Jump to content

Talk:All Day (Girl Talk album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flatluigi (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 3 December 2010 (→Discussion/comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAlbums Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Samples

Are we going to identify all the samples again? let's do this! Leav (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're at 224 out of 373 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.66.190 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
235 / 372 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Day_(album)#cite_note-Twitter-0 Leav (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come the ending times weren't included for the samples? They were for Feed The Animals 69.108.213.130 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to have a redirect page for "All Day" that points both here and at the 45 minute Aesop Rock mix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Day:_Nike%2B_Original_Run). 169.234.117.235 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, they don't have the same name... maybe a link on the top of the page along the lines of "For the 'Aesop Rock' album 'All Day: Nike+ Original Run' click here." ? Leav (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Track 3 - "That's right"

  • 1:22 E-40 Trademark Grunt noise -- could this be the E-40 that is listed in the samples not yet identified list at the bottom of the page? I figured asking this here is better then messing up the page... Wadofglue (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I hope all the track listings won't be removed by some overzealous wikipedian as original research... what can we do to prevent this? Leav (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't for any of the previous albums, I don't see why they would for this one. Greg Birdsall (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After we're done we should get Gregg Gillis to link to a static version of the wikipedia page, state that all the samples are listed correctly on it, and then we could use wikipedia as a reference to itself. (hopefully the universe won't implode :) Leav (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding all the samples I can recognise off of the list on Whosampled, how about linking to their when I'm finished for proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.233.97 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Who's the idiot who put up the template anyways? Gregg Gillis will most likely release a psychical copy of the album with all of the sampled stated. This was done with his last album. Putting up the original research template just distracts the attempts to name the samples on the album (or mix). ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might reflect some misunderstanding of the subtleties of the No Original Research policy, but I would argue that, except in those cases where a sample is hard to identify (and then references are certainly appropriate), the record itself is the source; the samples listed on the article at this point are almost all unambiguously identifiable. Khromegnome (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's unambiguously WP:OR. All that is provided is a list of samples, orders and timing are not sourced anywhere and so is original research. Q T C 16:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal Art published a sample list with all of the samples listed, which I added as a general reference. dissolvetalk 07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Admin attention would be good".Thank you. StrPby (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Run”

What is the sample of someone singing the word “run” really slowly, shortly after the “Creep” samples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanhogan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this? (2:46 in if the link doesn't work correctly) --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samples unlisted in the sample list

There are a few songs that aren't on the official sample list that people are adding to the page. Under the interest of having a source of all samples, I'd say we should leave them off but leave a record in here of what they are and at what times (for ease of re-addition if the sample list changes again) --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But only if listening to the song and indicated sample shows that they are plausibly the same, of course --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we leave them off for now, until perhaps Girl Talk updates the sample list at Illegal Art's website again. Though perhaps maybe one of the songs from the "unidentified samples" section samples King Floyd or De La Soul. Holiday56 (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Girl Talk has updated his sample list to include "Me Myself and I", but not King Floyd. Unfortunately, the entire sample page has been removed due to WP:OR. Holiday56 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Track 6 - On and On

Kraftwerk sample

"It's More Fun to Compute" is listed as a sample in the credits, and it says here it's sampled at 1:31 in "Triple Double", but I can't hear it. Can anyone point out what's sampled? Holiday56 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sample End Times

I've started to add sample end times used by AllDaySamples.com (Travis, the creator of AllDaySamples, has given me the OK; for reference, his data file is here.) I've also added a statement about this source in the text at the beginning of the Track Listing section. If there is a more appropriate way to cite this source, please let me know (and/or update it yourself). Thanks! — Benrahn (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user removed my reference to AllDaySamples with this change. It would be great if some more experienced Wikipedians could weigh in on how best to handle this. Thanks! — Benrahn (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track List

I apologise for this, but the track listing is pure original research, leaving Wikipedia as a primary source. This is highly problematic and, so, I have had to remove it. I dislike doing such things but it is a well established policy with an important reason behind it. Wikipedia is not somewhere to conduct OR and construct such listings, but, from talk page content, I think you already knew that. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that other sites are providing times for samples, and there really is minimal "harm" if people get the wrong information, I'd err on allowing it. It isn't controversial in any sense if the times are wrong and either way, it's not like people are using this as a 100% reliable source. It should note that the times are based on x and y source, but it's not like we're talking about sensitive/libelous information here. I'm generally pretty hard on OR, but this is common sense. IAR/whatever, the risk of being wrong has no real consequence.--Terrillja talk 14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry that is not an acceptable reason for keeping it. There is a problem with setting a single article precedent; in that it establishes a base for more OR in other articles. OR is one of only three core policies; it is there to ensure the wiki remains a reliable resource. As such it is a solid bright line and needs to be adequately discussed. it's not like people are using this as a 100% reliable source is a worrying argument! People do use WP as a reliable source; and we have to step up to ensure that we meet that expectation as much as possible. WP:HARMLESS relates to deletion rationale, but the spirit of that advice applies. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason (for anything), so it isn't setting a precedent. Anyone who tried to use that as an argument will be shot down in record time. It's an album. Not like we are talking about evolution or some other controversial subject where people may actually use WP as a source.--Terrillja talk 14:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't involved.. I was explaining why OR exists as a core policy and why exclusions are not allowed. You're argument is a classic application of WP:HARMLESS, which is why it is invalid. OR is a core policy; think of it as a most sacred rule. Verifiability is a main site policy. This violates both of those. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are arguing that it sets a precedent. I'm saying thet there is no such thing as a precedent here because of otherstuffexists. And I can do without the preaching on sacred rules. It isn't my first day on the block.--Terrillja talk 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay cautioning the use of such an argument in discussions. However, the way the Wiki works is on application of policy through precedents. Where such matters become controversial then a discussion is undertaken to iron out the details (i.e. the creation of guidelines). By allowing OR into individual articles that begins to undermine the core content policy, and could be used at other articles to say "look, there is a precedent for OR and unverified material that is NOHARM and non-contentious to be allowed". It is fundamental that everything added to this article should be able to be verified in a reliable source - for the purposes of being relaxed I for one would accept Whosampled, but a) not many other editors will and b) there is no Whosampled reference for this article anyway, so it is still completely OR. WP:HARMLESS is, however, definitely an invalid argument against WP:OR. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? There is no whosampled entry for this album? I posted a link to a specific All Day sample and the original sample and [1] shows a number of songs from all day. If you're going to argue that there is no reference, you should check your facts first.--Terrillja talk 14:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, that is clearer. I assumed Whosampled was dealing with it as "All Day" not as sections. The rest of my point stands; unverified information should be cut. Plus this is not our sort of remit. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should also point out that if you're talking about precedent, every previous Girl Talk album is in the same format, and has been for quite some time. Worm 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the fact that no one has found that out yet is... not a great argument. I'm verging towards cutting it all and providing the links to Whosampled in the next few days. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I absolutely agree it shouldn't be on here on the basis of WP:NOR and links to Whosampled is a good idea, I just thought I'd point out that the "precedent" arguement wasn't the best...Worm 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am torn between appreciating your zealous following of wikipedia's rules and my feeling that they do not apply in this case, and removing the OR would have a net negative effect. I'm thinking WP:IGNORE applies here perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leav (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you really say so? WP:IAR is all about ignoring rules to improve the encyclopedia. Well, in that case, we're looking at ignoring a very important rule (policy) to show possibly incorrect information. I agree it's interesting for fans, who can look at it whilst listening and learn more about the songs sampled, but from an encyclopedic point of view, without being able to verify the information it could be seen to positively harm the legitimacy of the project. Just because you like it doesn't mean it is improving the encyclopedia Worm 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified

The "unidentified" section seems a bit too self-reflexive. Perhaps they have been identified by people, just not Wikipedia editors. I suggest it just becomes "additional samples" and state they are listed by the artist, and make no claim about their relative identifiability in the tracks. --129.89.157.164 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on original research in the article

All Day is an album which is a mashup of other songs. Wikipedia currently holds a breakdown of these songs by track time period, something there are currently no verifiable sources for and might constitute original research. Multiple media reports have cited Wikipedia as including the information. Is it acceptable to ignore all rules and keep the information in?

Originally created by Strange Passerby 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) - updated to be more neutral by Worm 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC); updated again Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See prior discussions at WP:AN#All Day (album) full of original research and WP:ORN#Girl Talk albums.

Yes

  1. Given that there is a verifiable source for each of the samples contained within the album (this page) and that the time stamps are a helpful and subjectively minor addition, I'd say that they're worth keeping. flatluigi(talk/contrib) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. Definitely not in my opinion. NOR is a core policy and media coverage of this page being used as a fansite be damned, that's what we should be avoiding. "[The rules] do not apply in this case" is absolutely the wrong way to see this and is setting a very bad precedent to say we can ignore core policy once the media says a page exists exactly for doing so. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. My position is already clear. I do sympathise with the invocation of IAR. However, in this case it is highly inappropriate because it is being used to bypass one of the core and founding principles of Wikipedia (actually, two, both NOR and V). The main argument for application of IAR seems to be that it does no harm in this case. Perhaps true, but I do not find it persuasive. NOR has been established and upheld for a very long time and it is not beneficial to the Wiki to try and ignore them "just this once". --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm another no. I do not feel that ignore all rules applies in this case, as the possibly incorrect original research does not improve the credibility of the encyclopedia, thereby harming it. We have policies for a very good reason and in this case, we should be following them. Recommend it is moved to a fan site. Worm 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Applying IAR here seems like a misunderstanding and misapplication of IAR. We can't simple include OR because others are reporting our OR. If my local TV station calls me the Queen of England after I proclaim myself the queen, that's ridiculous. I think the IAR here should be used to ignore WP:V in a literal sense, in that we are unsure that our own article is true or verifiable, so we shouldn't suddenly make OR verifiable by using likely incorrect media reports. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I also agree that NOR is important and a reliable source should have to validate (and publish) the claims. While the information may be verifiable, it seems to be synthesis because one would have to know what they other songs are (as the songs likely don't explicitly call out the songs being mashed and the article doesn't appear to source the compoment songs to the album liner). Additionally, listing each component of each song seems to be trivial and give undue weight; the article is about the album and only the short lede addresses it as a topic. —Ost (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Regardless of whether the article in question contains OR, WP:IAR absoultely has its uses, however WP:NOR is not one of them. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. IAR allows disregarding rules if it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. Allowing OR, or any other core policy violation, is never an improvement.  Sandstein  09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/comments

  • Comment – I would expect the result of this RFC to apply across all articles and not just this one, so if a clear consensus is reached that this is not permissible, the other albums referenced in the No original research noticeboard post should be appropriately edited as well. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I believe the statement of the RFC is supposed to be Neutral, and this is about as slanted as you can get. Can you rephrase it a bit before other people start responding to the original phrasing? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tis very true... Worm 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, seems only fair to change it. Suggest: Is it applicable to invoke WP:Ignore all rules to include Original Research of track listings in this article.? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go even further, and actually explain the situation.
All Day is an album which is a mashup of other songs. Wikipedia currently holds a breakdown of these songs by track time period, something there are currently no verifiable sources for. As multiple media reports have cited Wikipedia as including the information, and it is not harming anyone, can we ignore all rules and keep the information in?
How's that? Worm 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon from me --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not neutral. How about All Day is an album which is a mashup of other songs. Wikipedia currently holds a breakdown of these songs by track time period, something there are currently no verifiable sources for. Is it acceptable in this case to ignore all rules and keep the information in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problems from me, was trying to put the basic arguments from both sides in, but happy with your version SoV Worm 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted per Sarek's wording. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psst! The quality that (good) sources have is reliability. It is Wikipedia content that is, or is not, verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. The article indicates that a full list of samples was published on the artists' web site, making it fairly clear what songs are being "mashed up." I guess I am not getting where concerns of OR are coming from, could that be clarified please? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That list does not include timings of the samples within the album - which IP's and editors have been adding to the article. There is some sort of list as WhoSampled.com but it is not complete (and is not a reliable source). People seem to be conducting OR (see top of the page) on this and the other album pages to add the timings here directly. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I would like to know in this case -- & other cases where X is included as part of Y -- is whether these samplings are identifiable to a reasonably informed listener. In other words, if I listened to the first track "Oh No", would I be expected to recognize the two songs I do know (i.e. "Jane Says" & the Doors' "Waiting for the Sun")? If so, wouldn't stating these samplings be analogous to the consensus that plot summaries of novels, short stories, etc., are not original research? -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point and an interesting way of looking at it. I guess the original research comes in saying accurately when the tracks change, which can happen over a few seconds due to the mixing. Also, we never go into quite so much detail in plot summaries, for example each chapter in a book is not summarised, but rather the book as a whole. Worm 11:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think that is true. Also it is my understanding that it is not "immediately obvious" which songs are where. I could potentially buy the idea of listing the samples in each segment, were there a reliable source for it. But there does not appear to be --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an issue with using this sample listing published by the label that published the album as a reliable source? --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought from a random outsider

I would argue that WP:OR is, effectively, WP:V's backstop, or enforcer. WP:OR excludes content that is unverifiable because it was speculated, interpolated, guessed, or estimated by the editor. WP:OR is a means to an end, which is ensuring that content on wikipedia is verifiable.
Can this content be verified by another wikipedian? That is, could somebody else listen to the album and note down track times, or whatever else is contested, and derive the same result? Or could another wikipedian gain the information in some other way from any other source that is not a copy of this page? If so, then I would be happy that WP:V is satisfied. If that is not possible, delete it. bobrayner (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_Day_(Girl_Talk_album)&oldid=400322635"