Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 5

message: Let's have a vote on whether the following sentence should remain in the article:
:She also said that people of many different ages could enjoy the album; it is, however, commonly thought that it appeals primarily to teenagers.
I think it's an example of something that should be "trimmed", as I wrote above.  It sounds pretty fatuous to me.  Breaking news, Simpson says people of different ages can enjoy her album!  Wow!  Nonetheless, I'll respect the consensus of editors here.
# Delete, for the reasons given above.  Dbenbenn 19:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the demographic aim of recordings is that short of a direct statement from the label, you would have to reverse engineer it. That would be original research at best, but more likely it would end up as repeated speculation from the popular press.  Pop performers routinely throw out the "all ages" statement, it's standard practice.  The article perhaps could point out that the Ashlee Simpson Show had a particularly strong showing in the Nielsen 18-34 bracket, but really that belongs in the article for the show.  SoundScan doesn't capture purchaser ages, only geography, so those reports wouldn't help much for this either. The target for this album was 12-34, but getting an official to say that on the record may prove difficult. iMeowbot~Mw 01:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. I concede the point. Let us try to think of a way to better and more objectively describe the album's demographic appeal. Everyking 01:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most succinct way to do that would be in the genre cell of the infobox.  The Rolling Stone genres are well understood, for Ashlee Simpson they list Rock/Pop, Teen Beat and Pop.  Citing that ref is enough to let the reader draw a good conclusion without the article having to spell it out. iMeowbot~Mw 04:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teenagers 

message: *19:42, 7 Jan 2005
Sorry, forgot to annotate that edit.  It was a removal of a duplicated "she" in the phrase "which she she claimed she needed". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 19:42, 7 Jan 2005

message: I have filed an RfC against Everyking. Those concerned who have participated in this debate can certify it, while those who agree with my summary of the dispute may endorse it. If you've been involved in similar disputes (i.e. Autobiography promotion and publicity, La La (song)), feel free to add your own summary in the outside views section. You can endorse more than one summary, and still can certify the dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: There is some incongruity in the article, namely the emphasis on comparisons with Jessica Simpson.  The whole gist of the album project is supposed to be about Ashlee being judged on her own merits, and the article's admission that the two record different kinds of music illustrates that the comparisons are strained, being made only because they have the same parents.  The "I'm not Jessica, waaaahhhhh!" thing should obviously get good coverage in Shadow (song), and perhaps The Ashlee Simpson Show and/or Ashlee Simpson, but let's keep this article concentrated on the album.  As it is even quoted in the article, "I just wanted the music to sound like me and to be an expression of myself." iMeowbot~Mw 16:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a certain logic to that, and I acknowledge the point. However, emphasis on comparisons has been very strong in the media, in promotion, etc., so it would almost put me in the curious position of pushing a POV unsympathetic to Ashlee to disagree with you on this, that Ashlee should be represented more independently of her sister or her family. Everyking 16:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand my intent in writing that—I did not mean to contradict the importance of publicity, only to contradict the emphasis on the reality show. But not absolutely; it's just one counter-point, something to give the reader a sense of the broader perspective. Everyking 16:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misc. notes

message: Why was this article moved?  Unless there is another album by that name, it should be Autobiography (album).  If there is, it should be Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album).  Autobiography (2004 album, Ashlee Simpson) violates the standards set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music.  I won't revert now, since someone may be in the middle of doing something, and I want to see what's happening, but I will move it tomorrow if no one else does it first. Tuf-Kat 04:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
* disambig page done now—was in the middle of it while you posted!  I should have checked WP Music as you pointed out, perhaps the title does need a change again, as do the titles I've suggested on the disambig page; please do feel free to alter as necessary. —Neuropedia 04:14, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
* Do we generally disambiguate among a set of articles only one of which exists? Snowspinner 04:48, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I fail to see why doing so would be a bad thing. It serves to encourage other editors to fill in the redlinks, something I'm in the process of doing now, once I've taken enough notes on them. →Reene✎ 04:53, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about moving it again, but it's under the proper title now. I'll go fix any double redirects now. →Reene✎ 06:31, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to moving the title, as attached to it as I was. We ought not be biased in favor of stuff from the present day, after all. Everyking 12:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Everyking, when you said you would not revert against consensus, what exactly did you mean by that?  Please explain your understanding of what the consensus is with this article.  Worldtraveller 09:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't revert. Everyking 12:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you didn't. You just "partially restored content". Johnleemk | Talk 13:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and a few partiallys add up to an entirely in the end.  So, to put words in your mouth then, Everyking, when you said you wouldn't revert against consensus, you meant you would revert against consensus, but would divide your revert up into several steps?  If that's not what you meant, please clarify.  And tell us what you think the consensus is regarding this article. Worldtraveller 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same old