Talk:Version 2.0

message: 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  template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
* http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Akyaqoayaiijx
--CactusBot (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011 

message: | Reviews     =
*Allmusic  link
*The Austin Chronicle  link
*Entertainment Weekly (B+) link
*Kerrang!  05/09/1998
*Robert Christgau (A-) link
*Rolling Stone  link
*Spin (8/10) 06/01/1995
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)
thread_title:  Removal of Reviews section as per: [[Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not a sentence 

message: ; Votes
# 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)
replies: text: ,  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 2.0s 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)
replies: text: 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: , A.V. club, The Drum, The Herald Sun, People --Lapadite (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

text: 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. Clubs 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: , I meant for "The Times"; changed it. You need to link to The Times review. --Lapadite (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that your presumption? (WP:CITE#Links and ID numbers) Dan56 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I will add what I said here: 
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: . 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Which source is most reliable/appropriate for verifying this album's reception? 

message: While accusing me in bad faith of tagging this statement,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  RfC: Does the source cited verify the statement? 

message: 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 , who claimed my removal constituted "POV-pushing edits, removing + reviews from reliable sources". 
; Votes
# 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)
replies: text: What source(s) say this album received positive reviews? Dan56 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should interview articles/profile pieces be incorporated into this article's reception section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Version 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.garbage.com/press/articles/199806/juice/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206220131/http://www.time.com:80/time/musicgoesglobal/europe/mmanson.html to http://www.time.com/time/musicgoesglobal/europe/mmanson.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061019224258/http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?uid=24 to http://www.garbage.com/news/journal.php?uid=24
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070608063448/http://www.riaa.com:80/gp/database/default.asp to http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Version 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.garbage.com/press/articles/199805/west_australian/index.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.garbage.com/press/articles/199805/the_age/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/garbage/albums/album/207837/review/5945187/version_20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zhiINIPY to http://www.garbagebase.com/g-1998.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.garbage.com/non-flash/index-main.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified