Talk:Rearviewmirror (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Article requirements:
YesY All the start class criteria
YesY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
YesY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
YesY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
YesY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
YesY Categorisation at least by artist and year
YesY A casual reader should learn something about the album.Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Change of tracklisting

Tracklisting for disc 2 was changed to reflect what was actually on the album. 11/18/04

[edit] Page move

This page should be at rearviewmirror (Pearl Jam album) (actually, it should probably be at rearviewmirror (Pearl Jam compilation), but I think naming conventions are against me on that), with a note about the technical limitations—which should not even exist anymore, at this point in the timeline of MediaWiki maturity. The only reference to the "greatest hits" portion of the title is located on the spine. It reads "rearviewmirror (greatest hits 1991-2003)," i.e., not following a colon, and that only exists as a descriptive parenthetical, not the compilation's canonical title. kthx --129.15.131.246 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I said that the spine is the only reference to the "greatest hits" portion of the title, in contrast to the album cover and discs themselves. The Pearl Jam website catalogues the compilation as "rearviewmirror" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.246 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen an article that starts with a lower case letter.-5- (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Plenty exist, but they use a hack rather than being taken care by MediaWiki. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this isn't worth worrying about. I've seen it listed this way on several websites. It looks better capitalized to me.-5- (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, what matters is which is correct. Secondly, the move request is comprised of two parts:
  1. dropping the second portion of the page's current title
  2. using Template:lowercase to make the page title appear correctly
Of the two, the first is the bigger issue to me. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want this page moved I would suggest using this template: -5- (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Here's a proposed solution: leave the article name as it is (to maintain Wiki standards), and change the article text to "rearviewmirror." There's nothing that says that the introduction to the article has to match the name. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't think that would satisfy anyone. How would inconsistencies between the article title and the content of the article itself in any way uphold the standards of Wikipedia, rather than having the opposite effect and degrading them? Even if your second claim is true, that claim being that such a thing isn't disallowed, it's strongly suggested that such a thing not occur. Articles with a proper noun as a subject should use that proper noun for the article name.
Secondly, the request for a third opinion was regarding the edit dispute, not the issue of the page move. As such, I'll move your comment to the appropriate heading and re-list this on WP:THIRD. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Watch your tone. Have you seen the template {{lowercase}}? I'll apply it to the page; see what you think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
From the existing page move discussion:
...the move request is comprised of two parts:
  1. dropping the second portion of the page's current title
  2. using Template:lowercase to make the page title appear correctly
Of the two, the first is the bigger issue...
I also do not appreciate being told to "watch [my] tone." The comment itself is far more patronizing than any tone, real or perceived, in my response. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit dispute with User:-5-

I posted a comment about correcting the article title and a follow-up clarification. I then made some edits that were unrelated to the move, but changed the article's references to the title anyway, in order to reflect the correct title. In this edit, I left a notice in the edit summary, directed at no one, to take the unrelated changes into account if there was issue with the name change (which made up a small portion of the total changes), because such a thing I've seen happen on a few different occasions, and I wanted to alert and curb potentially gratuitous use of the undo feature by inattentive editors.

After my second response to User:-5- on the talk page, he or she noticed my changes to the article regarding the name change and reverted them, along with the unrelated changes that had been made. Upon noticing this, I presumed it to be unintentional on the part of -5-, and so reincorporated said unrelated changes back into the article, with no change to references to the article title (i.e., references to original title intact).

-5- Then re-reverted that edit, the highlight of the summary: revert unneeded changes. This is, to be frank, bullshit. I've never seen this before. "Revert unneeded changes..." Really? I don't even know how to respond to that.

It's easy to see what happened here: after my reincorporation of the unrelated changes, User:-5- took my comments in the edit summary to be hostile and reverted the edit out of spite—a revert that I contend would not have taken place under different circumstances. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I genuinely felt that your edits didn't improve the article. For one thing, you added information that had {{Fact}} tags. I don't understand why you would add information in the first place if you knew it was unreferenced.-5- (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You genuinely felt that my edits changing the arbitrarily capitalized "certified Platinum" and providing a helpful link to music recording sales certification made no improvement to the article? You genuinely felt that aggregating the notes about disparity with earlier releases into a section called "Disparity with earlier releases" rather than embedding them throughout the rest of the article, allowing the track listing to function as a track listing made no improvement to the article?
Regarding your comment about the citation needed tag, that statement already existed in some form, added to the article in an edit on 2006 June 10, I just didn't feel it was necessary to single out Jeremy as the sole altered mix (compared to a remix). Furthermore, I produced a comparison of "Daughter" used on rearviewmirror and the original track from vs., but neglected to upload it lest I violate WP:NOR, of which I planned to make a note on the talk page, but I got distracted by this tedium. The plan was to get a third-party to independently look into the issue, compare the findings, and if said findings matched the claim, use it as a source.
And regardless of whether you felt my changes actively improved the article, that isn't justification to revert. The effect these changes have on the article are neutral at worst. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

3O/Comment: First off, -5-'s first revert is acceptable per WP:BRD, though the second revert was a bit hasty, I'll admit. Next: the Disparity section is technically WP:OR or WP:SYN and don't really add anything to the article. Statements like "the highest rank achieved by a Pearl Jam song to date" need to be backed up with sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about what's going on here, so I just want to point out that my changes were merely copyediting. Let me clarify that, again: my edits introduced no original content to the article.
  • The contents of the Disparity sections include rewrites of claims that already existed in the article, and, in fact, remain there now.
  • My edit tagged two claims as needing citations, tags which were removed when the edit was reverted. These claims were already in the article, and, in fact, remain there now.
I fully agree, aside from the first line, that the contents of the disparity section definitely qualify as original research (although in no way qualify as advancing any one editor's subjective agenda; so don't be silly). --129.15.131.246 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)