Talk:Years of Refusal

Infobox release date

Wikipedia has accepted standards and guidelines which are used in the majority of the articles in the project. One of these relates to the release date which is in the infobox of an album article. Album articles fall within Albums WikiProject. In the guidelines on the that WikiProject's page at WP:ALBUMS#Released it states: Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified. If there are further released dates known these should come in the article text itself. If you look at other FA-Class Album articles, you will see this is the accepted standard. For this reason, and because the later release date (24 February 2009) is in the article, I've removed 24 February 2009 from the infobox leaving the UK release date of 23 February 2009 which is currently the earliest known. --JD554 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case then I suggest you change every UK and US release date that appears on articles to the German release date which happens 3 days in advance. Otherwise, quit wasting my time because I hardly care what you have to say. TheColdDick (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cover Image

This is the actual cover, it was a great struggle to upload it and I don't know how to resize it; any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Someone deleted your image (for some odd reason) and I had to re-upload it. I took care of all of the size and licensing problems as well. TheColdDick (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because I did do the licensing correctly. Thanks for sorting it, I'm still learning. Jesuisbryony 2 December 2008 12:45

Track list

The cover for the album IS correct but I know for a FACT that is not the correct running order or track listing for the album. Until True-To-You.net or itsmorrisseysworld.com add a press release showing the actual track listing I will have to revert the edit. I hope you don't take offense...it's just Morrissey-Solo, though mostly accurate, is NOT a place to take every post as gospel. TheColdDick (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry I undid it before I saw this. Well what we had before was just scraps, doesn't it have equal reliablity? Either way I don't think it matters greatly, it's only wikipedia but I just thought the most recent source would be better. :) Also, itsmorrisseysworld.com aren't exactly renound for their rapid responses. :P Jesuisbryony 20:37

The 6 known tracks I have are from Boz Boorer himself, confirmed as recently as a week ago. If you have Myspace I'll gladly forward you his message concerning it. TheColdDick (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

9th solo album?

I'm too lazy to count whether this is actually Morrissey's ninth solo album but the wikipage for Ringleader of the Tormentors also has that claim. Anyway the term ninth solo album is quite ambiguous; is it his ninth studio album or album of new material or is it just ninth in total (which it obviously is not). VH, KU, YA, V&I, SG, M, YATQ, ROTT, YOR... yes this is his ninth studio album, maybe the ROTT page includes Bona Drag... but still something needs changing. WINE-STAINED-TEETH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Personnel section

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by a mediator. For more information, see the case page.

If this article ever has hope of graded higher than a C-class article it needs to contain a full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians (my bolding) per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Quality_scale. Therefore the personnel section needs to include the producer, photographer and any other non-musicians that are known about. --JD554 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Until the CD is released, nothing with the exception of the artist, photographer, producer, and guest musicians (which have already been confirmed) can be cited as being factual. Unless you have somehow magically received a physical copy of the album (which you haven't), then the "personnel" section is nothing but your 'best guess' and falls under the category of 'original research'. Last time I checked, Wikipedia does not accept 'original research'. Quit wasting time and inaccurately altering a page for an album that has yet to be released. TheColdDick (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Which parts are speculation? All I've added to the personnel section are Jerry Finn (which has long been confirmed) and Jake Walters (who was already mentioned in the article and has the album image on his website). So stop reverting edits which are good and are aimed at improving the article as per the quality scale I've mentioned above. As you do nothing except revert my edits without good reason and against accepted standards, I've taken this to informal mediation to see what other editors feel. --JD554 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Album cover images

Per WP:NFCC#3a, there is no need for two album covers here, especially since these two images in particular are about 99% identical. The differences between the two are minimal and one cover is enough to covey/illustrate the subject of this article. Recent edit will show both covers: [1] if anyone wants to look — I have since removed the second one. Is there a preference for one over the other? Both should not be used, but if there is a consensus on using the newer image instead then let's switch it out. - eo (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional reviews

I have restored the review from The Guardian newspaper which has a citation and therefore complies with Wikipedia's verification policy and removed the review from Hot Press which is uncited. I have also re-added the {{fact}} tag to the Rolling Stone review which was removed without fixing the problem. The reason I removed the Hot Press review rather than tagging it for a citation is because this would leave 11 reviews in the infobox whereas the maximum should be 10 per WP:ALBUM. --JD554 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with your actions. Consensus appears to have been reached.--Michig (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Guardian piece which is linked to here isn't their review. It's a reflection upon hearing it. Their reviews are accompanied by stars and so the official one will be published soon. Also we need to make room for the Allmusic review which is forthcoming. AMG is present in just about every album article.136.244.50.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

All reviews are "a reflection upon hearing". The Hot Press is not cited and so fails Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. There is no need to "make way" for any future review. When a review by a more notable publication becomes available it can be used to replace one of the less notable publications. But we also need to bear in mind Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view, so as an example if there are 50/50 good and bad reviews this should be reflected in the reviews used. --JD554 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The paper releases an official review -- like the rest of the ones listed here -- as well as unofficial blog-style reviews by their writers. "Positive" doesn't represent the paper's official review until the actual one has been published.136.244.14.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

At the bottom of the page it says "© Guardian News and Media Limited 2009", there is nothing to say it is an unofficial view. Although it is a blog-like page, it is still hosted by the guardian and the reviewer, Jude Rogers, wrote it as an employee of The Guardian. But most crucially, and unlike the Hot Press review, it is verifiable. --JD554 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So when the newspaper publishes a review that presumably represents the opinion of the editorial board -- complete with a starred ranking -- which review should we include here? According to your logic, it doesn't matter since they seem to be equal. I would think that the starred review should be included. 136.244.50.118 (talk)

Reviews by nationally-notable publications are favored. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article featured is NOT the paper's review of the album. When the paper releases a review it is rated with stars. This was someone's first impressions from the first listen of the album in December and should NOT be on this page. This is poor editing. 172.130.7.233 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is on The Guardian's website (with a copyright notice) and was put there by an employee of The Guardian. All reviews are simply someone's impressions. Unless you can come up with some other argument apart from that it is someone's first impressions of the album, I think we've exhausted this line of discussion. --JD554 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've said what I've needed to say. I'll simply change your edit. You can't stop that. 172.130.7.233 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked members of the relevant projects[2][3] to help reach consensus as we appear to be at stalemate. --JD554 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We have three editors here who agree that the reviews section should stay as it is. I would advise that editing against consensus is not your best course of action.--Michig (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Three people for an article hundreds of people frequent isn't consensus. If you think so, you're dim. Commit these words to memory because they are under the Save page button for a reason:

Please note:

   * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. 

172.163.227.14 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Those people need to express their viewpoint on the talk page. Of the people who have expressed their viewpoint, we have a consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting hairs over an article about an unreleased album? Wikipedia at its best, and it's not even the German one this time... Stop arguing and come back in two weeks!--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian piece appears to me to be acceptable for inclusion. Reasons: it seems to be by one of their staff writers, and talks about the album. However, the rating in the infobox is "positive." This is incorrect. The writer talks about how great the good parts are, but also how there are not-so-good parts. Personally, I would sum up the review as "mixed." But that's just my opinion. There is no clear one-word summation of the album by that author, so no rating can be added to the infobox. Please remove the word "positive". -Freekee (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Professional review suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review of Morrissey's Years of Refusal. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (favorable) [4]
Mike harkin (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Source

I'd like to point to the following article

http://www.culturopoing.com/Musique/Morrissey+Years+of+refusal+-1786

which has been removed from the external links because it should be worked into the article. The article is in French. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Professional reviews (again)

The review from The Observer has again been replaced by a review from 'The AV Club' - a website/newspaper associated with the free newspaper The Onion, on the grounds that "we already have 2 British newspapers; AV Club a respected and frequently cited source of criticism". I think a long-established and respected newspaper such as The Observer is a much better source than a little-known website, and the argument the Observer review should go because reviews from 2 other British newspapers are already included is very weak, but I'd welcome further opinions. I have no wish to engage in an edit war.--Michig (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia at least, the A.V. Club is far from little-known. Again, I included it since I thought the British press (Guardian, Observer, NME, Q, Mojo) was over-represented, and a "fresher" American Internet source might make the critical consensus broader in scope. Furthermore, per Metacritic, the A.V. Club review represents the highest end of the spectrum of critical responses to Years of Refusal (and it's not so far outside the spectrum as to be anachronistic). And since all three reviews at the bottom of the spectrum (Guardian, Mojo, and Q) have been included and retained, it makes sense to me to include at least the single best review too. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We should go with which sources are more notable. I believe that The Observer is more notable than A.V. Club and agree with Michig that the reason for removal is weak. Saying that A.V. Club's review is the single best review is POVish. --JD554 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "best" = most positive, per Metacritic. I thought an important component of the infobox professional reviews was the presentation of a full picture of the critical reaction to the article from notable sources. On the whole I don't think the Observer is sufficiently more notable than the A.V. Club to merit excluding the most positive review in favor of a review whose POV on the album is already represented and whose demographic (British music press) is already amply represented in the infobox. Grunge6910 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So WesleyDodds has taken it upon himself to disregard the talk page discussion and reinsert the Observer review. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be in a minority anyway. --JD554 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)