Talk:Garbage (album)

message: I added a little bit about "As Heaven is Wide" being in the game Gran Turismo (video game), as the song lacks its own page and the game's page refers to using it. I also think the Release and success section of this article is pretty huge. Could it be broken up a little, either by singles or release dates? Just a thought. 
Kresock (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track four 

message: Moved from article to here: 
:"This album was also selected as one of the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die."
It was inserted in the introduction (quite awkwardly in its own line) and needs a cite before it goes anywhere on the page. Probably not in the lead though. Kresock (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1001 edit 

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=Annklu3xhan2k
--CactusBot (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011 

message: | Reviews     =
*Allmusic  link
*BBC link
*The Guardian  10/01/1995
*Kerrang!  09/30/1995
*Music Week  30/09/1995
*NME (8/10) 09/23/1995
*Q  10/01/1995
*Robert Christgau  link
*Rolling Stone  link
*Select  10/01/1995
*Spin (7/10) 10/01/1995
Archived here for future use --Breakinguptheguy (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Reviews section as per: [[Template:Infobox_album#Professional_reviews]] 

message: Per WP:RS ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"), WP:OR ("Wikipedia articles must not contain original research."), and WP:SUBJECTIVE ("articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art."), you need genres sourced. It doesn't matter what other articles say about genre as bands change styles and you need to find appropriate ones per album. It also doesn't matter if other articles don't use citations, they will need them eventually. We don't use wikipedia as a source from other pages. If you can find sources, please add them. If not, refrain from adding uncited material about genre to articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: Things are getting confusing, so I'm setting up a sub-section here. I'm against adding electronic rock, because per WP:OR, "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided.". In other words, if it doesn't specificly say that genre, we can't just place it there thinking "oh, well, that's what the mean". This isn't just my choice to do this, if it's not there, we can't use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What's confusing? WP:OR doesn't pertain to this. With respect to electronic it's not really open to multiple interpretations because the 'electronic' is actually referenced multiples times (across reviews). Again, what is confusing, why do you say it's doesn't specify the genre? What is specifying a genre to you, a reviewer strictly stating "this album is an electronic rock album", "this album is this, or that" (insert any other genre/style there)? Again, that is not how reviews are articulated (especially for records that mix multiple genres and styles) , you should know that, it's not how sounds, styles, elements, layers, influences, etc, are described; no one writes like that - see above for my example (which I'm suspecting you always ignore because you never respond to them specifically). I am not following your thought process here. If enough sources state electronic, then clearly electronic is significant, to the critical community as a whole as a notable sonic aspect of the record. Therefore, it can be up there. As one of, maximum, 3 genres if you ask me. --Lpdte77 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much confusing as it is inappropriate. It can be up to interpretation because they don't actually say whether it does or does not belong to that genre. Specifying the genre would be saying the genre's name yes. I understand it's difficult to write articles about albums that are tricky (see articles I've worked on for Glass Swords and Quique for example). I'm not ignoring you, I encourage you to add them to the prose (which you have! great!) but we can't just say it's electronic rock because that is WP:OR. What's "electronic rock" to you, might be "trip hop" or "synthpop" to me or someone else. Genre is subjective and we aren't allowed to interpret it as we please. So please don't add information in the infobox that's not what an article says directly. If anyone reads the article, they'll have an understanding of the sound from the prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But are you following? the genre is specified. Again, you want to read concretely "this album belongs to this genre and that genre" and that is, again, not how reviews are written, not how sounds and styles are described. You want it spelled out for you, and it rarely is, particularly with records that incorporate various styles. Albums that do not strictly belong to or adhere to one genre are not described as such. What is it that you don't understand about qualifiers such as "fused" "enhanced" "influenced" "layered", etc,  that are often used in reviews and that describe the styles of records? These refer to the notable styles/genres a record incorporates. "What's 'electronic rock' to you, might be 'trip hop' or 'synthpop' to me or someone else"  - no, because we are not reinterpreting the term electronic as any other genre, we are using the term 'electronic' as reviews state 'electronic'. Seriously, you're going on tangents. Electronic is mentioned in many reviews, therefore it is significant. You are confused; WP:OR - Original Research - has no relevance here. You are merely denying a term that is evidently referenced by multiple reviewers. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just not convinced, because we are interpreting of what things are described vaguely into a genre. None of them say electronic rock, several say electronic this or that, but none with the genre you are trying to add. If the view was actually said by multiple viewers (it hasn't), then we can't add electronic rock because there is no even real definition of the genre, not on the Electronic rock page anyways. Is it just rock with electronic stuff jammed in? I'm not buying it, and if you are just going to repeat stuff which I've read over and over again, you are going to have to go to mediation as everyone else has given up on this so far. If you can find me rules that say "you can interpret this or that as you like", than go ahead. Otherwise, call for mediation! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "we can't add electronic rock because there is no even real definition of the genre, not on the Electronic rock page anyways" - You're really saying this? First off, it's ironic given how much you wanted to included "pop music" something that actually isn't a genre as it's not defined at all and refers to any type of music that becomes popular, and second, electronic rock is clearly defined in the second line as rock that is generated with electronic instruments; that uses technological developments - that is the definition of it and if you've read any articles on the band, the record, their approach, precisely what characterizes it.  What you've admitted to here is actually interpreting things your way, not 'buying' anything else, willfully violating WP:TE, WP:POV. No one's 'given up' on anything, because no one else has bothered to comment on it in the first place. You're the one making an issue of it. Myxomatosis57 comment above indicated he was on board, however if no one bothers with it, then no matter. The infobox can just stay as Alternative rock, as it is right now. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant there was no section discussing what the genre stands for. " What you've admitted to here is actually interpreting things your way", that's interesting, could you point that out friend? I'm just not convinced by your arguement which has nothing to do with WP:TE or WP:POV. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just meandering. Yes there is, it's clearly stated. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  Which source supports "electronic rock" again? Dan56 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Out of those that had been cited for support, I believe they were , , and this is another --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for digging those out, I thought there was more than the Chicago Reader one, but wasn't sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: , I think it was this [url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-21/entertainment/chi-garbage-album-review-not-your-kind-of-people-reviewed-20120521_1_album-review-garbage-shirley-manson this article here] being used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how any of those support "electronic rock". None of them mention it. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , none of them mention electronic? Andrzejbanas, those were the ones I could find in recent edit history. --Lpdte77 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Electronic rock"? No, none of them mention that genre. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , No, I stated "electronic" in my question. However, here are a few more sources: , , ,  --Lpdte77 (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment on electronic/electronic rock sources you incredulously asked for? --Lpdte77 (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Give people time to reply . Your BBC source doesn't specify this album, the guardian one dosen't either. New York Times, doesn't mention this album or "electronic rock", and the KROQ one doesn't specify this album. A good amount of these would be great for the article on the band itself, but you need specifics for this album, which you haven't provided. Good luck with your research! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Andrzejbanas, I said so because he at the time was clearly active making edits to his comments here and on the article and ignoring my replies to his comments. BBc source notes: "Garbage delivered consistently anthemic electronic rock that occupied airwaves with conspicuous ease in the mid-to-late-90s" (unless one is absolutely lacking in english comprehension one knows they are referring to albums Garbage and Version to 2.0, the albums released in 1995 and 1998. They even qualified it in the following sentence mentioning singles from both albums if the use of 'mid to late 90s' isn't enough evidence they are referring to the albums in the era). The guardian source states "the American electronic rock band she joined in 1994" (indicating the band's music has significantly been electronic rock since 1994, but I'll give you that one, it's not spoon-fed as concretely as you'd like). The cbs source states: "Not Your Kind of People is an energetic comeback that’s full of the sexy electronic rock that once earned Garbage quadruple-platinum status" (again, barring reading-comprehension ineptness, quadruple-platinum status factually referring to both 90s albums, Garbage and Version 2.0, which sold 4 million - readily available information and right here on Wiki too.) The other sources use 'electronic' to describe album. Here is another source that mentions electronic (P.S, "electro" is a short word for "electronic", just in case): http://books.google.com/books?id=ZHP-r9-eqdAC&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=garbage+album+alternative+rock&source=bl&ots=nIIuO8dtVP&sig=47Tcgtg6DDmwhP_BTP4JoOJBV90&hl=en&sa=X&ei=L7QrVJCfBsiPyATZhYCADg&ved=0CHIQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=garbage%20album%20alternative%20rock&f=false . Now, there is 7 sources mentioned here alone that refer to either electronic rock or electronic and you continue to deny the significant of the genre (in case you're not aware, electronic refers to music using electronic instruments/technology and electronic rock refers to specifically rock music using or enhanced with electronic instruments/technology; both described in their respective wiki pages).--Lpdte77 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Why would you state "electronic" in your question when you want to include "electronic rock" in the infobox? Dan56 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can you not structure your replies correctly? It is very difficult to follow this when the replies are all over the place. Look at the number of colons there are before the comment you want to reply to, and then add one more to that amount before your own comment, which you place below the comment you reply too. To answer your question, I didn't say I wanted to include electronic rock, I'd said before that there is sufficient mention of electronic or electronic rock across reviews and bios for it one to realize it is considered a significant sonic aspect of the record, therefore that it should be represented. That specific question of mine specified electronic as I saw you have questioned the mention of electronic; however right below it I referenced more articles that mention electronic rock or electronic. You're going to ignore them too? Let me put one of the here, just FYI: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/gwhf --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: None of those sources refer to this album as "electronic rock". Dan56 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been saying. Just to be clear, this is because they don't actually use the term specificly, correct? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes. I don't think it's even implicit in their reviews. We shouldn't have to make interpretations. If it's a widespread enough viewpoint (that a genre of this album is "electronic rock"), then some source out there would have said it explicitly. Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't even respond to any of my replies to you. Did you read my comment on structuring your replies correctly? "Yes. I don't think it's even implicit in their reviews" - unbelievable. Can we get some editors here who are actually fluent in reading comprehension and that don't have such a strong biased agenda that they willfully blind themselves to conspicuous information? "We shouldn't have to make interpretations" - Oh, the hypocrisy (see pop subsection below) -- Lpdte77 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronic rock

message: , , , ? Should what I recently restored to the article have been removed by ? It seems like cherry picking to omit it. I want to ask just in case he reverts it again, as he had twice before (, ). Dan56 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to remove that quote from Vig here, which you've used to support the inclusion of pop as a genre, before you start talking about who's being selective with facts. In the past, on some album talk page or other, I've read your assertion on how a musician shouldn't be seen as a reliable source when it comes to music genres … JG66 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't add the quote from VIg to the article to begin with, . I was invited to this discussion before I had ever even edited this article. Dan56 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to this discussion with here, I don't really think that it is really necessary anymore since we already invalidated that quote as a source for genre. It isn't the only source/argument for "pop," anyway. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I think Erlewine's statement is relevant and should stay, in sake of sticking right to the source. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

text: You can take all the petty shots at me you want, if it makes it easier to accept that "pop" will be in the infobox, since that's what it appears this discussion is heading towards. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, not responding to specific points. Your attitude and motive is now more transparent to other editors. And no it isn't. Since the Composition and Style major revision, the context/focus of a consensus has changed. Myxomatosis57 has noted he's taken it into account.  Alternative rock is cited by multiple reviewers for one, and your campaigned 'pop' phrasing, referenced from one reviewer, is not remotely representative enough to be used in the infobox, in light of the multiple specific styles/genres that are cited by other reviewers in the section. We have a selection of power pop, alternative pop, electronic rock, electronica, and others, and one reviewer you campaign for is not going to be given undue weight or over-emphasized. --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of relevant quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Garbage (album). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160305091948/http://aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50albums-1996.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-50albums-1996.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: God damn, what a fucking waste those RfCs were, about an album I still haven't bothered listening to... Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: RfCs 

message: Who was the idiot who removed the tracklistings for the various editions of Garbage's first two albums? 174.215.216.255 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 20th Anniversary tracklistings