Talk:Love & Gravity

message: :Image:Lovegravity.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lovegravity.jpg

message: I will start discussion by explaining that the first tag should not apply to the material in the article. It is not a collection of dubious information about a fictional work but an article discussing a mainstream album. The content is not unencyclopedic, but instead is well-written and informative. If more additions are made, it has the potentiality of being a good article and ultimately a featured article candidate. It is no different than featured articles such as 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), except that it currently lacks the same amount of content. I would ask the tagger to please explain how he believes the article to be a fansite.
For the second tag, the charge of original research is not grounded in fact. All information is sourced, and the descriptions of the songs are based upon the songs, not upon any unreferenced analysis of them. I would ask the tagger to identify original research in the article. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Okay, some of these things are indeed too detailed. "Alluding to the American idiom of a "hole in my head."" and citing only a dictionary entry for "hole in my head" is definitely original research, as is "dances with her Shadow" (a metaphor for loneliness)". I think the article, as a whole, is too detailed compared to the sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hole in My Head" is an American idiom and is referenced. It is merely describing the title of a track, I cannot see how it is too detailed. This is where the title came to be. And again, the metaphor in "dancing with her shadow" is understood, otherwise your interpretation of the work is flawed. All the needed information is referenced in the song lyrics just as the featured article I linked above.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is cited to works that actually describe the song's content. All you cited was the lyrics section of CMT, which is not the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: But that is all the information needed as noted above.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have just come across Wikipedia:These are not original research and Wikipedia:PRIMARY. I believe that the information in the article follows these guidelines because although a primary source is used, the information in the article is strictly description and therefore the corresponding tag should be removed. At least, we should agree that the first tag should be removed. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But I agree with both tags. You simply do not know why a title of a song is what it is unless you have a good reference to the author of the song. The British playwright Alan Ayckbourn was known for giving plays random titles that had nothing to do with the play itself, and simply because a title resembles an idiom doesn't mean that making the connection isn't original research. It is not just description. The descriptions of each song are far too detailed, even for this Blackhawk fan. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I must say, the insertions of the citation tags on the page are excessive. I don't think I like it much here.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry about that, but it's caused by your edits. Below the edit summary (below the window I'm typing in), it does say that content must be verifiable. And at the bottom, it says if you don't want your writing mercilessly edited, don't submit it. You may know this as given your first edits, you've probably got more experience of Wikipedia than your account suggests. Anyway, if you add a lot of uncited stuff plus the OR you've added, you should expect a lot of fact tags to follow. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Resonable deductions from primary sources are permissible under the original research principle. A brief synopsis of tracks on a a mainstream country album is not excessive unless the admission is made that the featured article linked above is also excessive, which I reject. I find your actions appalling and I hope you can better explain your actions rather than defacing an article.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are not unless they are mathematical or logical, by which is meant formal logic. If you have read our policies and guidelines you will know that you are not allowed to make personal attacks. I will leave a formal warning on your talk page to make sure you understand this. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This falls under the sphere of a literary synopsis. They are resonable summaries strictly from the primary source. Do we agree that the fan tag should be removed?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're stretching what it says under literary synopsis too far when you decide that 'Hole in my heart' has something to do with 'Hole in my head'. That's interpretation. And as for your comparison with the FA article goes, that article might not make FA today, our policies and guidelines and even expecations are very different. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I am willing to remove instances that may be construed as interpretation, but for the most part I believe most of the descriptions are synopsis. The featured article linked above was promoted on Oct 16 2006. Looking back on the policy of WP:FAN from that date to today  the differences are not that distinct.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Is the labelling of a word in a work as a metaphor original research or is it a reasonable reflection of a primary source? I am inclined to believe the latter. Take for instance the transcript of a speech. If the speaker remarks that something is "putting lipstick on a pig" we can rightfully assume he is using a metaphor, just as we can righfully reflect that lyrics in a BlackHawk song are using a metaphor. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the "hole in my head" sentence, I was referring to the "metaphor for loneliness" statement. I have found other sources but they cannot be accessed without a fee. I believe that once I gain access to these sources, the article will be much improved and there will no longer be an issue. But until these sources are used, I believe what is currently in the article are plot synopsises from a primary source, and that is acceptable.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphor