Select Page

User talk:Friginator: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Faethon Ghost (talk | contribs)
626 edits
No edit summary
Line 100: Line 100:


::''Welcome to Wikipedia yourself. I reverted the page because the new info was unsourced, and there was no evidence to it being true in the first place. See the MCR Singles section. Thank you.'' --[[User:Friginator|<font color="green"><font face="biondi">Friginator</font>]] 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::''Welcome to Wikipedia yourself. I reverted the page because the new info was unsourced, and there was no evidence to it being true in the first place. See the MCR Singles section. Thank you.'' --[[User:Friginator|<font color="green"><font face="biondi">Friginator</font>]] 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Tabernacle Township ==
Please refrain from vandalising articles as you did to [[Tabernale Township]]. If you want to type a bunch of nonsense use the sandbox or Microsoft Notepad. [[User:Faethon Ghost|Faethon Ghost]] ([[User talk:Faethon Ghost|talk]]) 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:22, 18 September 2008

Hi. I'm Friginator. Have Questions, Comments or Complaints? Open up about them on this, my talk page. If you interpret any of my edits as vandalism, feel free to point it out here. I hope I can help resolve the problem. I assure you that I have no intention of vandalism, and hope to become a trusted source of information.

MCR Singles

As a fan of My Chemical Romance, I have purchased several of their singles online. I did not, however, see any evidence that two songs, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" and "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever singles. As of September 2, 2008, both had been listed as such. I made sure to point this out on their respective talk pages, and corrected many instances of the songs being referred to as "singles." I also suggested that both articles be merged with the main article.

  • It's a good thing you pointed out the lack of sources. "Our Lady of Sorrows" could be a single, but there is no proof that it ever was. I am going to ask Orfen if he can find a source that lists "Our Lady of Sorrows" as a single, since he created the page. If he can't I think the page should be redirected. However, "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" is most defiantly a single however since there is a music video. – Zntrip 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Vampires Will Never Hurt You" was never a single, as far as I can tell. I have found no evidence that it was, therefore making it an unverified claim. I will continue to edit it as such, unless of course you can find a reliable source to the contrary. I do not want an edit war, of course, but strongly believe in making statements proven to be true. If a statement cannot be confirmed as true, I will not hesitate to remove it. --Friginator 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes a "single." "Vampires Will Nver Hurt You" does indeed have a music video, but I can find no record whatsoever that it or "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever actually released as singles. I could be wrong, obviously, but see no reason to classify either song as a single without evidence (other than the music video, of course). --Friginator 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article mentioned above says little to nothing about music videos. You must be thinking of another article. I have not seen any copies of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" on eBay, but it is definitely possible that very few were produced, as the song was early on in My Chemical Romance's career. --Friginator 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had originally created this article because Wikipedia had for a long time had it listed as a single. For creating false information, I apologize. I had created this article a long time ago and after your comment was brought to my attention I felt I would be bold and just redirect it to the album. (copied from Talk:Our Lady of Sorrows (song))  Orfen  T • C 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Orfen.--Friginator 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another comment, a music video doesn't automatically make a single. I have seen the copy of "Vampires Will Never Hurt You" in places on the internet before but I can't find them right now off the top of my head. I will be busy the next few days but I will be sure to look further for a source when I have the time if you both are not able to find one.  Orfen  T • C 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it's been (almost exactly!) 2 weeks, and I still haven't found one shred of proof concerning the [supposed] single version of Vampires Will Never Hurt You on ebay or anywhere else. Though Zntrip still says he has seen it, I was bold and redirected it to the main article. After some thought, I have decided to keep it there due to the music video, which itself could warrant a separate page.

Another Update: Zntrip did indeed find an image of the supposed single. However, no source was given, and I was skeptical about it even being genuine.

Good job on finding an image, but it doesn't look official. It might be a promo, but I doubt it's official. The band logo is different, the Eyeball records logo is different, the band pictures are just screenshots from the music video, there's no copyright, the artwork has little to nothing to do with the song, and you gave no source. Frankly, though I respect your dedication to this article, I also doubt anywhere you got this is a credible source in the first place. If this was simply a promotional givaway, then why is it in a jewel cd case, and not a cardboard slipcase? I may be wrong about this, but I don't think this is real. I have decided to stop redirecting this page, however, because the music video itself might warrant a separate article anyway. --Friginator 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank your for your opinion Friginator, however I find your argument lacking substance. “Doesn't look official” and different logos do not mean that the CD is not legitimate. The fact is that Eyeball Records and My Chemical Romance may have had different logos, as they were relatively obscure. Like Phantoms, Forever is another obscure piece of the band’s discography, yet you do not deny its existence. I believe there is substantial evidence that it is real and therefore I am reverting your recent edits. – Zntrip 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't look real" was just my opinion, I didn't mean to imply it was a reliable fact. You mention substantial evidence is needed, but still you have no evidence other than a poor-quality photo with no source. I'm sorry, but I will keep changing things back until there is reason to pass this off as true. The reason I haven't brought up "Like Phantoms, Forever" is because I have never done any digging on it, and I KNOW it is very rare. Also, even if the supposed "single" WAS offered as a promotional item, it STILL doesn't count. The template even states, DO NOT ADD NEW SINGLES UNLESS CONFIRMED BY THE LABEL OR THE BAND. If you know a reliable source, by all means please give it. Otherwise I will continue to remove your unsourced information on something that may not even exist in the first place. --Friginator 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether you are skeptic or not is really not relevant. The photographs I found on eBay (the URL is no longer valid) are substantial evidence. I do in fact think that it is a promotional single, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are many promotional singles that have their own articles such “Aneurysm” by Nirvana or “Macy's Day Parade” by Green Day. – Zntrip 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced images from an invalid page are not "Substantial Evidence." Ebay is far from a reliable source, especially if the URL is no longer valid. Ebay sells thousands of bootleg CDs daily. Even promotional items need sources, and there is no evidence that this is official in the first place. If it's unsourced, I will remove it. --Friginator 00:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still unconvinced. Would you agree to differ this discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard for a final decision? – Zntrip 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have posted our discussion over the single on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Friginator 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to bring to both of your attention this website. It is an archived version of the official My Chemical Romance website. The writing is very similar to the writing on that page, as is the pictures at the top are similar to the back cover of the single. Also if you scroll to the bottem there is an announcement saying that "Vampires" can be heard on the radio. If you look on the back cover of the single as well there is contact information which is the official information of the band and label.  Orfen  T • C 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Orfen. Now there's definitely a case for this being a promotional single. I still have my doubts, but this helps a lot. --Friginator 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the information about the song itself, the aesthetics of the website and the CD cover suggest a central theme for the band. The pictures of the band members are the same, as is the font. You would have to agree that a bootleg would be highly improbable. The bootlegger would have had to either go to the archive or have made the CD in 2002. The first scenario involves too much research for a bootlegger and the second seems odd since bootlegging an obscure indie band seems far from profitable. Additionally, I’m sure the would be bootlegger would have peddled more copies. I think the evidence is conclusive. – Zntrip 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about conclusive, seeing as how the website doesn't exist and therefore can't be cited as a source, but it's definitely enough to keep the images and info up there for the time being. Someone somewhere needs to find out more about this, because there's no official explanation as to when or where this was released. All we have to go on are images, and there needs to be more than that. My theory is that the band themselves made this as a demo cd before they had released Bullets. Again, I'm also not sure if this technically counts as a single, as it was probably just something the band gave out as a promo item at shows and such. I say we list this as an EP, along with Like Phantoms, Forever but I would need consensus. --Friginator 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the CD is a promotional single rather than an EP. One is that “Vampires Will Never Hurt You” is at the top of the cover and is the first song, like most singles. I also have another picture (I didn’t upload it) that says on the CD itself, “Rough Mix Promo / Not For Sale”. (I can e-mail it to you if you would like.) My opinion is it would be easier to have this information on the “Vampires Will Never Hurt You” page since the article already exists and a name for the EP (if that’s what it is) is not obvious. What makes Like Phantoms, Forever different from this is that it has a different name. Besides aren’t most CD singles really just EPs named after a song? – Zntrip 00:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. But if it's not sold anywhere, and wasn't made by the record label is it a single? Eyeball Records is on there, but it's not the official logo and I'm guessing they didn't produce it. I'm not sure what that would be classified as, but singles are meant to measure the popularity of a song before it comes out by how many copies it sells. The cd is worth including in the article, but I think we should wait to put it under the "singles" category, as all the other singles were actually sold and confirmed by record labels and sales figures. I think we should leave the page under "related articles" and avoid messing with the other singles pages for the time being. --Friginator 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Parade Genre Controversy

Main page: Talk: The Black Parade

My Chemical Romance is often seen as "Emo," and thus their fans and/or critics across the internet are constantly debating over this classification. Their most recent album, "The Black Parade," also was subject to the same arguments. In August 2008, I proposed what I saw as a neutral way to control this controversy. I suggested Wikipedia's policy on this issue be to neither classify the album as emo, nor state that it is NOT emo. This discussion was orginally posted on the talk page for "The Black Parade."

Needless to say, the genre of the album keeps getting changed to emo, and almost immediately changed back, only to be changed again and so on. My proposal is that it be accepted either way. I don't see any harm either way, and I think there are more important things to do on Wikipedia than cause an endless edit war about something completely arbitrary. There is no official genre for almost any album. It's all open to interpretation. I think we need to list the genre as simply, "Rock," since that is the only status the band has given its work. The problem is that there is no evidence either way, and therefore no reason to state it as encyclopedic fact. Let's just all just say from now on that the album is NOT classified as "emo," due to a complete and utter lack of evidence. However, I do not have any personal opinions either way, I just see this as the only way to minimize the article being changed back and forth. I'm not quite sure how we would go about making a desicion like that, but I'm sure there could be a way.--Friginator 2:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While I understand your concern the genre for emo is actually sourced and should be included. That is why I keep changing it back. It is sourced through the allmusic review of the album. All of the genres must be sourced. Reliable sources would have to be provided saying this album wasn't emo if that genre was to become disputed. The genres listed currently aren't just genres I or other users feel this album is like. It is sourced by allmusic which is what they say the album sounds like. Genres require sources other than the band to classify for sure what it is. All information needs to be sourced by a reliable source and the genres provided were provided by a professional reviewer.  Orfen  T • C 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, to put it succinctly, WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". While I feel the subject does qualify as emo music, I'd need to find some article (preferably in a music magazine like Rolling Stone) that specifically called The Black Parade emo. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orfen: Though I would obviously say that Allmusic.com is a good source of info, I don't see how their interpretations could be seen as an official designation of Genre. In my opinion, the genre should simply be changed to "Rock," because that is the only genre acknowledged by all parties, including the band themselves. Since the band has specifically stated that they are NOT emo, and that neither is this particular album, I would say there is good evidence against the inclusion. I do agree that if Rolling Stone actually classified the album as emo, a good case could be made. If a statement is open to interpretation, it should by not be included in an encyclopedic article. --Friginator 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band themselves don't count as a reliable source though. We cannot use primary sources for things such as genres. We need to use the opinions of reliable music critics to decide what we include in Wikipedia not the ediotors or the band. Yes, the band's opinion is worth mentioning (although I am not sure if there is something about them denying the term emo specifically for The Black Parade) but they ultimately don't decide on Wikipedia what their album sounds like. Yes, they made it, but it is up to the critics to decide for us what the album is classified as regardless of our opinions. Whether we believe if this album can be classified as emo having sourced information makes for a better article and a better encyclopedia.  Orfen  T • C 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the genre change, though, is that "genre" is an opinion, and can't be stated as a fact either way. The album got generally positive reviews from critics, but we don't state that the album was "good" or "bad," because this is not fact. I don't think that the band themselves are any less reliable than allmusic.com. We could always note the critics' interpretations, but we could not verify their opinions as fact. Also, the term "emo" is so specific that it couldn't apply to the entire album. One song ["Mama"] incorporates Russian polka, but this is not the subgenre either. With virtually every Wikipedia article on music, there are debates over genre and subgenre, which is why I think that the entire situation has gotten out of hand, and Wikipedia needs to separate all the opinions from the facts. --Friginator 29:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genres source by reliable sources who are considered experts in their field aren't just considered opinion. Those are reliable facts and as such we should list them. If there is a dispute then the dispute should be listed but there needs to be reliable sources showing a dispute. This isn't an encyclopedia that tells the opinion of its users but rather what published experts in the field have listed as their interpretation. Allmusic or any other website hasn't listed the genre of the album as Russian polka. Yes, some mention the fact that "Mama" is a different song for the band and list why but even then I'm not sure if it is specifically labeled as Russian polka. We can't add how we think the album sounds. We have to add how respected publishers feel the album sounds. Yes, there are sometimes a lot of bias in the disputes on talk pages but in the end we are creating an encyclopedia based on the published views of others. We can't let how we think an album sounds or how we feel a band should be labeled come into play when making an article. Excluding the genre emo would be POV since we wouldn't be covering a neutral POV as we have obviously made our own decisions on how we think the album or the band sounds.  Orfen  T • C 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree for the same reasons as before, but more importantly, IGN's review specifically states that this particular album is not emo, whereas Allmusic.com (the given source) only has "emo" listed as one of the many styles. Allmusic classifies the genre, however, as simply "Rock." Again, the opinions of others should not be listed as fact, despite who these others are. Not including a genre is not POV or any type of bias. It would be POV to state that the genre is not "emo", but refusing to choose a side either way is just staying neutral. --Friginator 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say to look at your talk page but I have already read this. How can you refuse to choose a side? You can't. Not listing means you are saying it isn't emo. Listing it is saying it is. You can't just not take a side. One needs to be taken based on the reliable sources. IGN actually says "My Chemical Romance is NOT an emo band. At least that's what they want you to believe. Not only have the members of the band said so publicly, but they are going out of their way to back up those words with their music." Also some more sources to add are AOL and FYE. I don't understand how not including it as a genre means it isn't emo. There are also a couple non-music related sources that say the album is emo and part of an emo movement. The band article also lists them as emo. I don't understand why the sources don't point to emo.  Orfen  T • C 01:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I referred you back to my talk page is that I feel there are better ways to discuss this than through edit wars. The IGN quote you mentioned does make a specific case against the "emo" classification for this specific album, even if it doesn't insist upon it. As long as there are reliable sources, and something is open to interpretation, you can't just go around stating it as fact. Encyclopedias are based on stating the facts, not the opinions. "Emo" is an opinion, and if there are conflicting sources then you can't pick sides. No one is suggesting that Wikipedia insist that it is not emo, but until there is some sort of infallible proof that the album is unarguably emo, we can't go around stating what only SOME of the critics interpret. What I don't understand is why you think staying neutral is in itself some kind of bias. How can the album meet criteria for the "emo" genre if those criteria don't exist? There's no specific way to verify arbitrary claims. If something can't be proven, you don't state it to be true on an encyclopedia. Reviews and consensus don't count as proof of something, especially if other reviews and consensus point otherwise. About your new sources: neither actually reviews the album, they both just cite a review from allmusic that you already cited. Plus, neither of them list "emo" as the genre, just one of several styles. Even if you are going to go against the very purpose of having an Encyclopedia, you still would have to come up with ONE reliable source stating that this album IS emo, which you still have not. Coming to conclusions like that because-- "I don't see why the [as of yet ungiven] sources don't point to emo" --violates WP:OR.--Friginator 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is based on second party sources. The allmusic source is a second party source. The genre isn't listed in the review but it is listed as a style of the album. Not the band. It is a style for the album. Also it is a covered subject in the UK where it is believed a suicide took place due to the "emo" nature of the album. Located here. Saying that the second party sources do not indicate this album is emo is ignoring the sources completely.  Orfen  T • C 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The suicide article/incident has absolutely nothing to do with this. A suicide report is not an appropriate source for defining a music genre. Anyway, "emo" would be (in your previous examples) from a secondary source, but I don't see how that's relevant either. For example I could find several secondary sources implying "Onions taste bad," but I wouldn't state that insinuation as fact on the "Onion" page. The way onions taste is up to the taster, just like whether music is "emo" or not is up to the listener. It's an opinion, and just because some second party sources have that opinion doesn't make it a fact. That's why we stay neutral. Wikipedia gets all its credibility from the credibility of secondary sources, but it still only states the facts. That's why Dictionaries, Textbooks and Encyclopedias exist. To separate the facts from the opinions so others can learn enough to form their own opinions. --Friginator 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Reverting Vandalism...

Thanks, Enigma, though really this was just carelessness on my part. --Friginator 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks for suggesting it. :) --Friginator 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out wp:Twinkle as well. It helps a lot if you're using Firefox, and makes leaving warnings nothing more than a few clicks. Good job BTW. NJGW (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained Revert

Welcome to Wikipedia yourself. I reverted the page because the new info was unsourced, and there was no evidence to it being true in the first place. See the MCR Singles section. Thank you. --Friginator 01:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle Township

Please refrain from vandalising articles as you did to Tabernale Township. If you want to type a bunch of nonsense use the sandbox or Microsoft Notepad. Faethon Ghost (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]