' page which is just public opinion and therefore is not a valid source on Wiki.--Kbob (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Carnival Barker information deleted? You mean to tell me that a blog directly in the words of the lead singer, and essentially the person who is pretty much in charge of the direction of the entire band, for a song that is confirmed for making the album, isn't good enough??

Anyways, I think I'm done with this. It's pathetic, there's so much information on this cd, yet you guys have whittled it down to a couple paragraphs. They've been working on this cd for almost 6.5 years, and you think this sums it up best? I guess if people want the real, detailed story, they'll just have to go to those "lowly fansites". Sergecross73 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serge, I understand how you feel. You really care about this article, the band and the album. Unfortunately though, our personal opinions don't count on Wiki which is an encyclopedia. Sources must be reliable and verifiable and Wiki has criteria for this. You are right it sometimes keeps out true information but it also keeps out false information. Anyway those are the rules of Wiki. You might find that you get more fulfillment from establishing your own blog site or something. Then you can write whatever you want. But here on Wiki we have to stick to the rules. All the Best,--Kbob (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Merge

My bottom line feeling on this article is that it appears to be promotional in nature. I'm not saying anyone has done this on purpose. But I do not see any benefit to Wiki or its readers by having this album as its own article. I see no reason why the information in it couldn't and shouldn't be merged with the current article on Third Eye Blind which also discusses this album. Any thoughts on that?--Kbob (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki: There are several good reasons to merge a page: 1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope. 2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. 3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.--Kbob (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but this album is set to come out on August 18, about a month from now and will have more information (sales, reception, critical and fan reaction) to expand upon in a reasonable amount of time. Since the album's release has been announced and there is already published information regarding it, it has enough to merit its own page. This article is not a duplicate. Little information regarding Ursa Major is on the Third Eye Blind main article. If you're arguing that this article should be merged since this album has yet to be released, then all articles in the [[Category:Upcoming albums]] page need to be merged/deleted as well. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I atleast agree with you on this point. Especially because, last time I checked, the "Ursa Major" era on the main 3eb page was atrocious. Sergecross73 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll let the issue lie for now. Let's see go through the sources and source everything and see what we really have. Then we can evaluate this idea again once we see what this article really amounts to. With that in mind, I'll remove the banner for now.--Kbob (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I've sort of been on the sidelines watching and chipping in every now and then with this, but even after reading through this talk page I still need a concrete response to this question: are band members blogs 'reliable sources' in the sense that what content they have can be used towards the description or interpretation of an album or song? Measly pawn (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. In a court of law they would be considered a 'witness'. Info from other people would be considered 'hearsay'. However Wiki has different rules. Wiki says that first person information like blogs are not valid sources. Even if the blog is authored by an actual band member or someone with first hand knowledge. So Wiki prefers second or third level sources like newspapers, magazines etc. For online citations that would mean an internet site that is by an organization and has an editing process like the site for Billboard or something. So we can include articles by music critics but we can't include comments by band members or fans. The only exception is if a band member is quoted in a music review or article on the album, then that becomes a valid source. The reason for all this is that anyone can create a blog, anyone can pose as a band member and a band member or fan is biased and not a neutral source of information. That's Wiki's position.--Kbob (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, there are some exceptions for first party sources covered in the section WP:SELFPUB. For example, if the band has an official web site, we can use that to 'self define' the article subject (Ursa Major) and if one of the band members writes the copy for that web site than so be it. But it has to be part of the official web site, not a personal blog.--Kbob (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and thank you for answering. So, official news release on website = good, band blog on website = not as good. But, what in the cases where the website treats certain blogs as official news releases? This is to say, in their 'news' releases they reference a band member's blog? I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm trying to get a handle of what can be claimed and what cannot. Measly pawn (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, good question. If a news article gives information that it has gained from a band blog than most likely that would give validation to the info because it has gone through a filtering process ie. the newspaper writer and editor. However, its hard to say for sure when we talk in 'what ifs' so if you have a source in mind just give us the link here on the talk page and we can check it out and see. Peace.--Kbob (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Banner

Nice work adding citations everyone. I have removed one of the banners. Peace!--Kbob (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh Dream Day album

Eleventh Dream Day have also released an album called Ursa Major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.253.185 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources