Talk:Whirr

June is an EP

NeedlezShoegazerKane, two of Wikipedia's largest policies are Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources. The source you provided in your edit summary was June's entry at Discogs. Here on Wikipedia, we do not consider Discogs to be a reliable source to verify information because it is itself a wiki-style website that anyone can edit. Published sources with editorial oversight such as BrooklynVegan, PunkNews and The 1st Five refer to this release as an EP, not a single. Wikipedia policies aside, June doesn't seem to fit the definition of a single – traditionally, the A-side is the name of the release. If this were truly a single, it would be called Junebouvier, not June. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

FezMar9, Nick Bassett, of the band Whirr, identifies 'June' as a single.[1] I don't know how you could argue further. Ask the band or the label that actually made and released the Single, they'll tell you the same. Aspire to be journalistic. NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk)

Your argument takes the form: whatever the band says is the unobjectionable truth. Under this logic, if Whirr called "June" a zebra, we would have to call "June" a zebra as well. This is obviously absurd, so the band's word cannot be taken verbatim. Instead, a comparison of reliable sources is what will yield true and verifiable facts. As someone with a journalism degree, I can tell you that this is in fact very journalistic. For example, if you're following the NSA's mass privacy breach, you may have heard that the NSA defended their stance by suggesting their methods prevented 54 terrorist attacks. But through examining the truth value of this claim, it was determined that the NSA's spy programs may have only played a role in 4 attacks. Upon uncovering this information, the NSA claimed it really only helped in one[2]. So if Whirr want to call "June" a single, they can, but the truth value of that claim must be evaluated. Based on the definition of "single," if Whirr released a single titled "June" then Whirr would also have a song titled "June" — which the do not. Therefore Whirr made a false claim. Above I provided several reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking accuracy (again, very journalistic) that claim June is an EP. Because Wikipedia attempts to be a work of academia, it prefers the words of third-party reliable sources to the first-party words of the artist. As such, Wikipedia should list June as an EP. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Another source from the actual band [3] Again, please use sources from the band or label, not some review blog. They aren't reliable. Here are some third party blogs calling it a Single if you prefer: [4], [5] NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk)

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. The band can say whatever they want, but these claims have to be independently corroborated. What the band is saying doesn't seem in line with the definition of single nor is it backed up by third-party sources. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you said and what you've been saying. I provided third party sources AND sources from the actual band, which is important because that is how the 7 inch single was marketed, released, and sold. You seem to be really hung up on the differences between calling it June or Junebovier, when in reality they are one in the same. Junebovier was a last minute name change to the song. This is something a journalist like you can confirm for yourself with an email or two. NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an email or phonecall would work if for verification if Wikipedia was a newspaper. But Wikipedia isn't a newspaper so an email or phonecall would not suffice here. An encyclopedia is based on published sources, not emails. Verification aside, if Whirr changed "June" to "Junebouvier" at the last minute, then why would they only change the name of the song but not the title of the so-called single? That makes absolutely no sense. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the artist. Ask the artist why they made that particular creative decision. Let's weigh it out, we both have third party blogs with some calling it an EP and some calling it a single, both equal footing there. But I am the only one that has direct source with the band calling it for what it is; a single. A promotional release for an upcoming Album. June is not a stand alone release like Distressor, Pipe Dreams, or Around.

A phone call or email is important on wikipedia as well, because it will back up online sources for wikipedia editors. That way YOU know which blogs are correct when there are subtle differences. Try it out, you'll be better for it. NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk)

Please take this time to read Wikipedia's behavioral policy on communicating in a civil manner. Sarcastic remarks and comments directed toward other editors are not welcome here, only comments that are constructive to the article in question. As I have linked above, one of Wikipedia's most important policies is on verification. Making a phone call in no way complies with this policy. Wikipedia likes to show its readers where the information came from using proper citations, and one cannot properly cite a phonecall. Just for kicks, I'll entertain the idea that there are reasons to believe that June could be seen as an EP and could also be seen as a single. This means every music publication or music cataloging website must make a choice. For example, RateYourMusic made the choice to call June an EP, while Discogs made the choice to call June a single. Let's say Wikipedia makes the decision to label June as a single, and let's say that an article for June is made. What should this article be called? According to the naming conventions for an article about a single, the article should be titled either "June (song)" or "June (Whirr song)" if the previous example is taken. This seems erroneous because Whirr does not have a song titled "June". So maybe it should be called "Junebouvier (song)" or "Junebouvier (Whirr song)". While the statement is now correct, it is still erroneous since the title of the release isn't "Junebouvier" it's "June". So if, as I proposed before that an entity must make a choice, and Wikipedia must make a choice, then it should choose EP over single because the naming guidelines allow for a more logical title. This same practice was carried out on Eternal Pyre — a Slayer release that only features the song "Cult" and the article was peer-reviewed by the Wikipedia community to GA status. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing as an associated act

According to the musical artist's infobox documentation, the definition of an "associated act" is outlined as: "Groups which have spun off from this group, a group from which this group has spun off, or other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together." Nothing does not meet this list of criteria, and thus should not be listed in the infobox. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick Bassett of Whirr has played bass live with Nothing [6], Brandon Setta of Nothing has performed vocals live for Whirr [7] they have toured extensively together and the two bands have collaborated under the name 'Death of Lovers'[8]. Nothing meets the criteria of "associated act."

"...this act has collaborated on multiple occasions..."

two US tours in 2013 with interchanging members.

"has [collaborated] on an album..."

Upcoming Death of Lovers EP

"...toured with as a single collaboration act playing together."

Live shows in Fall/Winter of 2013 under 'Death of Lovers' as well as an upcoming tour to coincide with the record release. NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk)

NeedlezShoegazerKane, you are crucially misunderstanding the definitions provided. For Nothing to qualify under "toured with as a single collaboration act playing together," then all members of both Whirr and Nothing need to be on stage at the same time performing music, and it needs to have happened multiple times. Simply touring together as separate acts does not meet this criteria. For Nothing to qualify under "...this act has collaborated on multiple occasions..." again it's not enough that they toured together as separate acts — all members of Nothing and Whirr need to have recorded music together multiple times. In response to "has [collaborated] on an album..." being related to Death of Lovers, this is not the case for the same reasons provided. Usually these guidelines only apply to solo members joining a band to collaborate since it's rare for two full bands to come together and record or perform together. Whirr is related to Death of Lovers because it's a side project that "spun off" of Whirr. Nothing has no direct lineage with Whirr, only an indirect relationship through Death of Lovers and small, temporary live fill-ins. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs, Fezmar9. By your argument Deafheaven is not an associated act because Nick Bassett didn't write music for them, he just toured along. He was never even an official member, George Clarke and Kerry McCoy have been the only two 'real' members to this day. Whirr was not 'derived' from Deafheaven either. They both existed independently [9]. I can argue that, but I don't because everything isn't black-and-white. NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk)

But Nick Bassett did record with Deafheaven on Roads to Judah, making him an official member. At the time, Whirr was described as a spin off of Deafheaven, which is why they're listed as associated acts of each other, but further interviews revealed that the two did exist at the same time separately. So, you could probably make a case that Deafheaven isn't truly an associated act of Whirr based on the given guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As much of an argument as you could to Nothing not being associated with Whirr. That's the point. Whirr and Nothing have collaborated and continue to collaborate, I don't know how much more 'associated' two groups can be. NeedlezShoegazerKane (talk)

I think it's a problem of equivocation in that we're both using different definitions of the terms collaboration and association. Let me use some more outside examples to help explain these terms under the given guidelines. Converge and Isis are two bands that share no official members and are not associated with each other directly. However, Nate Newton of Converge and Aaron Turner of Isis came together to form Old Man Gloom. Converge and Isis are associated with Old Man Gloom, but are not associated with each other under the guidelines. This is analogous to Whirr and Nothing not being associated, but members of each came together to form Death to Lovers. And actually, Old Man Gloom and Death of Lovers would fall under the "spin off" or side-project aspect of the guidelines. The collaboration part is usually only used for solo singers, as I said before, since rarely does an entire band collaborate with another entire band. The only examples I can think of are when all members of both Converge and Cave In came together and formed "Verge-In," but that project didn't end up officially releasing anything, or the upcoming Sunn O)))/Ulver album, Terrestrials. I agree that the guidelines are confusing and I have many times suggested that they be reworded, specifically to replace "associated" with "related" since an association is more vague, but a relationship is more concrete. Here is what the guidelines are looking for specifically: Did all members of both Whirr and Nothing record music together or tour together as a single entity? Did Nothing spin off of Whirr or vice-versa? Do Whirr and Nothing share an official, full-time member? Being live fill-ins for each other once and touring together as separate acts do not qualify under the given guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)