Talk:All Day (Girl Talk album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Samples

Are we going to identify all the samples again? let's do this! Leav (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We're at 224 out of 373 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.66.190 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

235 / 372 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Day_(album)#cite_note-Twitter-0 Leav (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How come the ending times weren't included for the samples? They were for Feed The Animals 69.108.213.130 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have a redirect page for "All Day" that points both here and at the 45 minute Aesop Rock mix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Day:_Nike%2B_Original_Run). 169.234.117.235 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

But, they don't have the same name... maybe a link on the top of the page along the lines of "For the 'Aesop Rock' album 'All Day: Nike+ Original Run' click here." ? Leav (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sample End Times

I've started to add sample end times used by AllDaySamples.com (Travis, the creator of AllDaySamples, has given me the OK; for reference, his data file is here.) I've also added a statement about this source in the text at the beginning of the Track Listing section. If there is a more appropriate way to cite this source, please let me know (and/or update it yourself). Thanks! — Benrahn (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed my reference to AllDaySamples with this change. It would be great if some more experienced Wikipedians could weigh in on how best to handle this. Thanks! — Benrahn (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Samples unlisted in the sample list

There are a few songs that aren't on the official sample list that people are adding to the page. Under the interest of having a source of all samples, I'd say we should leave them off but leave a record in here of what they are and at what times (for ease of re-addition if the sample list changes again) --flatluigi(^talk/_contrib) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But only if listening to the song and indicated sample shows that they are plausibly the same, of course --flatluigi(^talk/_contrib) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we leave them off for now, until perhaps Girl Talk updates the sample list at Illegal Art's website again. Though perhaps maybe one of the songs from the "unidentified samples" section samples King Floyd or De La Soul. Holiday56 (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Girl Talk has updated his sample list to include "Me Myself and I", but not King Floyd. Unfortunately, the entire sample page has been removed due to WP:OR. Holiday56 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Track 6 - On and On

• 0:03 - ?:?? King Floyd - "Groove Me"

Unidentified

The "unidentified" section seems a bit too self-reflexive. Perhaps they have been identified by people, just not Wikipedia editors. I suggest it just becomes "additional samples" and state they are listed by the artist, and make no claim about their relative identifiability in the tracks. --129.89.157.164 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kraftwerk sample

"It's More Fun to Compute" is listed as a sample in the credits, and it says here it's sampled at 1:31 in "Triple Double", but I can't hear it. Can anyone point out what's sampled? Holiday56 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's at 1:31, it's probably the drum roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.194.31 (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

“Run”

What is the sample of someone singing the word “run” really slowly, shortly after the “Creep” samples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanhogan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this? (2:46 in if the link doesn't work correctly) --flatluigi(^talk/_contrib) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's from "Creep." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.90.76 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sample Listing Removal - What it is and what it shall never be

I would encourage those who have put time and energy into this matter consider the fact that with a system as organic as wikipedia, it's ultimately futile to try to force people to operate within rules that are not a community priority. I like wikipedia because it is a single source of bandages for my meandering curiosity. All that you have done by removing the track listing, is effectually added a step to my process of getting the information that I want as I now have to go into the article archive to get the information rather than it being (portrayed in the manner that I prefer to digest it) in the body of the article. Wikipedia's community has a nack for presenting information exactly how I like to see it. I don't see why I should bother to go look elsewhere for it. So, don't take this personally, as it is meant merely as a manifestation of the way things are in reality, but: Thank you for wasting my time (by making me go through extra steps.) -a wikipedia consumer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircraftcarryur (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Which probably means they'll delete the revisions before too long to keep them from surfacing again. Original research is against Wikipedia policy, regardless of how helpful it might be. You're not going to win this. Spoom^Talk 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Revdel is not used for that purpose. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• This whole debacle made me mad at first. Now it just makes me sad. I'm just saying. --Notatinklefan (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ultimately the removal of the sample list information makes this article less useful. I understand the importance of Verifiability and avoiding OR, but the samples are trivially verifiable from a source (the album) that is freely available. I - like many, many others - came here immediately after the album was released to see what others had figured out about the samples, and my enjoyment of the album has been greatly enriched by it. I think all sides are acting in good faith, but ultimately removing the information accomplishes nothing and makes Wikipedia worse. Hokiejp (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And allowing original research doesn't? Doesn't fly with me, sorry. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Why is this the battle you want to fight? Please, I just want to know what tracks went where. Fight this battle somewhere else; removing this useful information feels indistinguishable from vandalism to me and to others who just came here looking for information. And if you still insist, I just need to know, why is THIS, of all places, the place where the guideline needs to be enforced so strictly? 72.179.137.103 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Found it at last. If anyone's come to the talk page looking for the listing, I was able to find it here. Someone really should mirror this somewhere. 72.179.137.103 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of it's "trivial", but much of it isn't. See the discussion elsewhere on this page about a particular drum roll that only shows up for a second.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Original Research

The Wikipedia pages of the albums made by the artist Girl Talk have been lauded as an example of the power of crowd-sourcing as users have together determined (and posted) the names and track times of the samples he has used for his albums. However, this violates the original research tenet of wikipedia, as the "sample lists" created by users are research based on the album.However, it is fair to say that the artist has shown no signs of posting the sample list himself. As such, this content is not available to be cited. This information does not appear to be available otherwise.Given this, does WP:IGNORE apply, as taking down this information renders it not available for the public at all? Walker9010 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a confusing issue because as noted elsewhere on this talk page, various media outlets announced that the album's tracklist was on Wikipedia and that Wikipedia was a place where people could organize to do original research. Wikipedia is not, in fact, a place where people can publish original research. Let me reply to some of your points -

• "As such, this content is not available to be cited." - There is nothing to cite. Wikipedia is not and has never been a source intended or reasonably usable for factual citation. Wikipedia is a place where people come to read summaries and therein find sources to cite. I do not think anyone in the community disputes this.
• "This information does not appear to be available otherwise." - Again, this means that there is nothing anyone can cite for Wikipedia, and without a source to cite information cannot appear on Wikipedia.
• "taking down this information renders it not available for the public at all?" - wikis are excellent media for organizing this sort of original research, but the wiki called Wikipedia explicitly excludes hosting this kind of research
• "it is fair to say that the artist has shown no signs of posting the sample list himself" - Gillis stated on his Twitter that he was interested in doing this someday, but that is irrelevant. The artist does not have to publish his list to get it on here - any reliable source can publish a track list and have it considered for inclusion in this article. What this means is that a professional or known entity in the field publishes the track list. This is a very low standard of inclusion into Wikipedia, and if this low standard is not met for proposed content, then that content does not belong.

If you feel strongly about contributing to the state of music research in the world, write to and collaborate with a known music professional who has established skills in this sort of musicology, and have them meticulously review the tracks and publish a corrected version of the tracklist. If a reputable person or organization would put their credibility on the line by publishing their research, then that meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirement. Doing uncited research within an article page does not. Blue Rasberry 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good summation from BlueRasberry. It would be nice to have such information on the page, but crowd sourcing is not verifiable. It's probably correct but Wikipedia does not (and should not) accept "probably correct". There are numerous other places that the information can appear with less difficulty, indeed we point to mashupbreakdown in the external links, which shows it very well. Worm 09:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, IAR is not about grandly ignoring rules. It is one of the most misunderstood WP policies. IAR is about cutting through beurocratic creep when working on the wiki, not about ignoring key foundations of the wiki when it suits you. Wikipedia cannot accept OR contributions, period, because it utterly undermines any sense of authority the Wiki might have. Even then, there is the problem that it doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic to record that long stream of information. There are other sites out there much better suited for the sort of collaboration you enjoy, please use them. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies if you disagree with my stating of the issue. In accordance with usage of RFC, my intent was to state both sides as clearly as possible while opening the formal comment window in order to allow everyone a chance to comment. Walker9010 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There was already a reasonably extensive RFC about this, which resulted in a negative. That included a long discussion on IAR and how it is not applicable. As was pointed out at the time; the issue of OR is key, and if you want a specific exception to it article level consensus is insufficient - you will need community level discussion, for example at WT:OR --Errant ^(chat!) 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that closed RFC is barely a month old. I move to close this new RFC as nothing has changed in that month and obviously we can't possibly keep having RFCs on the subject until the pro-inclusion view gets its way. As was pointed out earlier, take it to WT:OR. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Move to close as premature

I move that this RFC be closed as premature as the last RFC closed barely a month ago and no new information has come out nor has community consensus shifted drastically in that time to warrant a new RFC on inclusion of the disputed content. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Salvaging the tracklists

Being a firm believer in fixing things rather than waiting for others to fix them — and acting with the understanding that even deleted contributions are covered under CC-BY-SA — I decided to set up a quick PmWiki at illegal-tracklist.net with the most recent versions of each of the tracklists from the five albums' edit histories; I hope someone finds this useful.

I ran some regexes to convert from MediaWiki to PmWiki format, and to make sure the song/artist links point properly back to Wikipedia. But if anyone sees anything I screwed up, y'know, it's a wiki. There's an edit button.

All Day Feed the Animals Night Ripper Unstoppable Secret Diary

Joeycastillo (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You rock!

I propose that we include these links in the external link section for each article. Removing these track lists it the worst kind of game, imho. --Travis Thurston+ 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Be aware of what you're linking to. We do not allow WP:OR and that is that, it's not gaming the system to remove it but it is gaming the system to try to find ways of re-including the OR as you appear to want to. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no issue with keeping a link to OR on the talk page. OR is on article space. Worm 14:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in shoehorning this information back into the article. My only point is that this information, while incompatible with Wikipedia policy on OR, represents the contributions of hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedians over a period of years, and is valuable. My primary interest is in seeing that it is not destroyed. A secondary interest is in seeing that people who are seeking the information can find it; but that much is above my pay grade. I've noted other articles that link to fan wikis in their "External Links" section, but I'm not going within 1000 feet of articlespace on this one. Joeycastillo (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is NOTHING wrong with an EL having OR. The whole POINT of ELs is that they contain useful info that can't be fit into the article. This qualifies under that criteria about as well as anything can. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree that the wikipedia policy on OR excludes those listings from the article, I realise some folk disagree. Unfortunately we've now bypassed the question of verifiability or accuracy and - if I'm reading this correctly - there's now an argument that we can't link to external sources which contain an element of OR even from a talkpage. Does somebody actually believe that? Such a stance would preclude millions of sources used by wikipedia articles; that's what we use external sources for. bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, an external link isn't the same as a source. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Far be it for me to point out what external links should not be, but number 2 says "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.", which is a reasonable argument against. Also goes against 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" - Anyway, I'd be much happier with an EL to say, mashupbreakdown.com, which not only allows you to listen to the music, but also visualize the the track list. Worm 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

AUGH, but mashupbreakdown.com uses the expurgated Wikipedia article as its source. :-P Notatinklefan (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we upload the whole album?

I'm no copyright expert, but this album is licensed using this license, which should give us permission to actually upload at least part of the album as a media file. I could be wrong, though. G man yo (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright law and Wikipedia policy allow uploads of parts of any song no matter what the copyright is. See the policy here. If you or anyone else wanted to edit and upload a clip up to 30 seconds long, then that is an option.

The page already links to the official download site in the links, where anyone can get the full song. However, I believe that one could upload the entire album to Wikipedia Commons by the policy here. Can someone else comment on this? Blue Rasberry 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on that... I know we could if it was under CC-BY-SA, but because it's CC-BY-NC I don't think it's allowed on commons. Not my strongest area of expertise, but it appears to be too restrictive a license. Worm 09:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also the issue that the song is originally clips used under fair use, so that becomes a wider problem - given that we use more restrictive fair use rules than the actual law. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So can we do it or not? Could we do a request for comment? Should we just try it and see what happens? G man yo (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Best to ask an admin specialising in copyright before doing so. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can't take media files that are licensed for non-commercial use only. :/ Per copyright policy, we can only import content that is compatible with CC-By-SA; CC-By-NC is not. Our copyright FAQ includes a table showing some compatible licenses here. As commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses explain, they can't take content that isn't licensed for commercial reuse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I had not even read the details on the album, but having done so I have to say that Errant has raised a good point. If this album is mashes of other songs, then it could be a derivative work, in which case we would need consent of the copyright holders of the original anyway. I'm not familiar with the music at all, though, so I don't know if any of the clips they sample are "substantial." Sometimes it takes a judge to determine that. :) Either way, we can still use clips under WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's substantial alright. If we can't use derivative works that pretty much eliminates uploading the whole album as an option; it's made entirely out of other material. G man yo (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)