Jump to content

Talk:Version 2.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Version 2.0/Comments)
[edit]

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Reviews section as per: Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews

[edit]

| Reviews =

I will use these in the critical recpetion section at some point soon - I am in the middle of a massive rework of the Version 2.0 article. --Breakinguptheguy (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a sentence

[edit]

At the beginning of the Promotion section, it sez: "The entire visual campaign for Version 2.0 was tailored to play off the album cover artwork, the icons designed to represent each single release, provided point-of-sale and the band's videogenic sensibility." This is not a sentence, and I couldn`t make enuf sense of it to turn it into one. Fp cassini (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to Critical reception

[edit]

Dan56, as I stated in the edit summary to the revert, you were removing multiple reviews added in prose from the album ratings box and while I'm augmenting/improving the article (which is disruptive at best); moreover, contrary to your arbitrary objection to quotes here, per the guideline WP:QUOTEFARM (as you cited), the quotes used are not long, comprise of "smaller portions of quotation", are "provided an appropriate context", they do not remotely "dominate the article" and much paraphrase is already used; "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit". --Lapadite (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding About.com's reliability, there is a table of About critics linked in the very section you cited. The writer sourced in the article is considered reliable. --Lapadite (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Commanding and seductive" is not a proper paraphrase of "cybertronic lustfulness", which is what Bobbitt says in her sentence about how it was innovative or groundbreaking --> "Her cybertronic lustfulness, coupled with the sleek production from drummer/mix master extraordinaire Butch Vig, embodied the futuristic path music and technology were racing toward." Ditto with "singular electronic rock sound"; it is Vig's production specifically she cites as a reason it was innovative. You're being redundant by writing "hookier and more melodic"; they mean the same thing and are paraphrasing the same idea in Considine's review, i.e. an "emphasis on melodies". There are already other critics summarized as having "commended the songwriting and vocals", so that adds little and just overemphasizes that viewpoint. "Pushes the improbable" says nothing to readers about what Farber meant, which is, according to what he wrote after that quote, that the band experiments with unexpected sounds: "... the foursome push the improbable, mixing the ghostly sound of a theremin with serrated guitars or working up a series of screeches and bleats into a sturdy pop bridge." Sheffield's point about her sounding like new wave icons is mentioned across the two last paragraphs of his review; Farber draws a comparison to one of those new wave icons, so I'd say it's a relevant enough viewpoint. There really shouldn't even be a discussion about keeping a score from a reviewer summarized in the prose as opposed to one that is not, which I don't feel you would have done if the grade was higher than a "D". On a related note, the same source citing the Milano quote I added is the same verifying "Other reviewers lamented the production effects and Manson's singing." So that is verified, unlike the assumption that the album "received generally positive reviews". I have yet to find a source that actually said that, but you're more than welcome to help out and find one. Dan56 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, your words, in an edit summary: "summarize what they say in your own words" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE)
Second, you don't raise a concern in a talk page and then start making edits/reversal right away as if replies are irrelevant to you, unsurprisingly.
In response to your issues (reviews in link):
· "scary-sexy" → "commanding and seductive" in article; also supported by "cybertronic lustfulness"
· "Its robust electronic-rock wall of sound was so unique and grabbing" (which is immediately followed by the feminism bit you included as part of the review excerpt) → "singular electronic rock sound"
NOTE: "Hookier" and "melody", aren't by any standard, the same thing. Hooks are "ear worms", "ear candy", "studio tricks", "effects", et al, and can come from anything, rhythm, a phrase, vocal scratch; melody is melody. Can't say melodic death metal is "hooky" because it's melodic.
· "commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics" is what the reviewer did. Just because one reviewer (not "other critics", just one) opined that the songwriting's improved from a past album does not mean another review's opinion of strong songwriting is void for the article. There being an agreement between reviewers does not at all = incompatibility in article, nor does it remotely violate neutrality or undue weight (again, Wikilawyering). None of the excerpts comment on the elements in the same way or in the same context. The "commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics" pertains to the preceding statement and is succinct: "said the album is an impressive, hookier and more melodic version of the approach exhibited on Garbage, commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics."
· You're right; in the spirit of succinctness, the "push[es] the improbable" quote doesn't explain much what he meant. Of course, you're solution was to remove it, the review entirely, as opposed to clarifying it. WP:TE, WP:PRESERVE.
· Sheffield states: "Manson steals the show, of course, preening with enough slinky wit in her voice to win you over even when she's rhyming "happy hours" with "golden showers."" → article currently (your version) reads: "Manson remains the highlight because of how her seductive singing evokes new wave greats and helps appropriate the band's complex sounds into a well-crafted, original rock album." Sheffield does not say Manson is the highlight because she evokes new wave greats, so it is not appropriate to have it in that context as it's original research/not sticking to source. The following sentence in Sheffield's review is an additional opinion, unrelated to the former: "It's also sweet how she honors so many of her female New Wave icons." Farber (Entertainment Weekly) doesn't draw a subjective option on some similarity he found or evoking of a new wave artist; he, like most reviews might and do, mentions Chrissie Hynde as the reference she was, since, news flash, a song samples her. Sheffield says: "It's also sweet how she honors so many of her female New Wave icons. Manson turns herself into the Pretenders' Chrissie Hynde in "Special"". Writing that the singer evokes the new wave artist whom she sampled is a waste of space, especially when "brings to mind the late 1970s music of Blondie" (Blondie, a new wave icon) is already in the prose. Funny, you insist on keeping another new wave comparison (contradicting your above songwriting complaint), but removed the excerpt that made comparisons to Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead. WP:TE, WP:POV
"The same source citing the Milano quote I added is the same verifying 'Other reviewers lamented the production effects and Manson's singing'" — One reviewer lamented the singing in that paragraph. That introductory summary statement as I rewrote it ("Other reviewers lamented the studio effects and diminishing returns of the production.") represented two reviewer's notable complaints (Newsweek's and Allmusic's). Saying "other reviews lamented...Manson's singing" is misleading, as only one reviewer here did. And again, the contradictions. You insist on another new wave-comparison mention yet one review disproves of the singing style but it's enough to give it an introduction as if it represents more than one view (a minority one) in the paragraph or the complaint is given by multiple critics.
"There really shouldn't even be a discussion about keeping a score from a reviewer summarized in the prose as opposed to one that is not, which I don't feel you would have done if the grade was higher than a "D"." — In all actually, there's no reason why you would remove a sourced score, that is positive, two add in 2 negative one with equal score while there are already negative scores in the box, other than WP:TE, WP:POV. And you have the audacity to talk about POV and undue weight. I don't care if you feel I restored your inappropriate, tendentious removals because this or because that; here, like many instances before, you're strictly tendentiously editing. One WP:PRESERVEs appropriate content, you do not remove and/or add things to suit your biases or prove a point.--Lapadite (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "scary" nor "sexy" are synonymous with "commanding", which means authoratiative or drawing attention (Merriam-Webster) I concede "singular" makes sense to include but not without attributing it to Vig, because the reviewer mentions his production/mixing in the sentence where she says it paved the way for other music in the future and so on. As far as your point about songwriting being commended by more than one reviewer, you still need to understand you're not supposed to be complete about summarizing each reviewer; the topic is the album and what was praised or criticized about it, so as long as one reviewer is summarized as expressing a certain viewpoint, that is enough of a representative sample for readers to understand the songwriting (which is what? the written music or lyrics? dont the other critics already praise those two things?) was praised, so it shouldnt be over-emphasized: "Reception of... [sections]" are "not meant to be a complete list of all praise and criticism, but to provide readers with a representative sample of how that phenomenon has been received." (WP:Be neutral in form#"Criticism of..." articles, WP:CRIT#Neutrality and verifiability) It's not cherry-picking to exclude it for one reviewer, because cherry-picking involves excluding significant qualifying information; their praise of the songwriting does not qualify their praise or positive response to the album in general--the reader gets the reviewer was positive. Not all my removal of your prose was for this reason, though--often it's because you write or paraphrase poorly or awkardly, or dont bother paraphrasing at all and insist on adding sentence-long quotes, like the comparison to Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails, rather than a POV issue on my part (you could just ask sincerely why I removed a specific piece of text you added instead of assuming something else. "..but felt Manson showed limited range singing in no other way but 'sexy'" is just bad writing. The references to "tendentious" and the like are desensitizing and dont really mean much anymore coming from you. 'Other reviewers lamented the production effects and Manson's singing' is in fact verified by the source cited, along with Milano's quote, if you'd bother checking the source yourself or simply asking me what the source said. Keep in mind, I added The Great Rock Discography score myself when I was researching more about how this album was received, before I found that Newsweek gave it a grade. I'm well within my rights to remove it if there is a more notable publication (MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception) whose reviewer is already summarized in the section, i.e. Newsweek. I'm not going to guess why you would prefer The Great Rock Discography over Newsweek, and I'm not sure why it would make sense for readers to not know the score of a reviewer who is summarized in this section. Newsweek is more notable (notability of the publication --> MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template) I'm restoring it, removing the reference to Blondie (since they are 'new wave'), and removing what you added to make the Considine bit a poorly written, run-on sentence; also, Considine says Manson shows variety in her singing in reference to "Push It", not the album, and he only highlights her lyric on "Sleep Together", not the album or any other song at that. Dan56 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant scary synonyms → eery, intimidating, chilling, alarming, hair-raising, unnerving. "Commanding" is clear and representative enough. Unless you prefer "intimidating" or "unnerving".
"All four of us make production decisions", "With everybody basically acting as producers...It's a democracy to a fault, to the point where it's a real pain in the ass sometimes...it would probably be easier if we had a real leader...but that's not our situation", Their engineer: "Everybody does everything. They all produce...The Garbage sound only exists from the input of all four of them”. The "produced by Vig" is not relevant to the notion put forth by the reviewer (" innovative at the time...can be heard throughout modern popular music"); it's not relevant to the summary of review, period. Second, it is factually incorrect and misleading. In case it's not clear enough: In short, "produced by Vig" is not relevant and is factually incorrect and misleading.
"so as long as one reviewer is summarized as expressing a certain viewpoint, that is enough of a representative sample for readers to understand the songwriting... was praised, so it shouldnt be over-emphasized." WP:Wikilawyering; nothing says one reviewer's notion makes another's similar but not exact void in a summary of notions. Numerous GAs and FAs ay something to the effect of "so and so praised this, as did so and so; so and so also agreed that this or that; etc"; don't be ridiculous, you know this. The exact context is not repeated; one said the songwriting improved from the previous album, the other said the songwriting is strong/as strong. Not the exact idea. You're beyond reaching.
I repeat → The "commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics" [is absolutely relevant and] directly pertains to its preceding statement, succinctly: "said the album is an impressive, hookier and more melodic version of the approach exhibited on Garbage, commending the songwriting and Manson's multifarious vocals and lyrics." Impressive can be removed there as the second phrase specifies what they found impressive. I love how you mask your tendentious removal of it with nonsense like "poorly written, run-on sentence". Who are you kidding.
"..but felt Manson showed limited range singing in no other way but 'sexy'" is just bad writing." - it is not at all; it is absolutely clear. Are you joking or do you really have trouble interpreting things? "Felt Manson showed limited range [as she] sang in no other way but 'sexy'" shortened to "felt manson showed limited range singing in no other way but 'sexy'". What your version said: "but felt Manson is limited in her range and sings in no other way but "sexy"" does not represent what reviewer said: "Brett Milano faulted the singer for her emotional range, which he declared could be characterized by two attitudes: "sexy and sexier."".
Your cherry picking is remarkable: MOS:ALBUM ("only a guide") → "and keeping a neutral point of view.", which is primal in every context. I repeat → In all actually, there's no reason why you would remove a sourced positive score to add in 2 negative ones with equal score while there are already negative scores in the box, other than WP:TE, WP:POV. And you have the audacity to talk about POV and undue weight. I don't care if you feel I restored your inappropriate, tendentious removals because this or because that; here, like many instances before, you are strictly tendentiously editing. One WP:PRESERVEs appropriate content, you do not remove and/or add things to suit your biases or prove a point. The Great Rock Discography was already present, is notable, sourced, and there's no non-WP:TE, non-disruptive reason to replace it. It does not matter that it's not in the prose; The Encyclopedia of Popular Music and The Rolling Stone Album Guide are not in prose either, and you can it if you want. (Just to respond to your notion here: "I'm not sure why it would make sense for readers to not know the score of a reviewer who is summarized in this section" - actually, it makes sense that a review that isn't in the prose be sourced in the ratings box as it gives readers extra insight into the overall reception. Readers can easily click on the citation next to the Newsweek review given prominence in prose if they want to read more about it - that's how it works.) If there were no mixed or negative reviews in the ratings box then that would be an appropriate addition, but there already are; the box already contains 10 review scores. You replacing a positive review for another negative one is only WP:TE, WP:UNDUE, WP:RSUW. --Lapadite (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, note - Sheffield states: "Manson steals the show, of course, preening with enough slinky wit in her voice to win you over even when she's rhyming "happy hours" with "golden showers."" → your version reads: "Manson remains the highlight because of how her seductive singing evokes new wave greats and helps appropriate the band's complex sounds into a well-crafted, original rock album." Sheffield does not say Manson is the highlight because she evokes new wave greats, so it is not appropriate to have it in that context as it's original research/not sticking to source. The following sentence in Sheffield's review is an additional opinion, unrelated to the former: "It's also sweet how she honors so many of her female New Wave icons." --Lapadite (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's noting about "multifarious vocals and lyrics" in Considine's review. Also, Considine associates melodies with hooks/catchiness --> "So there's extra emphasis on the melodies, putting such a premium on catchiness that barely a verse goes by without a hook or two snagging the listener's ear". Dan56 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considine's review quotes, noting Manson's vocals and lyrics: "...case in point. Singer Shirley Manson pulls out all stops on the tune, moving from sultry croon to distorted scream to desperate whisper, giving a performance that doesn't need a video to seem dramatic." → Multifarious - having many different parts, elements, forms, etc / Multifaceted - having many facets, as a gem, either/or. "The wit and conviction Manson brings to the lyric is what turns the tune from sonic novelty into surefire single.", "It's Manson's sex-as-negotiating-tool lyric that ultimately holds our attention" (commending lyrics)
This notion in Considine's review should also be represented in the summary of the review: "Although the vibe on "Version 2.0" is very band-oriented and organic, the sounds are often like nothing found in the usual world of guitars, basses and drums. Instead, what we get is like the acoustic equivalent of computer graphics -- something similar to natural sound, but infinitely malleable and often quite fantastic."
You've omitted significant qualifying information, "...on the tune" rather than on the album, thus your summary is not representative of how the critic received the album but rather one song he pointed to. You've also misrepresented the quote; Considine's "case in point" refers to the preceding paragraph about there being an "extra emphasis on the melodies". Also, the way you superficially substitute and closely paraphrase quotes like "scary-sexy" is problematic and makes the sentence less readable; like in your revision to the sentence about Considine, you've added another conjunction and made it a clumsier read. I still don't feel you're treating this section like a representative sample of how the album was received, worrying instead about representing the source completely, which is not the purpose of this section (WP:NIF#"Criticism of..." articles) Using verbs like "noted" don't help either, since it's primarily used to describe recording fact rather than expressing opinion, which is what "a more melodic version..." is. Dan56 (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You've omitted significant qualifying information, "...on the tune" " — you did read what I wrote above? See: "Considine's review quotes, noting Manson's vocals and lyrics: '...case in point. Singer Shirley Manson pulls out all stops on the tune...'." The only one cherry picking here is you; Coisidine singles out a song exemplifying the preceding notion, as a case of melodies amidst moodiness and ambition, and then highlights Manson's multifaceted singing he considered also characteristic of the song he mentioned; and he praised the singing again, 4 paragraphs later, after relating another song ("Paranoid" - "As much as the shifting textures in "I Think I'm Paranoid" adds to the song's impact –"): "...the wit and conviction Manson brings to the lyric is what turns the tune from sonic novelty into surefire single". That he praises her singing in the context of particular songs mentioned as examples of prior notions is irrelevant - he's still noting her varied her vocals are, and the songs (or, if it were, "song") are on the album. If you'd like to get pedantic (ironically), then one could state he "commended...Manson's multifaceted singing on the songs Push It and I think I'm Paranoid". But it is clear that he did anyhow. Restoring it again; if you want to specify the mentioned songs do so on a constructive edit.
"Also, the way you superficially substitute and closely paraphrase quotes like "scary-sexy" is problematic and makes the sentence less readable" — not remotely. What you describe is exactly what I did, substitute and closely paraphrase, and what you been ranting for since the start of the RfC. Can't adhere to that quote position now when you don't want the content included?
"like in your revision to the sentence about Considine, you've added another conjunction and made it a clumsier read." — again, no I didn't. And again, incredibly rich coming from you; I repeat:

Again, note - Sheffield states: "Manson steals the show, of course, preening with enough slinky wit in her voice to win you over even when she's rhyming "happy hours" with "golden showers."" → your version reads: "Manson remains the highlight because of how her seductive singing evokes new wave greats and helps appropriate the band's complex sounds into a well-crafted, original rock album." Sheffield does not say Manson is the highlight because she evokes new wave greats, so it is not appropriate to have it in that context as it's original research/not sticking to source. The following sentence in Sheffield's review is an additional opinion, unrelated to the former: "It's also sweet how she honors so many of her female New Wave icons."

Representing the sources' words, as their opinions are, independent of each other, is precisely the point of a critical reception section; A summary of the reception from critics - which, again, are and write independently of each other. It is not our prerogative to decide that, out of the reliable sources out there, a couple of the critics' or certain aspects of their views are more/less important or more/less relevant than others' because of what is said, or what has been said. We represent the selection of critics available and used proportionally and accurately, and don't mislead readers. If a reviewer praises the songwritng and the singer's vocals, and another happens to do the same in whatever context, then we need to convey what both critics said, and by representing the reality the reader can see not only what the response consisted of but notice how homogenous or varied the reception actually was (not the particular views we choose to show them which may convey a different general reception than what was); They can see if and whether some or many reviewers agreed or disagreed on certain elements of an album. We do NOT intentionally filter out main points of opinions we don't want under the pretext that another review also praised that aspect of the record, or that representing it is "poor writing". I don't need to state, again for the dozenth time, what that constitutes.
"Using verbs like "noted" don't help either, since it's primarily used to describe recording fact rather than expressing opinion" — Wow. Ok, so the Merriam dictionary you linked: (1)to notice or pay attention to (something); (2) to say or write (something); (3)to make special mention of or remark on; (4)indicate, show. Dictionary.reference.com: (1)to write or mark down briefly; make a memorandum of (example given: "to note the places of interest."); (2)to make particular mention of in a writing (ex given: "She noted their extra efforts in her report."); (3)to observe carefully; give attention or heed to; (4)to take notice of; perceive; etc. Any more pretense? --Lapadite (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cant notice or observe that the album is "a more melodic version...". You can say you believe it is a "more melodic version", because it's an opinion, not a fact. "The album is 49 minutes, 34 seconds long" is an observation. Dan56 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I don't know who told you that "WE" don't do this or that, but praise and criticism of an album are supposed to be "provided in context with each other". A complimentary remark by Considine to how varied Manson sings on one song is not a main point of his review. If anything, Considine contextualizes this remark as an aside ("Yet for all that...") to his actual point, the "many layers of melody". I don't see what "wit and conviction" by Manson on another song have anything to do with Considine believing her singing is "varied" or "multifarious", so this amounts to overemphasizing a point Considine barely makes. Dan56 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Age rating is out of 4 stars; e.g., [5], [6], [7]. --Lapadite (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RFC is closed No Consensus. The opinions were even and the only outside editors to comment were non committal on the topic. AlbinoFerret 22:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my contention that this revision by Lapadite77 does not improve the article, for the reasons I've outlined below in my comments. This is the current version of the section in question, after I tried to condense what was added accordingly. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes
Comments

I feel it overloads the section with quotations used without pertinence, with regurgitated praise from any reviewer available. Lapadite77 did not even paraphrase these overlong quotes or fragments from the source, which present nothing new or unique from what had previously been in the section and amounts to redundant guff. Using too many quotes is incompatible with encyclopedic writing. (WP:QUOTEFARM) A criticism or reception section is not meant to be a complete list of all praise or criticism, but rather to provide readers with a representative sample of how this album has been received. (WP:NIF#Red flags) Furthermore, whatever paraphrasing was done in this revision is poor and non-neutral, particularly the paragraph given to the Baltimore Sun reviewer, at least half of which comprises quoted material, as does the four-sentence quotation from a review by About.com. The section should be readable and representative of the unique points made about this album, not comprehensive and bludgeoning readers with the same thing being said in a different way. Erroneous also was moving a paragraph on the album's rankings in critics' polls out of the "accolades" section. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will repost my comment from the above section regarding Dan56's edit:

Dan56, as I stated in the edit summary to the revert, you were removing multiple reviews added in prose from the album ratings box and while I'm augmenting/improving the article (which is disruptive at best); moreover, contrary to your arbitrary objection to quotes here, per the guideline WP:QUOTEFARM (as you cited), the quotes used are not long, comprise of "smaller portions of quotation", are "provided an appropriate context", they do not remotely "dominate the article" and much paraphrase is already used; "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit". Regarding About.com's reliability, there is a table of About critics linked in the very section you cited. The writer sourced in the article is considered reliable.

(bolding the following as Dan56 put forth a misleading "revision" in the RfC which is not actually the revision in question, this version of the section is - improvements Dan56 does not want - vs Dan's version (excising reviews)): I had already restored the erroneous removal of an equal Rolling Stone rating in the album ratings box, so why bring it up? Clearly not relevant to the issue raised. The section is perfectly readable and representable, not repetitive, not remotely POV-hindered; all but two reviews used are directly from those cited on the album ratings box. Newsweek's was already there, a reliable source, and the About.com writer sourced is reliable per Wikipedia as noted above. However I do find suspect your insistence on removing these reviews (which are positive in nature, but represented fairly) with claims of POV, particularly given your prior edits here seemingly pushing certain reviews that contained particular genres (e.g., [8]) + this claim of retrospective reviews not being valid here [9] when you added one yourself. Regarding the article's subject, It should also be noted that this is evidently a major, famous album with plenty of media coverage, major publication reviews, and accolades, and it should not remotely be subjected to a diminutive reception section, especially if this were to be considered for a GA or FA status in the future. The implication that there are too many reviews is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment: an RfC is going on and Dan56 is continuing to make edits on this matter without waiting for at least a partial consensus or middle ground to be reached; against WP:BRD, as pointed out in edit summary --Lapadite (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you to achieve a consensus to support your change, @Lapadite77:. Your bold edit was reverted, not mine (WP:BRD). I originally restored it to the original version, which had been in the article for months. Dan56 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)2nd Follow up comment: Dan56 reverted such edit ^. Dan56, discussion is just starting, do not make further edits until an understanding is reached here (per WP:BRD) when multiple editors weigh in; make use of the talk page and do not edit war. Let's wait other editors' input. You did not just restore it, you made 3 edits after RfC was created. --Lapadite (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see Lapadite's revision as problematic per se. I'm unaware of a strict limit to the size of reception sections, and WP:QUOTEFARM is kind of vague, so if Dan56 feels it is too long, he can make it shorter by cutting excesses. He could even take out a couple of reviews if they make the section too repetitive, but simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic. Victão Lopes Fala! 16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lopes, I am not at all opposed to trimming certain quotes, making it more succinct and paraphrasing further - it's what I'd been focusing on as I started to improve this article, which needs serious improvement, before Dan 56 began removing my edits - while still retaining what is conveyed by the reviewers (all). As detailed above, what Dan56 has done however is remove the reviews I added in the prose (which were were from the album ratings box, that he himself augmented time ago). He apparently only wants to keep certain reviews, the ones he added, and which curiously contain particular genres he immediately used for the infobox, which is part of the reason why I suspect these recent edits and his inappropriate claim of POV, along making a misleading statement in the RfC and a misleading link to an inaccurate revision. --Lapadite (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you favor making the section a bit shorter, then I guess that'll be the best option to satisfy both sides of this dispute. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding various sources of opinion is usually a good thing. But the more succint, the better. Lumping all negative reviews together and denoting certain aspects reviewers highlighted are ways to employ\justify so many quotes (the two Garbage albums listed as Good Articles are great examples). igordebraga ≠ 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Igordebraga, third GA. Also note (all editors) some of this band's contemporaries' album articles: GA, FA, [10], [11], GA, [12], [13], GA, FA, GA --Lapadite (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see that one passed (with a review that didn't ask too much of you). I have enough experience with album GAs (including other Garbage contemporaries) to know how to improve reception - and I've been asked to cut on quotations before, it's not that hard. And if reception was mostly positive, then lots of gushing reviews won't help a lot (a few of dissent, on the other hand...). igordebraga ≠ 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Igordebraga, I've said that I'm not at all opposed to trimming and paraphrasing further. What I opposed was Dan's removal of the reviews added in this revision, which Victão Lopes objected to here as well. For this album, it appears reception was mostly positive, and many of the positive reviews aren't gushing, but describe what works and in some something that doesn't. Like I said above, "this is evidently a major, famous album with plenty of media coverage, major publication reviews, and accolades, and it should not remotely be subjected to a diminutive reception section, especially if this were to be considered for a GA or FA status in the future. The implication that there are too many reviews is just ridiculous."
Again, this RfC created by Dan56 came after his reverting of extra reviews added from the ratings box. The version he objected to added 2 more reviewers from the ratings box and the version he reverted to is what he'd added before and, notably, who's linked genres he immediately took to the infobox. The version objected to is not completed as it needs copy editing, something I was't given the chance to start with Dan's quick and disruptive reversals. Igordebraga, the reception section you cited is another good example. --Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the FAs Lapadite referred to, both have only one paragraph dedicated to the critics' reviews. Dan56 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your point merely indicating that they are grouped into one paragraph, because they have multiple reviews and quotes cited, like the GA Igordebraga cited above and the rest linked above. --Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph is defined by the unity and coherence of ideas discussed (writercenter.unc.edu); one paragraph deals with reviews of the album in those FA articles, while your revision in this article offers three on positive reviews before a fourth which ends with another positive review being overquoted--quotes of more than 40 words require a block quote btw. That is non-neutral in form, and this section is "not (emphasis added) meant to be a complete list of all praise and criticism" (WP:NIF). Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the revision there was one quote with over 40 words, in a review I didn't add. Paragraphs in the linked GAs and FAs comprise multiple reviews and quotes. --Lapadite (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally would begin copy editing the section but I rather not before an understanding is reached in the RfC in case Dan56 continues disruptively reverting.--Lapadite (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lapadite, the condition of an another article is irrelevant to this one (WP:OSE), particularly since the "third GA" you pointed to has noticeable issues in grammar and citation consistency in its #Critical reception section that went overlooked in the GA review--the first paragraph refers to "the album" and not the proper noun "Beautiful Garbage", which is what a new paragraph should do, while the ratings template has a mix of inline citations and external links (which should not be in the article body). More importantly, I reverted your additions, then refined them (including prose from the reviews by Spin, The Baltimore Sun, and The About Group), because they were given undue weight (i.e. overquoting points already brought up by other sources paraphrased in the section, and in several cases more than two sentences up to a paragraph given to one review source), and came off as a jarring, awkward read for a general audience ("The Baltimore Sun noted the deliberate eschewing of reinvention" is an overblown way of saying the album wasn't much different from their first, and "...acknowledged how the group..." isn't appropriate because that verb applies to facts, which is not what "push the improbable" is, it's the critic's opinion). These are just two issues, but most of what you wrote wasn't readable, even for a person who has more than a general interest in music topics, and it overemphasized points of view. You're claim in this comment about me is silly and confusing btw. Dan56 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those other articles are GA and FA; you yourself commented on them above. In the third GA, I see the reference style on the ratings box was overlooked; easy fix. The reviews were not given undue weight; the quotations used only specified what reviews thought worked and/or didn't. Nothing quoted was brought up by other sources used. Nothing was overemphasized, as all reviews received about the same prose length. "Baltimore Sun noted the "deliberate eschewing of reinvention" is an overblown way of saying the album wasn't much different from their first" - "Overblow" is subjective, your opinion; the introductory phrase concisely conveys what the reviewer initially noted in the review:

In terms of general sound and sensibility, it's not all that different from the band's 1995 debut. We get the same blend of guitar crunch and automaton thump in the instrumental tracks, the same fondness for exotic textures and sudden bursts of noise, the same combination of sex and sass in the vocals. ... except that it's better the second time around .... That's pretty much the effect Garbage is going for with its sophomore release ... This is definitely not an attempt at reinvention ... the album does make improvements, and good ones at that.

You stating "the album wasn't much different from their first" does not convey what the review said, and it's not NPOV → "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We should not be Chery picking and we should be Sticking to Sources. And again I have no problem with rephrasing and paraphrasing further where needed, as long as it still conveys what reviewers have say.--Lapadite (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out how poor of writing "deliberate eschewing of reinvention" is, not to mention how you didn't place quotation marks around "reinvention" since you took it from the source, which makes me wonder how many other instances of close paraphrasing there are in your revision; the current revision encapsulates Considine's points and omits his remark on Manson's singing because Sheffield is already paraphrased regarding her singing. Sticking to sources makes it a point to "summarize what they say in your own words". 350 of the 550 words in your four-paragraph summary of the reviews are quoted, which simply is a problem, for copyright issues, readability issues... it's just bad, uninteresting, jarring writing: "he deemed it 'great to find it'"? The third paragraph--the one with noticeably undue weight given to The Baltimore Sun--begins with a sloppy run-on sentence and touches on the guitar, melodicism, beats, noisy sound, and Manson's singing in ways Christgau, Sheffield, and Erlewine are already summarized as doing. Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off, your claims are remarkably rich coming from you. (In case you fail to assume good faith again and throw out accusations, the xx is one of numerous bands that are on my watch list and I'd done some copyediting on their page before.) And on the subject of the xx album (in the spirit of examples given) - and I'm telling you because you said you wrote it (it's "the best article I've written") - there is considerable POV, undue weight, and cherrypicking issues in the reception section. But back to this album; there's never risk of copyright violation in adding quotations, and there's no potential violation in correct paraphrasing, which, from what I contributed, is exactly that. Regarding this reception matter, everything's been said and cleared. I shall continue copyediting and adding information to the article, you know, to improve it.--Lapadite (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited, you know... (WP:COPYQUOTE) Dan56 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing 'extensive' here, as already stated above. And, as you willfully pointed out, block quotes exist for a reason. If you thoroughly read the articles you cite, dial back the Wikilawyering and quit cherry picking, (which, one could assume, may be driven by some sort of vendetta or frustration), you'd see that the principles of such guidelines are not violated; e.g., WP:COPYQUOTE → "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted ... What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work ... In one extreme case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement ... The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject. All quotations must be attributed to their source." --Lapadite (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what you quoted reiterates existing viewpoints in the section, making it unuseful. If you are still trying to make "a complete list of all praise and criticism", then nothing's changed as far as this discussion is concerned. Dan56 (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And after all the fuss regarding my addition of reviews, you add some more ... augmenting it as if it's, wait for it, "a complete list of all praise and criticism" ^. Unsurprisingly, it's a negative review stating something that partly contradicts another review present. I haven't checked the sources of your recent edits; again, avoid tendentious editing, cherry picking, POV, original research, and making a point. --Lapadite (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Dan56 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'd like to note, before any uninvolved admin closes this discussion, that Lapadite77 solicited comments ([14], [15]) from editors they had worked with on other "Garbage" articles and had solicited comments in a non-neutral way ([16], before in another content dispute, (WP:RfC#Publicizing an RfC, WP:CANVASS) or for their known opinion or viewpoint, considering Coemgenus had reviewed and passed ([17]) an article Lapadite77 cited above as precedent for justifying their edits here. Dan56 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this, another one of his accusations. Evidently, Dan56 has no plans to change his behavior, which has been, unsurprisingly, called out by multiple editors in the past. Is there one RfC that's not a battleground with you?--Lapadite (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's cute and all, but I stand by what I said. Dan56 (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you do. Your actions and attitudes, current and past, speak louder than any twaddle. Excuse me, leaving another eventual inane exchange as I get back to my only focus here: improving articles. --Lapadite (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My user page speaks louder ;) Dan56 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Dan56 is now writing in the above section while this is still open, but all editors interested please see the above section (as well as this and this section) regarding Dan's recent edits (including reversals again). I strongly encourage others to chime in, especially as Dan56 continues WP:OWN and WP:TE habits. Pinging users that have commented above: Victor Lopes, Igordebraga. --Lapadite (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC: Which source is most reliable/appropriate for verifying this album's reception?

[edit]
Votes
  1. Contemporary Musicians Published by Gale Research, it's chapter on Version 2.0 in their bio on Garbage (text copied at encyclopedia.com) says this album received mixed reviews. This is a source directly related (and thus not original research) to the topic of this article. Lapadite77 has argued for a Slant Magazine review of another album, which only briefly mentions Version 2.0, and other obscure blog-like sources like Xsnoize and The Solute. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I've been skimming more of Contemporary Musicians and found that this album received "somewhat mixed reviews". In light of this, the Critical reception section will have to be restructured. Dan56 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike Wilbury:, Lapadite77 is engaging in fan cruft and original research. He removed the aforementioned source which verifies and documents this album's mixed reception in favor of two sources--one which I'm assuming cites the vague line about "Garbage's press" having "been predominantly favourable, the consensus being that they're here to stay, despite their oddness", and a review by Slant Magazine about a different album which is makes no discussion of Version 2.0's reception--in an attempt to verify the reception was positive. The most reliable sources on the topic should be cited, and Contemporary Musicians dedicates three paragraphs to how Version 2.0 was received in its chapter on Garbage. Also, Lapadite77 reverted all of my changes, without explanation, and effectively disregarded the above two sections where each of these changes had been discussed and justified. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no need to respond to obvious lies (possibly based on retaliation), as the diffs are clear, and the reason explicitly stated in the restoring edit summary; plus, in the following edit summary, I added back in the good additions you made to the lead + some needed fixes. I won't even bother addressing the ludicrous and hypocritical claims you just made. As for correctly replacing a source tendentiously used to change the entire premise and structure of the reception section (as well as reflect it in the lead) - the Contemporary Musicians article (which, after reading about this band in the process, I realize it assumes much incorrectly) says "It was met with somewhat mixed reviews" before citing a few largely positive reviews (save for one, which still concedes positive notions) that lament some aspect of the album/approach; like the majority of non-gushing/not-10/10 album reviews do. It should be noted that on Metacritic, a score of 61 = "generally favorable reviews"; this band's third album, with 9 reviews considered positive and 8 considered mixed, was given a Metascore of 69, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Reading through all reviews during research, one notices this album has overwhelmingly more positive reviews from reliable sources than mixed or negative; to follow up on my previous example, 2.0 would have a higher score on Metacritc than the third album. To a more definite point: There is more than one source that states or indicates that the album was generally positively received: Slant Magazine: "the commercial and critical success of the Grammy-nominated Version 2.0", XS Noize: "The release was on numerous best albums of the year lists", The Guardian, in a part-album/mostly-2.0 live performance review: "Garbage's press has been predominantly favourable, the consensus being that they're here to stay...", The Solute: "their acclaimed sophomore album, Version 2.0.", The Solute: "Their winning streak would continue with Version 2.0 ... while earning raves across the world.", NY Post: "a major band that made three critically acclaimed multiplatinum albums since they formed in 1995". Here are just 5 more positive reviews come across that are not in the reception section: CNN, A.V. club, The Drum, The Herald Sun, People --Lapadite (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A review of another album by Slant that briefly alludes to this album is not the most reliable source on the topic, nor is a blog like the-solute.com and xsnoize. The Herald Sun and CNN wrote profiles on the band at the time of the album, they did not review the album, while The Drum is not a notable reviewer--and unsurprisingly you scoured the band's websites for positive press. People magazine is a celebrity, interest-piece tabloid, and the snippet you provided is from Amazon.com, which happens to cherry-pick a positive quote from NME, who in reality gave the album a mixed review. The A.V. Club's review is lukewarm and concludes with the back-handed compliment: "Version 2.0 is fad-conscious ear candy, but it's some of the best fad-conscious ear candy you'll hear this year." I don't believe you have critically assessed the quality of the sources you found, and I question how you went about finding them. I find it difficult to believe you care at all about maintain a neutral point of view and considering the notability of the reviewers when you remove scores from The Times and Newsweek in favor of The Great Rock Discography, which I originally added when looking for more scores to fill out the ratings template. Dan56 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laughable. The statement is on a reliable source; it is utterly irrelevant that the source "briefly alludes" to this album in another album's review, you've got to be joking; the statement is what's relevant and what is sourced. Seriously, your tendentiousness knowns no bounds. 1) You don't determine what's notable, 2) it is/was an Australian print publication. Xsnoize is not a blog, and The Solute is blog-like, with writers that stem from The Dissolve community. In any case, at least one RS is evident and sourced. A.V. Club review is clearly positive. I won't even bother with the other ridiculous pretexts. Unsurprisingly, you retaliate from an ANI on you by hammering down your tendentious, POV editing/attitudes and projecting what you're accused of and repeatedly do onto others. All you're doing here is professing, forging misleading theories and hypocritical assumptions and presumptions, trying to pass it off as substance in your post. That's all I have to say about your incredibly off-base, and, again, ludicrous and hypocritical claims. By the way, there is no apparent verifiability for the The Times review, so it is not appropriate to supposedly paraphrase it; you need to link to the review in the prose. And for the record, merely copying what I state in edit summaries, trying to pass it off as 'reason' does not look good on you and does not afford credence. --Lapadite (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did the link I provided in the comment you were supposedly responding to above go over your head? Or did I just conjure up what I paraphrased? Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56, I meant for "The Times"; changed it. You need to link to The Times review. --Lapadite (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your presumption? (WP:CITE#Links and ID numbers) Dan56 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[verification needed] for the review. You haven't provided an external link, ISBN, OCLC, or a way to verify the source. --Lapadite (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the issue date and page number. If you have doubts as to the material it is being used to cite, then the burden is on you to access it yourself, but you're not to reject a print source unavailable online simply because you find it difficult to access (WP:SOURCEACCESS). "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You provided the citation you found online, which was linked above; like I said here here - A source you yourself did not access but used a citation found online, posting a short statement based off the title in the article, was challenged and tagged, therefore the burden is on you to provide verification of the source. And you have persistently refused to do so. --Lapadite (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will add what I said here:

Again, there's no indication that you actually accessed the source yourself as oppose to just copying a citation found on a site and writing a sentence based on its title. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", "To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed.", "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself".

Dan56, regarding date formats, need I remind it was you who changed the European/most of the world date format to the North American one: [18]. I will continue the current format, but you erred in actuality, MOS:DATEUNIFY, for changing a consistent date format (the ones using slashes could've just been expanded). --Lapadite (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does the source cited verify the statement?

[edit]

While accusing me in bad faith of tagging this statement, Lapadite77 believes the source he cited to support "...backed with innovative music videos" verifies that the music videos were in fact "innovative". I contend that it does not explicitly state or support this album's videos were "innovative". This discussion concerns WP:PEA and OR guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Peacock terms like "innovative" should be attributed (WP:PEA) Furthermore, the source cited--Rolling Stone's Colleen Nika--does not say the videos for this album were "innovative". She says "[Manson's] roles in Version 2.0's clips grew ever more adventurous." Dan56 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I question WP:COMPETENCE when your drive is so remarkably tendentious that it blinds you from perceiving the reality of what you're reading (if you actually read it entirely before claims). Let me point to it by directly quoting: "For all their noir-filtered sonic pioneering, Garbage also quickly developed a reputation for being one of the Nineties' most visually forward bands, thanks to their innovative video work with directors like Andrea Giacobbe and Stephane Sednaoui [*] ... By the late Nineties, the band's reputation as video vanguards was well-established and subsequently, her roles in Version 2.0's clips grew ever more adventurous." [*]P.S., directors on this album's videos. --Lapadite (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that quote. It does not support what you're using it for. It's simple, no matter how overblown your reaction to this is. Dan56 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely; it's simple, no matter how overblown your reaction to this has been. Direct attribution; "being one of the Nineties' most visually forward bands, thanks to their innovative video work with directors like Andrea Giacobbe [directed "Push It" video] and Stephane Sednaoui [directed "You Look So Fine" video] ... By the late Nineties, the band's reputation as video vanguards was well-established". --Lapadite (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So two videos, out of the six singles, this writer from Rolling Stone believed were "innovative". Great! So reword it as such, which I recall doing before you reverted me. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parading your WP:TE; "being one of the Nineties' most visually forward bands, thanks to their innovative video work with directors like Andrea Giacobbe and Stephane Sednaoui ... By the late Nineties, the band's reputation as video vanguards was well-established", recounts a reliable source. --Lapadite (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the source explicitly says this album's string of hit singles were backed with innovative music videos, this is original research. Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect and WP:POINTy, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:TE. Statements are clear; source directly states/recounts "the band's reputation as video vanguards was well-established", and cites examples of innovative work ("one of the Nineties' most visually forward bands, thanks to their innovative video work with directors like Andrea Giacobbe and Stephane Sednaoui"). --Lapadite (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Votes
  1. No The source does not explicitly support the statement that the videos for this album were "innovative". Dan56 (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Which paraphrase of NME's review of the album is more appropriate?

[edit]

Diff of revisions being argued for by me and Lapadite77. I originally added this text on February 10, before Lapadite77 removed it altogether, which I reverted, and he then revised while accusing me of cherry picking. This is the complete text from Stephen Dalton's review for NME magazine. Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes
  1. Original as I first added it to this article, and per my comments below. Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

My revision is faithful to Dalton's conclusion and essential points and complaints with the album--Manson's lyrics --> "Ultimately, though, Shirley's lyrics remain the album's focus - and, alas, its weak link.", and in the last few sentences of his review, that the band's music is unmemorable and unadventurous --> "Ultimately, Garbage are still too harmless, too guileless, too unassuming to hate. But it's equally difficult to imagine ever feeling impassioned, intoxicated or even mildly moved by their business-class executive rock and cartoon-vamp posturing. 'Version 2.0' is state-of-the-art corporate software: virus free, millennium friendly, functional and slick. But, outside of office hours, pretty damn forgettable." Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Correction of misleading info - I initially removed it because Dan56 had not provided a way to verify the sources. He did later. NME's is revised as, like many instances before, it is cherry picked. Dan56 himself noted in an above section that NME review is of mixed nature (not negative); his paraphrasing does not entirely WP:STICKTOSOURCE and does not represent the nature of the review. My revision concisely, proportionally, while minimizing quotes, - things Dan56 has argued here are necessary - represents it. Dan56 has been called out multiple times on his tendentious editing, and it has been clear he is biased against the subject of this article. --Lapadite (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what gave you this impression, but external links are not a requirement for citing sources. Furthermore, both versions use six quoted words, so minimizing quoted material is not an issue here. As for being "biased against the subject of this article", you're pretty paranoid and off-base; I haven't even listened to this album yet. Dan56 (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah listening to an album is the only thing that can make one biased, not perhaps a bias against a type of music or against the artist; because, you know, this is definitely not your first considerable dispute at one of this band's articles, and definitely not concerning some of the same issues (WP:OWN, WP:TE). --Lapadite (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of talk comment on providing verification: [19] (for The Times source). Dan56 had no problem verifying NME source, but has now repeatedly ignored verification request for The Times'. The citation is challenged, therefore, per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_and_ID_numbers, WP:Verifiability and WP:OR, you need to provide a way to verify the source, which, as per my efforts to find it, is appears to not be verifiable. I've no problem with the source if it is verified. An unverifiable, tagged, citation/source needs to be removed if not addressed. --Lapadite (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "efforts"? The Times has a digital archive. Did you try that? Dan56 (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you know, those made through my computer, not by your side. It is not in that digital archive. Nothing shows up; not the title, not the author, not the name of the album. Judging by your avoidance, It appears as though you never actually accessed it and just copied a citation/title found online; e.g., I see the citation you used on this site that came up on Google: "Eccleston, Danny. 1998. "It's Bin Done: Garbage (6/10). Version 2.0. (Mushroom)." Times (London) (9 May): 10.". If the source is verified then it can be kept. --Lapadite (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD - Dan56, quit misrepresenting and violating BRD. Your edit (initial NME/Times addition) was reverted, your restoring of it was revised, and your revert of it (which took it back to the initial state (which I challenged) was reverted. Per BRD (and obviously WP:EW) you should not continue reverting/restoring such until an understanding is reached on talk page, like my edit summary says. --Lapadite (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, so only your version of the article can be acceptable is what you're saying? (WP:OWN) Dan56 (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you removing my original addition of prose from NME's review and then choosing to revise it after I had restored what you'd reverted doesn't make your revised version the original. Dan56 (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Another frankly pathetic projection of what Dan himself has been called out on multiple times, here, and by various other editors (particularly at ANI). --Lapadite (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure those who chime in at this RfC will appreciate your civility. Dan56 (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone reading this can definitely appreciate your numerous baseless accusations, lies and misrepresentations, and OWN and tendentious issues, especially everyone knowledgable of your history of disputes at various talk pages and noticeboards. --Lapadite (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC Is Badly Worded This is the secnod time that the 'bot has called me in to look at editors contentions, and this second time I see once again that the RFC is not worded well enough or briefly enough to capture the interest of othereditors to offer informed opinions, so if you're not getting attention from third parties enough to resolve the issues, that is why.
The subject matter is obscure, very few editors are going to know anything about the subject music group so you need to describe the various proposed text changes, why you believe one fits better than the rest, invite other editors to comment, and then accept the suggestions offered if there is some kind of concensus or majority -- which you editors having this discussion are well aware of, it looks to me to judge from your contribution history.
What has happened is that now two editors are sniping at each other, devolving in to accusations while the original article's issues have become a secondary focus. Editors called in by the 'bot to comment don't want to waste their volunteer time dropping in to personality conflicts, they want to offer suggestions and then get on with the next issue that arises.
If you would, please someone quantify the issues clearly and briefly, go back and agree to delete your sniping and start over. Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should interview articles/profile pieces be incorporated into this article's reception section?

[edit]

I brought up in one of the above threads that the CNN and CMJ profile pieces on Garbage shouldn't have been added because they are not actual reviews and the section already gives undue weight to positive reviews of the album, so I removed them from this article's Critical reception section, before being reverted by Lapadite77, who claimed my removal constituted "POV-pushing edits, removing + reviews from reliable sources".

Votes
  1. No Profile features or interview articles are often written with the subject and their accomplishments in mind, making them poor sources for objective, critical writing, and the section in the article already gives undue weight to positive reviews when, according to Contemporary Musicians, this album received "somewhat mixed reviews". Dan56 (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and clarification - Reviews given in profiles/interviews by reliable sources are used throughout many articles, GAs and FAs. That an article contains an interview or is a profile on a subject does not mean, in theory or practice, a review given by the source is consciously biased in either way. WP:BIASED, it is not our job to try to assess what we think are biases in sources - which all inherently have - and select them or their statements as per our own; we present the viewpoint. The section already gives undue weight to positive reviews of the album is telling. Dan56 has linked again (misleading readers of only this section) a source who's content in question was challenged, and notably contradicted by multiple other sources in an RfC above. --Lapadite (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What source(s) say this album received positive reviews? Dan56 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I really had no life these years... Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Version 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Version 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Version 2.0. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Version 2.0/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Version 2.0. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Version_2.0&oldid=1211552548"