Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 6

message: Why is there both a table of peak chart positions and a list of them in the text?  Do we need a week by week table of US and Canada chart positions?  And do we really need a list of all her TV appearances?  I think these tables should all be removed - anyone agree or disagree?  They really harm the visual appearance of the article apart from anything else. Worldtraveller 16:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The remaining table gives an exhaustive week-by-week accounting of US and Canadian chart positions for no good reason, but at least it's small. The text deals with North American unit sales and chart positions in other countries, so it's not duplication.  The week-by-week sales table should not be restored because it is misleading through omission. iMeowbot~Mw 16:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see that peak chart positions were still there.  I've removed that table as entirely redundant with the text. iMeowbot~Mw 16:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need a list of TV appearances. That's too icky, in my opinion, and doesn't provide much return on investment of the space. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not icky. Lots of return. Everyking 14:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes icky.  No return. Worldtraveller 19:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually I'll try to make a more sophisticated argument :)  A list of TV appearances is really only of interest to hard core fans, and thus should not be in an encyclopaedia.  Any really notable TV appearances should be mentioned, but we really don't need to know every time she's appeared on TV.  The Who once packed a drum kit so full of explosives for a dramatic finale that it completely blew itself up, to the horror of the band.  That made a very notable TV appearance.  They appeared probably hundreds of other times, but it would not be encyclopaedic to have a list of them all because the vast majority were routine, non-notable TV appearances.  I have appeared several times on a very notable UK TV program, but if anyone were to make a wikipedia entry for me with a list of my appearances, I'd be the first to VfD it :) TV appearance does not equal notable, and I think the table should be removed. Worldtraveller 19:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a minute. Why were you on TV? Ashlee Simpson was on TV because she's a famous celebrity and musical artist known to many millions of people and has sold millions of albums. Her appearances on TV are notable simply by virtue of the fact that so many people have seen them and so many people care about them. If you've even got 10% of her importance, not only should you have an article, but I feel a bit humbled to be talking to you. Everyking 19:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It's all right - no need to kow tow, I'm very modest about it :)  I am known to millions of people - I have been recognised in the street.  I wouldn't recognise Ashlee Simpson in the street, so perhaps I'm even more 'important' than she is :)  Point is, a list of anyone's TV appearances, no matter how famous they are, is not very interesting or encyclopaedic.  Worldtraveller 22:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Known to millions? You ought to have something better to do than this, then. I think the list is quite interesting and totally encyclopedic by Wikipedia's definition. Everyking 22:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the list should be cut down to just the most important appearances. --Carnildo 19:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: I'd like to integrate some of the old info on the individual songs—one sentence critical comments and Ashlee's own statements about them—together with Meowbot's personal descriptions of them. Are there any objections to doing this? Everyking 21:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how they're written as well as the NPOViness and value of the quotes. Most of them last time round were positive, so you'd either have to include a negative quote to balance things out, or not add them at all to avoid lengthening a still crufty (IMO) article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the quotes were simply descriptive, or Simpson taking about their meanings. Do you object to those? If I include a positive critical quote, then I will include a negative one to balance it. And vice versa. And I know you think information is cruft, John, you don't have to keep reiterating that. Everyking 11:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they said it impeccably, I don't think the quotes (at least in full sentences) should be included. Instead you can summarise them, i.e. "Describing 'Unreachable', Simpson called it..." or "Rolling Stone described "La La" as..." And there's a difference between information and cruft. Information informs and enhances one's understanding. Data with no meaning attached or artificially extrapolated data is cruft (for example, there is no point in saying, i.e. "As a music album, all the songs on Autobiography contained chords" (not that that sort of blatant cruft is in the article). Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never tried to add anything that didn't enhance one's understanding. Everyking 12:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have to agree that most people disagree with you on what enhances the reader's understanding and what's only of interest to hardcore fans.  Why do you want to re-add information that's been taken out?  It's been removed as part of the normal editing process, has it not?  It sounds to me like you're trying to get everyone to endorse what is effectively a revert to your preferred version. Worldtraveller 14:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people don't disagree with me on that. It's just that I'm in the unfortunate position of having to defend the standard view of Wikipedia on a topic that apparently is not a popular one among Wikipedians. On more popular topics, deletionism like this would mean mass fury. Besides, even among deletionists here, there has not been any consensus on anything except that the old version of the article needed a bit of trimming. There was certainly no consensus to reduce it to stub length. That is why I'm going point-by-point, trying to see what people will agree to and what they will not. Everyking 16:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The point is, I think it should be very clear by now that the consensus was strongly against your preferred version of the article, as well as your endless reversions of attempts to change it.  Now you seem to be trying to restore your version in little bits, assuming that people will agree to each successive little bit. Worldtraveller 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the point is what I said above. Everyking 19:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrating old info

message: It may be that the only way to get anything decided on this article is to hold votes on each individual point. My position is that the U.S./Canada chart, which gave week-by-week chart positions for the album from release in July until the present day, should be restored in its complete form. I figure there are basically two other opinions a person could hold on the matter.
===Option 1: Fully restore===
#Everyking 05:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 1

message: #Everyking 05:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1: Fully restore

message: * Calton 06:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2: Keep removed entirely

message: #Carnildo 05:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3: Restore in some truncated or revised form

message: Should the fact that Simpson says the songs are autobiographical be mentioned in the article?
===Yes===
#Everyking 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 2

message: #Everyking 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # The album is called 'Autobiography'.  Surely that makes it clear enough. Worldtraveller 19:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: #In general terms, I agree with Carnildo's observations and support the proposition, and I think the text currently in the article manages to address this point. However, given the history and talk, the dispute seems to be about a particular sentence that has been removed. I think it likely that this is not particularly clear to everyone participating in the poll, so I don't think the responses to this question can be used to claim any kind of consensus on the issue. --Michael Snow 17:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's this poll option about?

message: Should the fact that Simpson is credited with co-writing all of the songs be mentioned in the article?
===Yes===
#Everyking 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 3

message: #Everyking 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #Everyking 19:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: I changed a sentence from
:Simpson is credited with co-writing each of the album's twelve songs, and she has described the process as being similar to keeping a diary.
to
:Simpson described the process of writing the album's twelve songs as being similar to keeping a diary.
I'd like to explain my reasons.  First, it's an Ashlee Simpson album, so the default assumption is that she wrote the songs.  Second, the phrase "is credited with" makes it sound like she didn't really write them, she just got the credit.  If that's the case, it should be stated explicitly.
Now, I understand that "is credited with" is factually correct, whereas "wrote" is harder to verify.  But that's just a technicality.  Again, if there's any real issue about who wrote the songs, it should be written out.  dbenbenn | talk 19:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't agree with the change. Many artists don't write their own songs. I'd leave that sentence the way it is: there's nothing wrong with it! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks to me that Everyking reverted your text about two or three times. Now, this doesn't violate the WP:3RR rule, but doesn't a single revert violate the previous arbitation ruling? I think an admin should take a look at the the history and see if this counts as a revert. --Deathphoenix 19:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was careful not to revert even once. Look again, and quit with the witchhunt. Everyking 20:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: People don't take that for granted when it comes to music like this. That she was so involved in the songwriting is considered rather unusual. But obviously we can't verify if she really co-wrote them, at least to a substantial extent, or was just credited to create that appearance. The evidence of the reality show would suggest the former, but there are certainly people who hold the latter position. I had initially just stated "co-wrote", but later someone changed it to qualify it, and I accepted that as being necessary for NPOV. Everyking 20:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not on a witchhunt. I haven't made any edits to the main article, and come to think of it, I've been pretty careful not to. What I've done is made comments. Now, in my opinion, it looks like you performed some edits which can be interpreted as reverting. dbenbenn performed an edit to the original text, and it appears as if you reversed at least some of this edit over the course of a few edits. Now, according to the RfAr, whether this is a revert or not is at an admin's discretion. I'm not an admin. Therefore, I'll let another admin look at this and decide if it's a revert. --Deathphoenix 20:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've learned, anything can be interpreted as a revert if somebody wants you gone. Everyking 20:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why, IMHO, it's a better idea for you to ask another Ashlee Simpson contributor to do something that can be interpreted as a revert instead of doing t yourself. If they don't want to do it, then it's probably a good idea not to do it. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? Who's gonna do it? I put something forward on talk and let it sit there for two or three days, and there are no objections, but nobody else is implementing it, either. How about you, will you start implementing my proposals, then? Everyking 20:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't because I'm not enough of an Ashlee Simpson expert. I remember that I suggested asking someone else for the table, and someone else suggested a couple of contributors to ask, but you restored the table before I could get around to asking them. That was much shorter than two or three days. I don't know about any other cases, but this was the first one I remember after your arbitration ruling, so I don't think I missed much. --Deathphoenix 00:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: iMeowbot seems rather knowledgeable about Simpson, but I don't think Everyking trusts him. As I said before, Shard or Angel Tiger would be people Everyking could refer to; sadly, they don't seem very active. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She did have input into the content of the lyrics.  I wouldn't state any more or less than that, though. iMeowbot~Mw 09:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Then that's good enough for me. While Everyking not trusting iMeowbot is a problem in terms of interpersonal relations, iMeowbot has two things that are important to this case: (1) Ashlee Simpson knowledge (2) No ban on reverting Ashlee Simpson articles. The revert ban means that Everyking has to work with people that he may not trust or like. The other alternative is to be banned for breaking an Arbcom ruling. --Deathphoenix 12:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Credited with co-writing" 

message: A table (or equivalent) showing peak positions of an album on various charts is standard for album articles, and should be restored to this article at the bottom. (This is distinct from the issue of the week-by-week chart that's the subject of poll 1. The tables were earlier removed because of the existence of Autobiography sales and chart positions, which has been redirected now.)
===Yes===
#Everyking 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 4

message: #Everyking 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Calton 11:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Undecided

message: A table (or equivalent) showing peak positions of an album's singles on various charts is standard for album articles, and should be restored to this article at the bottom. (Presently these all exist on individual singles pages, so the question is whether they should all be available in one consolidated place in addition to being spread out across the singles articles.)
===Yes===
#Everyking 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 5

message: #Everyking 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Calton 11:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Undecided