Wikipedia

Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 6

< Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Archive of discussion from Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album), dated January 14–February 7, 2005:

Keep discussion on the talk page, please

This is what recent edits to the article look like:

  1. (cur) (last) 11:36, 14 Jan 2005 Worldtraveller (The 'info' is mere description of tv show and album cover minutiae - not of interest to general reader. Also, 'Schur' is not mentioned previously in article.)
  2. (cur) (last) 11:19, 14 Jan 2005 Everyking (→The making of the album and the reality show - ok, well this info here isn't anywhere else)
  3. (cur) (last) 10:57, 14 Jan 2005 Worldtraveller (Info doesn't need to be in two articles at the same time)
  4. (cur) (last) 10:51, 14 Jan 2005 Everyking (→Sales and chart success - restore some sales info)

In the same period, there have been no comments on the talk page.

Could I ask editors to please put discussion on this talk page, not in the edit summaries. If an edit needs an justification, put it here. Preferably put it here before you perform the edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for that. Let's stop with the massive rewrites and do some discussion and hard thinking about how we can reach a mutually acceptable compromise. We could establish a temporary compromise that gives each side about half of what it wants, and in the meantime we could all work on a /temp version of the article to hammer out something better. Everyking 18:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why half? That would make sense if each side were equal in size. A better system weights each side by how many adherents it has. dbenbenn | talk 19:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And why do we adhere to different views? I suppose you know why I adhere to mine—if you don't, ask me and I'll explain—but I don't know why you adhere to yours. Could you explain your opinion, and then maybe we can understand each other better? Everyking 19:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's reams and reams and reams of discussion about why people want this article to look differently to how you want it to look, Everyking. If you don't understand other people's opinions on this, it's not for a lack of trying on our part. It seems to me that in all likelihood, there is no 'mutually acceptable' compromise - you have, after all, continually reverted each and every change you didn't like. Would you be happy if no-one else touched this article ever again, and it was only edited by you? That seems to be what you want. Worldtraveller 20:42, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, certainly other people should edit the article. I haven't reverted each and every change I didn't like. Most of them, yes, I have reverted at some point or another if I thought they were harmful. But we should have a spirit of compromise here. I'm content to see some things removed; I can live with that. Why don't you do what I asked Dbenbenn to do above, and explain your stance? It would be helpful to talk not just about what is bad, but also about what is good, and what could be added. Everyking 21:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You thought edits were harmful - no-one else did. You ignored the consensus, treated the article as your own, and reverted repeatedly and without any spirit of compromise. I asked above what you think the consensus is regarding this article, but you haven't answered. I have described my opinion at more than sufficient length already, as have others - please read and fully consider the talk page, the failed nomination for featured status, the votes for deletion on sub-articles, the talk pages for the sub-articles, and the RfC against you.Worldtraveller 22:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm floored. I thought some people wanted to remove maybe 25% of the content or something like that. But it turns out you want to remove 80-90%? Forgive me for saying so, but that is simply insane. Everyking 19:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is it insane? Half of the information on these pages is redundant -- I removed identical accounts of the SNL incident from three pages (leaving it on Ashlee Simpson, where I thought it belonged). The promotion/publicity stuff that used to be here was identical to the material in the sub-article -- it makes no sense to spin off a sub-article if you're still going to have a huge section on the main page.
Everyking, you asked me whether it was everyone else or just you. I wish you'd listened to my answer, because I honestly do sympathize with your position, but please -- you're reminding me, at this point, of the juryman who never met eleven such obstinate fellows in his life.
Under the edit boxes, it says If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I think this is something you're going to have to keep in mind -- I know it must be frustrating, but at this point the consensus is against you and you're really going to have to roll with it. Madame Sosostris 19:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See, this is exactly what I was talking about. What on earth is the point of having three long articles on the singles if you're just going to dump the same information on the main page? That's what the sub-articles are for. At this point, you're making things unnecessarily complex and redundant. Madame Sosostris 19:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus? There's a consensus to delete all the info on the "other songs"? A consensus to delete nearly all of the review info? A consensus to remove most of the about the album and making of the album info? No, I don't think there is. I think there is a broad consensus that the article should be trimmed somewhat. That does not mean there is consensus to reduce it to stub length. Everyking 20:04, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Everyking. It appears to me that a great many people believe the shorter version of the article to be perfectly adequate; you seem to be the only one who truly supports the inclusion of all this information (including the redundant material).
I also don't think it's necessary to exaggerate the situation. Nobody is reducing the article "to stub length." A stub is a few sentences long. The short version of this article is still larger than some articles on notable political figures, and we have more material on this one mid-range pop starlet than we do on people who have started wars and founded countries. She's notable, but she's not this notable. Just because the information exists does not mean it needs to exist on Wikipedia. Madame Sosostris 20:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think people just want the article to be a sensible size and not contain trivia of interest only to devoted fans. Trouble is, Everyking, you've obstructed so many well-intended edits and shown so little willingness to compromise that people get frustrated, and probably go too far in the other direction because it gets so tiresome watching sensible editing get vandalised again and again and again by someone who thinks the article is theirs only to protect and cherish. Still, if the two extremes of opinion are your version of the article and the most trimmed version, then a compromise might approximate to how it looked after my re-write. How does that sound? I still thought my version could be tightened up a lot more, people did more work on it but it only lasted a few hours before you reverted mine and all subsequent changes, once again completely flying in the face of consensus. Worldtraveller 21:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The information on the individual tracks must be the article. The fact that it's gone makes me feel like I could have a heart attack. Propose a concession I can make that will enable that to be restored. Everyking 21:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One sentence per track sounds good, with links to the articles on the singles. I tried doing that earlier, but since I'm not a fan of Ashlee, I only had your version to work from, and you didn't include descriptive sentences for some of the tracks. --Carnildo 06:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent versions

I'm seeing much higher quality edits in recent versions. The article is beginning to look more like something that could be featured. Thanks. I'll step in here and revert an attempt to restore the old, longwinded stuff. Take this as a vote in favor. Keep up the good work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank God you're only doing this to an article about an Ashlee Simpson album and not to something that has serious importance. Everyking 21:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has taken you long enough to concede that this article is a bit of fan fluff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a cultural topic of niche significance. If edit warring here keeps you from edit warring over something more important, that's good. Ideally, though, you wouldn't edit war anywhere and would just respect the value of information. Everyking 22:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You cannot accuse me of edit warring because I never, ever edit war, and I certainly have not come close to edit warring on this article. I could get rather angry about this, actually, but I won't make an issue out of it unless you repeat your false accusation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Normally you're fairly moderate about it, although today it seems you've become more aggressive. Everyking 22:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Before you continue along this line of argument, let me just point out that I have made precisely three edits to the article in the past week, whereas you have made six edits today alone. I demand that you cease your disgraceful and false accusations of edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I quote: I'll step in here and revert an attempt to restore the old, longwinded stuff. But OK, if you promise to never revert again, then I in turn will drop my accusation of edit warring. Everyking 23:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you promise to never revert again and meet the text as shown on every edit page, and as already pointed out to you: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I don't know how the rest of us can make you understand this—this is not your article to unilaterally own. —Neuropedia 23:42, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Again with the false accusations and unreasonable demands. Just stop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit summary spotted on User talk:Everyking:

  • RickK (Talk) (You've reverted Pieces of Me 3 times in 24 hours. Please don't do it again or I'll have to block you.)

Everyking is the edit warrior here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander ... —Neuropedia 23:43, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Here's an idea

Not sure where else to put this. Would it be possible to merge/condense the articles for Shadow (song), La La (song), and Pieces of Me into one article -- say, Autobiography singles? That strikes me as a decent sort of compromise -- obviously those articles aren't going to go away, but having one page would make things a bit less unwieldy here in the Ashlee Simpson Universe.

Sure its possible, but I don't see the reason for it. Those articles are fine as they are. No need to over-condense. Also, they are better as they are for search reasons. The Steve 22:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with those articles existing. Songs do deserve their own articles, they just need to be readable. Rhobite 22:06, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think it would be a good idea to merge the song articles, now that each has been given separate publication. iMeowbot~Mw 22:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I object so strongly to what is being done to this and related articles that it hurts my soul just to look at them now. Therefore I am removing this article from my watchlist. I hope that someone else will take up the task of trying to restore the article to some level of quality. I may resume editing it in the future, once emotions have settled. Everyking 05:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, The Holocaust hurts my soul. Thinking of my grandfather's last days in the hospice as he lied in a coma hurts my soul. The massive disparity inherent in modern capitalist societies hurts my soul. At the moment, my soul is completely ambivalent when I read Ashlee Simpson related articles. ElBenevolente 07:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then you can't possibly have the right sort of soul to appreciate the goddess that is Ashlee and you should cease editing articles related to her. Personally, my soul is totally unmoved by The Holocaust. I mean, that happened so long before my birth that most of the people affected would be dead by now even if they hadn't been killed.   The Steve  08:19, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'd tread very lightly when employing irony while talking about the Holocaust. --Calton 08:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hope that someone else will take up the task of trying to restore the article to some level of quality. See, you have it precisely backwards: the problem was any outside attempts to bring it to some level of quality was unilaterally rebuffed by you in favor of a bloated POV shrine to Ashlee. There never really was "some level of quality" to be restored to.
I may resume editing it in the future, once emotions have settled. Sound advice, but I suspect you haven't figured out whose emotions need settling.
--Calton 08:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe that was a little over the top, but there's really no need to rub it in. If he keeps his word and doesn't fill up the articles with fluff again, there's no reason for anyone to continue with the barbs. iMeowbot~Mw 09:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is it with you? Don't continue the barbs...as long as he doesn't fill up the articles with fluff again? Did you just miss that completely, or what? Everyking 11:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nothing was missed. Your editing of the Ashlee Simpson articles has been atrocious, but that doesn't mean you are a bad person. iMeowbot~Mw 11:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to goad me into another fight? I'm not going to revert again; I'm done with it. My editing has consisted of adding content. Your editing has consisted of deleting content. Your editing has not only been atrocious, it has been characterized by persistent bullying and harassment designed to force me away from the subject, which has now been successful. Everyking 12:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Also, refer to a comment of Dr Zen's regarding what is editing; editing is not merely the addition or deletion of content, but the shaping of it. That's why it's called editing. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the article on the album is trimmed to a reasonable length I see no reason why we should not merge and redirect the singles. People wanting to know about Pieces of Me, for instance, would benefit somewhat from the added context of reading about it in the context of the album, and people wanting to know about the album's most notable tracks would not have to go off to look at the articles for the individual singles. Unless singles stand out so strongly that they probably deserve an article of their own (Good Vibrations, Purple Haze, Smells Like Teenage Spirit, etc) I favor covering them under the album--this applies especially to recent singles, in view of the decline of the single. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The album is what sold well in the US, but the singles (which in this case are more like EPs, but the labels are marketing them as singles) are what have sold well in other markets. These articles all still need much better organization (and a little less random revenge chopping), but I think if the releases are covered correctly they won't be a problem. iMeowbot~Mw 11:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which other markets? Canada, UK? Album sales in those countries are also buoyant while singles sales are at an all time low. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wanted: Summaries

The article needs single-line descriptions of the tracks "Love makes the world go round", "Better off", "Unreachable", "Giving it all away" to go with the existing ones. --Carnildo 07:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It used to have a bit of info on each track. Go through the history. Everyking 07:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Those were the ones that just had quotes describing the type of music, rather than descriptions of the content of the songs. --Carnildo 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's much difference there. Also, describing music tends to be a rather difficult and subjective thing to do; that's why I leaned heavily on critical quotes when I originally wrote all that, because that's NPOV and verifiable. Everyking 08:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To fill in the blanks:
Autobiography opens the album with retro instrumentation and dark chords, the lyrics evoking difficult times ("Got bruises on my heart") moderated with optimism ("Right now I'm solo, but that will be changing eventually"). "Pieces of Me" follows with a simple acoustic guitar accompaniment to a tale of happiness with an understanding lover, while gradually building into full pop instrumentation.
"Shadow" is a slower, soul-tinged tune in which Simpson recounts playing a lesser role to her sister as a child, becoming free to pursue her own dreams as she grew older. A driving beat and bright guitar licks back "La La", a playful song filled with innuendo. The softer "Love Makes the World Go Around" describes the disappointment of an ending relationship, with "I guess promises are better left unsaid."
"Better Off" is a song of ambivalence about a relationship. She describes insecurity ("don't want to lose what I've found"), but on balance she is "better off in every way". The slow rocker "Love Me for Me" is filled with contradictory feelings in a new relationship: "Stay here, get out." The synth-driven "Surrender" follows with Simpson consenting to a breakup. "Don't you know you're only wasting time", she sings; by stalling "you make your misery my company."
"Unreachable" layers a plodding piano line and vintage Chamberlin sounds over regrets in rushing into a relationship. "Nothing New" conveys impatience with stagnation atop a steady beat and effect-layered guitars. The jangling "Give it all Away" is an encouragement to stand on one's own feet: "open your eyes and find yourself", Simpson urges. The album winds down with "Undiscovered", pondering what might have been in a lost pairing.
iMeowbot~Mw 12:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

making the album

The three sentences now under "promotion and publicity" have little to do with promotion and publicity. They used to be part of the "making of the album" section, where they were appropriate. Also, some of the real promotion/publicity content will probably have to be merged back soon, for a reason that I presume is obvious. Can we please restore that section, along with some of the information it formerly contained? The making of any notable album is worth a summary. If acceptable, we can discuss what to restore here first if anyone disagrees with restoring the full old version of the section. Everyking 10:23, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if nobody replies to me, I guess I'll assume there's no objections. I'll give it a while longer to make sure no one has any, though. Everyking 02:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most of the "making the album" section covered her making the album on her television show, which means it is in fact very strongly related to promotion and publicity. The making of her album should be discussed on the article for the television show...It probably doesn't belong here. →Reene✉ 05:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, some of it did, but the most important parts didn't. What do you say we restore just the parts that don't mention the TV show? It wouldn't make much sense to talk about the making the album in the article about the TV show, except for those aspects that were actually seen on the show. There's a lot more we can say that we can derive from interviews and such, unrelated to the reality show. I think that's perfectly good information, but I don't mind trimming or reworking it. Everyking 05:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As iMeowbot has pointed out, orchestrated responses to questions about her music aren't really adding anything aside from insight into her publicists' head. Is there anything that is actually unusual or strange or notable about the making of the album? The only thing I can think of is mentioning that its progress was shown on her television program. That sort of fits right into the publicity section nicely as it is. Mind pasting what you had in mind here so it can be looked at and possibly written into something that flows nicely before it is inserted into the article? →Reene✉ 06:07, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
The "unusual" parts aren't unique to this album. They are part of the John Shanks formula, and apply equally, for example, to similar Duff, Clarkson, Anastacia etc. tracks. The results can be impressive, but they should be discussed in the Shanks article, not so much here. iMeowbot~Mw

This is what was written before, with the image omitted:

In a television interview on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn in November 2003, Simpson said that she had been working on her album for about a year before that point, and that the process had been getting more serious for about three months. [1] Later, in a 2004 interview, Simpson said that at first record labels would not meet with her. As she described it, "people would be like, 'Oh, she just wants to be like her sister'." For her part, Simpson said that she did not want to meet with Jessica's record label (Columbia): "I wanted to be signed because of my music". She eventually signed with Geffen instead: "You find the people who believe in you—and it works."6 At the beginning of The Ashlee Simpson Show, Simpson is shown signing the record deal (which also occurred about three months before November 2003, according to the Late Late Show interview).
Simpson initially did not want to do the reality show, she has said, but was persuaded by her father and manager, Joe Simpson, when he said that they would make it about her album and the music: "...I thought that was kind of cool. You're actually seeing a deeper look into how this album got made."6 She also wanted to distinguish herself from her sister by showing their differences, including their different musical styles and tastes. In episode one of the show, some of the early stages of songwriting are seen, and in episode two, Simpson records some early demos of songs; she is seen having trouble singing one song, "Fly Away", which did not make it onto the album. (Other early songs that failed to make it onto the album, at least under the known titles, were mentioned in the November 2003 Late Late Show interview: "Sold Me Out" and "Hurt for You".) But Schur "wasn't feeling the demos", as she says, and he wanted her to work with other people; in episode three she meets with several of them: John Feldmann, Guy Chambers, and the producing team The Matrix. Later in the same episode, she begins to work with John Shanks, who became the producer of her album.
The recording of the song "Surrender" features in this episode, as she works with Shanks; she says that it was written in only about two hours. Later, Simpson becomes upset when she thinks Schur wants the song to be more pop-sounding—she is told that Schur thinks she should sound "prettier", although at the same time she is told that it is "probably good" that Schur compared the song to the music of the band Garbage. After she and her father discuss it with Schur, things are worked out; Schur also says that the song reminds him of the band Hole, another rock band with a female vocalist—"it reminds me of Courtney Love on Celebrity Skin", he elaborates.
The recording of "Pieces of Me" is included in episode four of The Ashlee Simpson Show; because this episode focuses on Simpson's relationship with Cabrera, the recording of the song ties in to her personal life. "Shadow" is introduced at the beginning of episode five, when she talks with John Shanks about the song and then begins singing it while Shanks plays guitar; this is followed by a montage of video clips from Simpson's childhood.
Simpson has said of making the album: "It's a lot of work. From finding the right label to the actual recording, it took about nine months, then it was followed by the publicity work."2 In an extensive list of thank-yous in the album's liner notes, Simpson includes Benji and Joel Madden of the band Good Charlotte; she worked with them on a song that did not make it onto the album. [2]
Simpson's photoshoot for the album's cover and liner notes booklet features at the beginning of episode seven of the show. Many of the pictures, such as the one used for the front cover of the album, show Simpson in a dark setting, with graffiti-style writing scrawled on the wall behind her. In other pictures from this photoshoot, found inside the CD booklet, Simpson poses standing with a microphone in front of a white background. The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co.

Feel free to rewrite that here (or in the article) and see if you can come up with something you like more. Keep in mind that when you're writing an encyclopedia article, the goal is to inform; it's irrelevant whether you might find the information boring. If it's relevant to the subject and tells us something useful about it, then we should have it. Everyking 06:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, what do you say we go about it piece by piece? Are there any objections to restoring just the first paragraph of the section? Everyking 09:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the section needs re-writing and condensing, not simple restoration of text that's been removed. Worldtraveller 09:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shall I attempt to rewrite it, then, or would you like to try? Everyking 09:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much of that belongs in the article about the show, as I said before. Information about talk show appearances can be summarized if you insist on their inclusion, perhaps with one or two vital quotes included. I also don't think the photoshoot information is that vital to the article, particularly in concerns to this section. →Reene✉ 10:00, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, I think it is, but I'll concede the point, at least for now. What if I could cut this section down to maybe 60% of the size it had been in the old version? Do you think that'd be enough? I don't really feel like trying to rewrite it now—it's extremely difficult for me to do rewrites when I believe all or nearly all of the information is good, because, I mean, how can I bear to cut any of it?—but I will try my hand at it at some point soon, if you'll at least give it consideration. Everyking 10:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten section

Simpson signed with Geffen Records in 2003. In a 2004 interview, she said that at first, when she was seeking a recording contract, record labels would not meet with her. As she described it, "people would be like, 'Oh, she just wants to be like her sister'." For her part, Simpson said that she did not want to meet with Jessica's record label (Columbia): "I wanted to be signed because of my music". She eventually signed with Geffen instead: "You find the people who believe in you—and it works."6

Simpson initially did not want to do the reality show, she has said, but was persuaded by her father and manager, Joe Simpson, when he said that they would make it about her album and the music: "...I thought that was kind of cool. You're actually seeing a deeper look into how this album got made."6 She also wanted to distinguish herself from her sister by showing their differences, including their different musical styles and tastes. In episode one of the show, some of the early stages of songwriting are seen, and she is seen working with Steve Fox and Stan Frazier. In episode two, she records some early demos of songs; she is seen having trouble singing one song, "Fly Away", which did not make it onto the album. But Schur did not like the demos and wanted her to work with other people; in episode three she meets with several of them: John Feldmann, Guy Chambers, and the producing team The Matrix. Later in the same episode, she begins to work with John Shanks, who became the producer of her album, and in episode four she is seen working with Kara DioGuardi as well, on "Pieces of Me".

Simpson has said of making the album: "It's a lot of work. From finding the right label to the actual recording, it took about nine months, then it was followed by the publicity work."2 In an extensive list of thank-yous in the album's liner notes, Simpson includes Benji and Joel Madden of the band Good Charlotte; she worked with them on a song that did not make it onto the album. [3]

Simpson's photoshoot for the album's cover and liner notes booklet features at the beginning of episode seven of the reality show. Many of the pictures, such as the one used for the front cover of the album, show Simpson in a dark setting, with graffiti-style writing scrawled on the wall behind her. In other pictures from this photoshoot, found inside the CD booklet, Simpson poses standing with a microphone in front of a white background. The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co.

Is this acceptable for the section? It could probably use some tweaks, but is it more or less OK? Everyking 07:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any thoughts, comments? I'll give it a while longer and then add the rewrite if it doesn't get any objections. Everyking 16:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would remove this section entirely: Many of the pictures, such as the one used for the front cover of the album, show Simpson in a dark setting, with graffiti-style writing scrawled on the wall behind her. In other pictures from this photoshoot, found inside the CD booklet, Simpson poses standing with a microphone in front of a white background. It is identical to a similar section in The Ashley Simpson Show. The single sentence synopses of each episode are fine by me, although I would put them all together. There are also 5 quotes by Simpson in this section. Consider removing one.  The Steve  19:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the pictures pertain directly to the album in an important way. So I'd really like to include that. Everyking 23:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Certainly. This is what you leave in: Simpson's photoshoot for the album's cover and liner notes booklet features at the beginning of episode seven of the reality show. The album's photography is credited to Mark Liddell, and its design is credited to Soap Design Co. If someone wants more detail on episode 7 of The Ashlee Simpson Show, they can look there.
What's really important is describing the photographs so the reader can get a feel for the style of the album. The reality show stuff is secondary and can be removed if necessary. Everyking 04:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meowbot, the Shadow video didn't premiere on Sept. 20; it premiered about a week earlier, but the table makes it seem like she was there for the premiere. Also, I'd like notes added in the cases where we know the program wasn't live and the air date is different from the taping date. Everyking 04:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The table is labeled "Television appearances" and not "premieres", so that's not misinforming. How about http://absolutetrl.net to the external links so people who want all the gory TRL details know where to find them? If we start getting into TRL minutiae here, you know what the reaction's going to be like :/
On the live/taped stuff, sure, but tomorrow. iMeowbot~Mw 06:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant it says "Shadow (video)" to the side, which to me implies a premiere. And is my Making of the album info all right with you? Everyking 06:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, when I next get a chance I'll add in the rewritten making of the album section, presuming nobody objects before then. I also need to correct the error that attributes the press release quote to Joe and not to Ashlee (that's a hint—feel free to beat me to it). Everyking 13:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Autobiography promotion and publicity

Per the VfD on Autobiography promotion and publicity, I merged that page here [4]. Anyone with more stamina than I is invited to rework or trim that section to fit into the article better. dbenbenn | talk 02:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, much as I hate it, that was the vote. Apparently we can have articles on every Pokemon character but not an article on promotion for a multi-platinum album. Go figure. Well, I've made some revisions, hopefully they aren't controversial. I didn't get any objections to the "making" section, so I added that, and I made a few other changes which probably won't be a big deal. I didn't think we needed the Metacritic review, for example. I fixed the quote incorrectly attributed to Joe. I removed "Shadow (video)" from the promotion table, since she wasn't there to introduce it. Removed the second table from the sales section; that would probably be the most bold of the changes, but since we had a subarticle on sales which survived VfD, I believe the table should be there and the sales section here should be as succinct as possible. Fixed "Give it all away" --> "Giving It All Away".
Anyway, I'd like us to consider adding back some of the critical assessments of the individual tracks. Meowbot's summaries are bold, and actually quite well-written, but I feel they should be supplemented with critical descriptions. Everyking 05:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could I ask Blankfaze to explain his removals? Since we no longer have a promotion subarticle, we should be careful about trimming the content in that section. I would also like to see one of the two sales charts included here, although I can live without it. Everyking 22:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tables

Why is there both a table of peak chart positions and a list of them in the text? Do we need a week by week table of US and Canada chart positions? And do we really need a list of all her TV appearances? I think these tables should all be removed - anyone agree or disagree? They really harm the visual appearance of the article apart from anything else. Worldtraveller 16:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The remaining table gives an exhaustive week-by-week accounting of US and Canadian chart positions for no good reason, but at least it's small. The text deals with North American unit sales and chart positions in other countries, so it's not duplication. The week-by-week sales table should not be restored because it is misleading through omission. iMeowbot~Mw 16:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see that peak chart positions were still there. I've removed that table as entirely redundant with the text. iMeowbot~Mw 16:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need a list of TV appearances. That's too icky, in my opinion, and doesn't provide much return on investment of the space. Johnleemk | Talk 13:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not icky. Lots of return. Everyking 14:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes icky. No return. Worldtraveller 19:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually I'll try to make a more sophisticated argument :) A list of TV appearances is really only of interest to hard core fans, and thus should not be in an encyclopaedia. Any really notable TV appearances should be mentioned, but we really don't need to know every time she's appeared on TV. The Who once packed a drum kit so full of explosives for a dramatic finale that it completely blew itself up, to the horror of the band. That made a very notable TV appearance. They appeared probably hundreds of other times, but it would not be encyclopaedic to have a list of them all because the vast majority were routine, non-notable TV appearances. I have appeared several times on a very notable UK TV program, but if anyone were to make a wikipedia entry for me with a list of my appearances, I'd be the first to VfD it :) TV appearance does not equal notable, and I think the table should be removed. Worldtraveller 19:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. Why were you on TV? Ashlee Simpson was on TV because she's a famous celebrity and musical artist known to many millions of people and has sold millions of albums. Her appearances on TV are notable simply by virtue of the fact that so many people have seen them and so many people care about them. If you've even got 10% of her importance, not only should you have an article, but I feel a bit humbled to be talking to you. Everyking 19:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's all right - no need to kow tow, I'm very modest about it :) I am known to millions of people - I have been recognised in the street. I wouldn't recognise Ashlee Simpson in the street, so perhaps I'm even more 'important' than she is :) Point is, a list of anyone's TV appearances, no matter how famous they are, is not very interesting or encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 22:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Known to millions? You ought to have something better to do than this, then. I think the list is quite interesting and totally encyclopedic by Wikipedia's definition. Everyking 22:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the list should be cut down to just the most important appearances. --Carnildo 19:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we should leave in the table of album positions in various countries. We could cut it down to 25, 20, even 15 weeks if it seems like too much, but personally, I like it. While some of the information is covered in the text, this can be too much to wade through for people (such as myself) who are looking for a simple, quick summary, or even a quick comparison of sales. (for example imagine someone asking "How well was the album doing in its 4th week in Canada and the US?") [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 01:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking Update

  • 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 Everyking leaves a note on Talk:Autobiography sales and chart positions (which is, I note, a redirect page now), reading Per the VfD vote, I will restore the article soon unless there's an objection. He receives no response.
2.2) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.
Passed 5-1.
  • 18:36, 24 Jan 2005 Everyking reverts the redirect of Autobiography sales and chart positions, with the comment "restoring the article, since there were no objections on talk. also adding a bit of uk info"

Fourteen hours from decision to violation. That boy works fast. --Calton 16:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More antics:

Now I'm not saying that User:80.100.22.71 is Everyking -- it could be someone else stirring up trouble -- but it looks awfully suspicious. --Carnildo 18:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/202.162.57.82:
For both these anon proxies, these are the only edits they made. iMeowbot~Mw 18:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
80.100.22.71 resolves to an address in the Netherlands - looks like a random passerby just stirring things up. Worldtraveller 14:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Integrating old info

I'd like to integrate some of the old info on the individual songs—one sentence critical comments and Ashlee's own statements about them—together with Meowbot's personal descriptions of them. Are there any objections to doing this? Everyking 21:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Depends on how they're written as well as the NPOViness and value of the quotes. Most of them last time round were positive, so you'd either have to include a negative quote to balance things out, or not add them at all to avoid lengthening a still crufty (IMO) article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the quotes were simply descriptive, or Simpson taking about their meanings. Do you object to those? If I include a positive critical quote, then I will include a negative one to balance it. And vice versa. And I know you think information is cruft, John, you don't have to keep reiterating that. Everyking 11:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Unless they said it impeccably, I don't think the quotes (at least in full sentences) should be included. Instead you can summarise them, i.e. "Describing 'Unreachable', Simpson called it..." or "Rolling Stone described "La La" as..." And there's a difference between information and cruft. Information informs and enhances one's understanding. Data with no meaning attached or artificially extrapolated data is cruft (for example, there is no point in saying, i.e. "As a music album, all the songs on Autobiography contained chords" (not that that sort of blatant cruft is in the article). Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've never tried to add anything that didn't enhance one's understanding. Everyking 12:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But you have to agree that most people disagree with you on what enhances the reader's understanding and what's only of interest to hardcore fans. Why do you want to re-add information that's been taken out? It's been removed as part of the normal editing process, has it not? It sounds to me like you're trying to get everyone to endorse what is effectively a revert to your preferred version. Worldtraveller 14:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Most people don't disagree with me on that. It's just that I'm in the unfortunate position of having to defend the standard view of Wikipedia on a topic that apparently is not a popular one among Wikipedians. On more popular topics, deletionism like this would mean mass fury. Besides, even among deletionists here, there has not been any consensus on anything except that the old version of the article needed a bit of trimming. There was certainly no consensus to reduce it to stub length. That is why I'm going point-by-point, trying to see what people will agree to and what they will not. Everyking 16:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The point is, I think it should be very clear by now that the consensus was strongly against your preferred version of the article, as well as your endless reversions of attempts to change it. Now you seem to be trying to restore your version in little bits, assuming that people will agree to each successive little bit. Worldtraveller 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, the point is what I said above. Everyking 19:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please restore the table. There was no consensus to remove it. Everyking 21:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And another re-write for the pile

Just been through the article again, removing what I saw as POV review-like descriptions of some songs, a few unnecessary phrases that were either duplicating what was elsewhere or were not really informative, and the tables of chart positions and TV appearances. Chart positions are adequately described in the text. The consensus seems to be that notable TV appearances can be included in the text. A table seems like overkill to me, and detracts from the look of the article. Worldtraveller 21:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The consensus has been the opposite, that the info should be in tables and not in the text. I was criticized early on for writing it out in prose. Again, please restore what you removed. People come to Wikipedia to learn. Depriving them of information does not benefit them. Everyking 21:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For things like straight presentations of numbers or lists of appearances, tables are a more compact, easier-to-understand format than paragraphs of text. --Carnildo 23:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me really, but a list of _every_ performance and/or chart position, whether in table or prose, is a really bad idea. Johnleemk | Talk 07:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is part of the reason for putting these things in tables, it more clearly illustrates the excess. For perspective, recent articles about the Tonight Show note that 22,000 guests appeared while Carson was hosting. It's an everyday occurrence for bands to make these guest appearances, not remarkable in the least. Own show? Yes. Starring in a special? Yes. Normal talk show? No, unless it generates a lot of press other than the label's and stations' own releases. Listing the number of other appearances would certainly be reasonable.
With all those shows listed, the article is a bad parody of the Cheech & Chong "Sister Mary Elephant " sketch. "On the first day of my summer vacation, I woke up. Then I went downtown to look for a job. Then I hung out in front of the drug store. On the second day of my summer vacation, I woke up. Then I went downtown to look for a job. Then I hung out in front of the drug store. . . " iMeowbot~Mw 13:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to note that Carnildo restored the opening sentence of the 'about the album' section, which reads According to Simpson, the album is strongly autobiographical, with lyrics that were inspired by her feelings and experiences. I removed it because the first part seems obvious - is it necessary to mention that an album called autobiography is strongly autobiographical? - and the second part is duplicating what's said in the third sentence of the para. I'm in favour of removing the sentence again - anyone else have opinions? Worldtraveller 13:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that an album called "Autobiography" doesn't need an explanation that it is autobiographical. If the title was a deliberate misnomer and it actually isn't autobiographical... now that would require an explanation. I'm in favour of removing the sentence as well. Another possible (but unnecessarily wordy) rewrite would be According to Simpson, the album contains lyrics that were inspired by her feelings and experiences. However, I think the same could be said of a lot of self-written lyrics. --Deathphoenix 14:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In fact, the statement that the album is autobiographical is controversial. Quite telling is that the controlling rights to those compositions belong to Shanks and not Simpson. iMeowbot~Mw 14:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I restore the missing tables? Does anyone agree or disagree with this? Those tables contained a great deal of information and represented quite a bit of work. Everyking 18:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking another "Ashlee Simpson contributor" to restore the table. I'm not sure if administrators will interpret your actions as "reverting" (since the RfAr article says it's up the discretion of other admins to decide what constitutes "reverting"), and it might be a good idea not to go against it to support your case for a future parole application. --Deathphoenix 19:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. Why don't you do it, then? Everyking 19:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an "Ashlee Simpson contributor" in that I don't know the material and what would be appropriate for inclusion. Maybe some of the other folks can help by either restoring the table or providing information here about what's appropriate for inclusion. --Deathphoenix 20:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest asking Shard or Angel Tiger. Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Looks like he already added the table back. --Deathphoenix 06:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And it was inexplicably rolled back by RickK. Well, unless RickK wants to state an objection here on talk, it should be restored once again. Everyking 10:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there another way the data could be presented? The table on chart positions disrupts the flow of the article by its size, and as a solid block of text it would cause people's eyes to glaze over. The lengthly table/list of television appearances has a similar problem. --Carnildo 10:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I very strongly believe the table on chart positions should be included, although it should be converted to run vertically because it was starting to stretch out too long horizontally. The TV appearances, well, that can go in either prose or a table, I don't have a strong preference there. I'd be agreeable to converting it to prose and perhaps omitting a few of the less important appearances if most of the information was retained. Everyking 10:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why do we need a week by week listing of chart positions? This is of interest only to hard core fans. Even for bands I am a hardcore fan of, I don't think an encyclopaedia should include this stuff. A couple of notable TV appearances mentioned in the text should suffice to give the idea that she made TV appearances to promote the album. This is an encyclopaedia, not an almanac. Worldtraveller 12:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely. Whenever I borrow books from the municipal library on music, they never have more than the most major chart details (usually where and when it peaked, how long it stayed there, and how long the record stayed on the charts in general). We're a general enyclopedia. Data with no application or meaning to the article like this shouldn't be in it. You can't compare it to our mathematical or scientific articles, because the things there have application and meaning to the article, because they explain more. I don't understand at all how these data, whether in table or prose, have application or provide meaning to the article. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because it's relevant, notable information. We're not a "general encyclopedia". The significance is obvious to anyone who wants to see how the album did in sales, how its success varied over time. Everyking 15:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not. Such significance can be easily represented by where and when it peaked, how long it stayed there, and how long the record stayed on the charts in general, and a list of how many TV appearance Simpson made to promote the album, perhaps naming two or three of the most notable appearances. There is no need to list everyone of them. The point is lost in the mass of statistics. It is as Sherlock Holmes once said — a man writing a letter hides his meaning in a cloud of words, while a man writing a telegram has to make his meaning clear through brevity. The same applies here. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would be interested to see you try to push this logic on a topic where more than one person contributes. It almost seems as though you are using this article as a kind of test case. Everyking 15:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gladly. Just find me a similar crufty article with more than one author. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I take it back. The possibility that you might succeed is too disturbing. Everyking 15:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Look at it this way. Somebody might be interested in a record of how many times Napoleon Bonaparte consumed baguette. They might even want to know where and when he consumed it, and whether it was in the company of others or by himself. Does this mean we should have a section in the Napoleon Bonaparte chronicling his gastronomic adventures? It would be ridiculous enough if we were to provide an exact count or even approximation of how many times he ate baguette, but would you want a section or even article devoted to the exploits of Napoleon's stomach? Now substitute Simpson promotional appearances for the mention of how many times Napoleon ate baguette, and substitute Ashlee Simpson for Napoleon's name. Get the picture? If we want to show Napoleon's devotion to French bakery, we could easily provide an approximation of how many times he consumed baguette. Similarly, if we want to show the promotion devoted to this album, we could easily provide the number of promotional appearances made and a paragraph or two about the most notable ones. We don't need a list of them, whether in prose or tabular form. Johnleemk | Talk 04:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since he died of stomach cancer (supposedly), I think an article on his stomach would be cool. Probably not on his diet, though. But what if, instead of being a general, he was famous for going around to different towns and eating in front of large crowds? Then I think an article on his diet, insofar as it covered notable meals, would be good to have. Everyking 04:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

US-centric

The chart positions table is incredibly US-centric. I request that either a chart of the album's rankings for every country in the world be included, or the one for the US only be removed. RickK 21:44, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the album has primarily sold in the U.S. The only other country where it has had any comparable chart success is in Canada, and that's included in the table. If you want to add info on other countries week by week, be my guest (it ain't always easy to find), but that degree of detail would probably be better suited to the subarticle that has been inappropriately redirected.
Carnildo has removed the info I added on the NYT and Village Voice reviews. As these are highly notable sources, I feel strongly that we should include their opinions. May I reinstate them? Everyking 22:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But those reviews really don't tell us much beyond what the other reviews give us. A couple of sample quotes add a lot to an album article, but paragraphs and paragraphs of review quotes don't make for enjoyable reading. I think your 'reinstatements' of information (i.e. reverts) are not helpful. If an editor cuts too much from the article, someone will restore it, but we all know that your vision of what the article should contain is very different to the consensus, so your requests to be allowed to restore information are not likely to meet with community approval, and if normal editing proceeds, you're likely to be making an awful lot of requests for information to be restored. Worldtraveller 22:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My vision of the article does not differ from the consensus, it differs from your vision. What consensus is there to remove the table? The NYT info? The Village Voice info? Perhaps we should vote on each of these points. Everyking 22:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reading the extensive talk regarding this article leads me to believe that the consensus is that a table of chart posisions is not necessary, and that too many reviews is stifling. Happy to vote if you want to though. Worldtraveller 23:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As best I can recall, most people wanted a table. Tony Sidaway, in fact, helped to format the information. You're the first person I know of who has said we shouldn't have the table. Everyking 23:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the table is best left in or not. If something's in an article I'll edit it to look its best, but this doesn't mean I object to it being deleted at some point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since only one person doesn't want the table (apparently), I'll restore it in a while, barring any further objections. Everyking 18:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that only one person doesn't want the table? Has only one person deleted it? I don't think so. RickK 22:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so, correct me if I'm wrong, though. Everyking 22:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find that IMeowbot, Worldtraveller and I have all deleted that table at one time or another. RickK 05:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Meowbot only deleted it because we at that time still had the subarticle (correct me if I'm wrong), and you deleted it apparently because you thought every country in the world should have a similar chart, reasoning which frankly seems spurious to me. So that really seems to leave only one objection. Everyking 05:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This "US-centric" stuff is absolute hogwash. It's an American album for God's sake. This is the English Wikipedia, also; at MOST we should have tables for major English-speaking countries. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The information is US-centric because outside a few English-speaking countries -- Australia, Canada, the UK and US -- this stuff really hasn't sold very well. There are (or were) some mentions of, erm, Norway and Switzerland, I think. The charting was brief and not high. Even those numbers don't tell us very much, since they're rather small markets, and not providing a good picture of sales for the rest of the continent. I know that there are fans scattered elsewhere, but when interviewed every last one has the same story: found out about the album through a foreign friend or by chance on the Internet, and no one locally has heard of it. iMeowbot~Mw 06:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Interviewed? Everyking 06:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, somebody restore the table, please, so I don't have to take a 24 hour vacation. There's some folks watching my every move, just waiting for a good reason to throw down a block. And the damn things don't even expire on time like they're supposed to. Everyking 17:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocks expire right when they're supposed to, at least the manual sort. The problem is IP autoblocks: every time you click a redlink, the time gets reset, and apparently there's a bug that keeps them from expiring. --Carnildo 19:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, huh, I didn't know that. I keep figuring maybe somebody unblocked me, so I click to edit to see. I guess I shouldn't do that. Everyking 21:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I get blocked for a while, it's not the end of the world, but if someone's planning on reverting the addition, will they please say so, so I won't be doing it for nothing? Everyking 01:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you deliberately defy the Arbcom ruling in this way, I will go back to arbcom and ask them to ban you from editing any article on this subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You do what you want to, Tony. If I'm banned from this subject I won't be editing on any subjects. Everyking 01:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look, it seems that you have learned nothing from your encounter with ArbCom. If there is general agreement that the table belongs in the article, you have no need to add it to the article because someone else will. If there isn't general agreement and you still think it's okay to disobey whatever conditions ArbCom has placed on you provided you want something bad enough, then you don't respect ArbCom's decisions. That being the case, at the very least you should not be editing these particular articles, and arguably you are unfit to hold sysop powers (which are in the end backed by and subject to ArbCom's final word). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you have any idea what I think about the ArbCom or its decisions, Tony. Anyway, the penalty is there for a reason. I violate the prohibition, I get a 24-hour block. That's the deal. The deal is not that I violate the prohibition and then I get another ArbCom case and they ban me and desysop me. I can't believe they would even accept such a ridiculous, spiteful case. Everyking 07:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look. The table contains a great deal of info. It represents a great deal of work. It enormously enhances the article. Will someone please restore it? There were initially three tables. I'm only asking for one to be restored now, the US/Canada week-by-week. I don't seem to be encountering much opposition, yet I can't restore it because there are people waiting to attack me for the slightest perceived infraction, no matter how weak the argument. Here we have a situation that is pretty absurd. I'm perfectly willing to accept a 24 hour block to have the table back in the article, because I feel it is that important, but I want to be sure that nobody is going to come along and revert me after I'm blocked. That would make it a completely wasted effort. Everyking 03:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The table contains a great deal of info. Disputed.
It represents a great deal of work. Immaterial.
It enormously enhances the article. Assertion. Begs the questions.
...there are people waiting to attack me for the slightest perceived infraction, no matter how weak the argument. Self-serving assertion.

--Calton 03:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What are you saying? Do you mean you're not going to restore the table? Everyking 04:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, if you revert it, I will block you. RickK 05:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's so nice to know I have a friend like you to look out for me. Everyking 09:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll 1

It may be that the only way to get anything decided on this article is to hold votes on each individual point. My position is that the U.S./Canada chart, which gave week-by-week chart positions for the album from release in July until the present day, should be restored in its complete form. I figure there are basically two other opinions a person could hold on the matter.

Option 1: Fully restore

  1. Everyking 05:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 01:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Option 2: Keep removed entirely

  • Calton 06:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) See below.
  1. If you were not so intransigent, Everyking, a poll would not be necessary. You're simply obstructing normal editing by consensus. Worldtraveller 09:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Totally agree with Worldtraveller. RickK 22:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. 6 paragraphs for sales and chart performance is more than enough. ElBenevolente 02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Not encyclopedic -- TMI. There's a difference between feeling we should have an article on George Bush and a list of everything he's eaten for breakfast for the last six months. --Improv 21:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Like Improv said. foobaz·✐ 06:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Option 3: Restore in some truncated or revised form

  1. Carnildo 05:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Possibly as a small graph in the "Sales and chart performance" section.
  2. Johnleemk | Talk 09:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) We don't need this; I figure the peaks, how long the album stayed there, and its chart run's length in general should be enough. I deplore polls, though.
  3. Calton 09:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC). Change of vote. What Johnleemk said.
  4. Very truncated. Ambi 11:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. What Johnleemk said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vague | Rant 09:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) What JLM said.
  7. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 10:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) as the chart below
  8. Reasonable to include a summary, as suggested by Johnleemk. --Michael Snow 17:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. I like the idea of having a chart, as a matter of simplicity and convenience. If I want to see how the album did in its 10th week in Canada, I don't want to wade through six paragraphs to get to it. Conversely, I don't think we need text for data that's so much simpler in table form. Therefore, having a table is just common sense. However, the current table forces users to sidescroll, and sidescroll as we all know, is evil. So: we clip the table to 15 weeks so as to stop the sidescrolling, or else turn it vertical, and keep it. Possibly, we move it to someplace else in the article. Possibly, we add chart data for other countries. (They do exist!) [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  10. ADH (t&m) 08:05, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Summarize, briefly. I've explained elsewhere why doing otherwise is a crock. iMeowbot~Mw 09:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Snowspinner 22:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. A reasonable compromise. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 04:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Poll 2

Should the fact that Simpson says the songs are autobiographical be mentioned in the article?

Yes

  1. Everyking 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carnildo 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) As an outside observer who sees the whole "popular music" scene mainly as a source of amusement, I find that in general, album titles, band names, and performer names are simply sets of symbols that identify to some degree of uniqueness. Any meaning in those symbols needs to be stated explictly.
  3. Johnleemk | Talk 08:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) What Carnildo said.
  4. Vague | Rant 09:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) What Carnildo said.
  5. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 10:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) What Carnildo said.
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sure, why not? Although I personally doubt we should have an article on the album at all, if we do, this seems to be relevant information. --Improv 21:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Yeah, inspiration for songs is definitely a relevant detail. Song and album titles can be obscure or purposely irrelevant, so this should be stated clearly. (For example, Goo Goo Dolls' "Iris" has nothing to do with flowers or eyes, despite the simple title.) [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. Sure, something brief. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 04:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. The album is called 'Autobiography'. Surely that makes it clear enough. Worldtraveller 19:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. What Worldtraveller said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. It's the freaking title, fer cryin' out loud. What, the reader needs bright neon lights to figure out its meaning? --Calton 23:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. What Calton said. ElBenevolente 02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. With additional lyricists involved, stating that this album is autobiographical is patently false. iMeowbot~Mw 09:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's this poll option about?

  1. In general terms, I agree with Carnildo's observations and support the proposition, and I think the text currently in the article manages to address this point. However, given the history and talk, the dispute seems to be about a particular sentence that has been removed. I think it likely that this is not particularly clear to everyone participating in the poll, so I don't think the responses to this question can be used to claim any kind of consensus on the issue. --Michael Snow 17:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll 3

Should the fact that Simpson is credited with co-writing all of the songs be mentioned in the article?

Yes

  1. Everyking 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. It already is, in the track listing, and the first sentence of 'About the album' makes it clear as well. Worldtraveller 19:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carnildo 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Calton 23:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Of course. That's a detail that's unusual for its genre. --Calton 23:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. ElBenevolente 02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Vague | Rant 09:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) Yes, sure.
  8. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 10:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) It should remain where it is.
  9. Neutralitytalk 01:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Yes. Unusual for the clone music pop genre. But we just need to mention it once. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Yes, she had some input, this much is truthful. iMeowbot~Mw 09:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Snowspinner 22:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 04:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

No

Poll 3A

Is the fact that Simpson is credited with co-writing every song an important detail about the album that warrants a clear mention in the prose?

Yes

  1. Everyking 19:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. Carnildo 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Except if there's solid evidence that she had a major part in writing the songs.
  2. RickK 22:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ElBenevolente 02:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Johnleemk | Talk 08:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's not that important; if she really was an accomplished songwriter, she wouldn't need to work with three or four others on a song, would she? Even John Lennon and Paul McCartney worked alone most of the time.
  5. Vague | Rant 09:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) In the track list is enough.
  6. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 10:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) What Vague Rant said.
  7. Neutralitytalk 01:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 07:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. ADH (t&m) 08:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  10. The track listing already lists names, so getting into this is seriously redundant. iMeowbot~Mw 09:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 04:06, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note to those voting "no" on poll 2. We are an encyclopedia, and our duty is to inform. We do not leave things to be inferred or implied when there is a question that it may not be automatically and easily understood. Yes, the title of the album suggests autobiographical lyrics, but it also needs a note of further explanation in the text. Everyking 22:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not our duty to give every single detail in the world. RickK 22:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
If it's a notable detail, yes it is. Everyking 22:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In other words, the poll is, for you, essentially meaningless? And that consensus or majority views don't count, as far as you're concerned? Everyking, have you been introduced to Iasson yet? --Calton 23:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's like I said one thing, and you're responding to something somebody in another galaxy said. I don't get it. Everyking 00:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which is, of course, the problem you have. --Calton 00:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I support Everyking on this particular point. I think the fact that the lyrics are autobiographical is only suggested by the album title but should be confirmed in the article. I believe that this information is valid (reasoning behind album names are often valid info to put in the album description). [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 09:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Option 3 has won out on Poll 1 for the time being. I think we should leave the polls open indefinitely so that any newcomers to the discussion can sway things if the feeling changes. Would anyone who voted for Option 3 like to propose a revised or truncated version of the chart? I've got a few things in mind, but I don't see how it can be done as neatly as the old chart. Everyking 07:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I'm going to feel free to remove "poll 4" pretty soon unless it gets adequately explained, because it's either a bad joke or a threat. Everyking 07:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You "feel free" to follow your whims a great deal, don't you? --Calton 08:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed poll 4. It was a clear personal shot at Everyking and he seems to be offended. Let's try and keep things civil here. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 09:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On a later note: I accidentally removed votes through jedit (an external editing program) apparently because I was viewing an older version of this page when I began editing. This was not intentional. Please accept my appologies. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 10:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Regarding leaving the polls open, why not just wait until some later time, perhaps in a year, and reintroduce your proposals if you like? It's common wiki practice to achieve finality, even if we later change our minds with another poll. --Improv 21:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chart performance

How about a graph like this as a way of showing chart performance? It's better than the table, since (1) it's more compact, (2) additional sets of data don't enlarge the article, (3) it's easier to move around. --Carnildo 09:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)  

I like this graph. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 10:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gah, no. Worse than the tables. Ambi 11:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What's worse about it? The chart's pretty easy to adjust. --Carnildo 19:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If we add that, will you be sure to update it weekly? You don't need to look up the numbers, I'll post them here, but it needs to be kept current. Everyking 19:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll be happy to update the graph if Carnildo doesn't want to. In fact, if you can get your hands on daily data, it would fit in the graph, whereas it wouldn't fit in a table. dbenbenn | talk 20:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the album is at 47 in the US, up from 60, and at 13 in Canada, down from 12. Everyking 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd much prefer the table, but under the circumstances I'd happily accept this instead. Everyking 11:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I love the chart! Great idea, Carnildo! It lets you see at a glance how the sales changed over time, without having to parse all those numbers. One suggestion: could you remove the caption? I think a caption works better as text at the bottom, rather than being built into the image. dbenbenn | talk 18:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another idea: you could mark various important dates on the chart, like when various singles were released, when the SNL incident happened, etc. That would show how various things influenced sales.
Also, the tabular data goes very well in the image description page for the chart. dbenbenn | talk 18:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


This paragraph:

Ashlee worked closely with a number of experienced songwriters on the album. The album's producer, John Shanks, receives songwriting credit alongside Simpson on all but two songs. Kara DioGuardi also receives songwriting credit, together with Simpson and Shanks, on seven of the songs, including the three singles. Sugar Ray drummer Stan Frazier was one of the co-writers of "Unreachable". (See the track listing.)

....already effectively says that Simpson was credited with all the co-writing, but it does so in kind of an indirect way. What do you say we reword it so as to make her credits a bit more clear? I also think the last sentence about Frazier is superfluous; the info made sense in the context of an old version of the sentence, but now it has been reduced to the point where it just kind of sticks out uselessly on its own. Everyking 11:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph looks fine as it is to me. Remove the part about Frazier if you like, but the rest seems fine to me. It's just a statement of facts. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you missed the point. I want to make one of those facts clearer to the reader. It was written at a time when there was a clearer statement earlier in the article. Now that that has been removed, this paragraph should be reworked to do what the earlier mention used to do. Everyking 18:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you missed your own Poll 3A. --Calton 02:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, did you see me changing anything in the article? I was discussing. You, on the other hand, apparently have no purpose here except to berate and insult me. It's extremely obnoxious. Everyking 02:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, a red herring is always good for throwing off people's scent on the main issue. The poll has indicated people are not in favour of "clarifying" this point further. If you can show me a single fact obscured or a misconception created by the current phrasing, I might agree with you, but as it is, I see nothing wrong with it. What's there to clarify? You haven't showed that yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph does not directly say that Simpson co-wrote all the songs. The reader would have to go to the track listing and check each one to find that out, which is ridiculous when all we have to do is just say it in a few words. Everyking 16:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is the fact that Simpson is credited with co-writing every song an important detail about the album that warrants a clear mention in the prose? NO - 7 votes, YES - 1 vote (yours). Your question, your words. How are you totalling votes, the Average rule? --Calton 21:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You baffle me, Calton. The point of the poll is not to prohibit discussion. Everyking 21:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The point of the poll, allegedly, is to get consensus/approval/sense of the editors for a change. Your view lost, 7-nil 10-nil, Jimmy, but now you're pretending it never happened. So you're clearly intending to ignore any results you don't like. Clear enough, or do I need to make you a PowerPoint presentation? --Calton 11:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring anybody, but I'm beginning to think I shouldn't even bother trying to talk with you. Everyking 12:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Credited with co-writing"

I changed a sentence from

Simpson is credited with co-writing each of the album's twelve songs, and she has described the process as being similar to keeping a diary.

to

Simpson described the process of writing the album's twelve songs as being similar to keeping a diary.

I'd like to explain my reasons. First, it's an Ashlee Simpson album, so the default assumption is that she wrote the songs. Second, the phrase "is credited with" makes it sound like she didn't really write them, she just got the credit. If that's the case, it should be stated explicitly.

Now, I understand that "is credited with" is factually correct, whereas "wrote" is harder to verify. But that's just a technicality. Again, if there's any real issue about who wrote the songs, it should be written out. dbenbenn | talk 19:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with the change. Many artists don't write their own songs. I'd leave that sentence the way it is: there's nothing wrong with it! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It looks to me that Everyking reverted your text about two or three times. Now, this doesn't violate the WP:3RR rule, but doesn't a single revert violate the previous arbitation ruling? I think an admin should take a look at the the history and see if this counts as a revert. --Deathphoenix 19:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, I was careful not to revert even once. Look again, and quit with the witchhunt. Everyking 20:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
People don't take that for granted when it comes to music like this. That she was so involved in the songwriting is considered rather unusual. But obviously we can't verify if she really co-wrote them, at least to a substantial extent, or was just credited to create that appearance. The evidence of the reality show would suggest the former, but there are certainly people who hold the latter position. I had initially just stated "co-wrote", but later someone changed it to qualify it, and I accepted that as being necessary for NPOV. Everyking 20:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not on a witchhunt. I haven't made any edits to the main article, and come to think of it, I've been pretty careful not to. What I've done is made comments. Now, in my opinion, it looks like you performed some edits which can be interpreted as reverting. dbenbenn performed an edit to the original text, and it appears as if you reversed at least some of this edit over the course of a few edits. Now, according to the RfAr, whether this is a revert or not is at an admin's discretion. I'm not an admin. Therefore, I'll let another admin look at this and decide if it's a revert. --Deathphoenix 20:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I've learned, anything can be interpreted as a revert if somebody wants you gone. Everyking 20:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which is why, IMHO, it's a better idea for you to ask another Ashlee Simpson contributor to do something that can be interpreted as a revert instead of doing t yourself. If they don't want to do it, then it's probably a good idea not to do it. --Deathphoenix 20:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Who? Who's gonna do it? I put something forward on talk and let it sit there for two or three days, and there are no objections, but nobody else is implementing it, either. How about you, will you start implementing my proposals, then? Everyking 20:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't because I'm not enough of an Ashlee Simpson expert. I remember that I suggested asking someone else for the table, and someone else suggested a couple of contributors to ask, but you restored the table before I could get around to asking them. That was much shorter than two or three days. I don't know about any other cases, but this was the first one I remember after your arbitration ruling, so I don't think I missed much. --Deathphoenix 00:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
iMeowbot seems rather knowledgeable about Simpson, but I don't think Everyking trusts him. As I said before, Shard or Angel Tiger would be people Everyking could refer to; sadly, they don't seem very active. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
She did have input into the content of the lyrics. I wouldn't state any more or less than that, though. iMeowbot~Mw 09:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then that's good enough for me. While Everyking not trusting iMeowbot is a problem in terms of interpersonal relations, iMeowbot has two things that are important to this case: (1) Ashlee Simpson knowledge (2) No ban on reverting Ashlee Simpson articles. The revert ban means that Everyking has to work with people that he may not trust or like. The other alternative is to be banned for breaking an Arbcom ruling. --Deathphoenix 12:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll 4

A table (or equivalent) showing peak positions of an album on various charts is standard for album articles, and should be restored to this article at the bottom. (This is distinct from the issue of the week-by-week chart that's the subject of poll 1. The tables were earlier removed because of the existence of Autobiography sales and chart positions, which has been redirected now.)

Yes

  1. Everyking 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. I really think removing this (if it is just the chart below) is going too far - it doesn't take up much space, and gives useful information. I know you're all pissed off, but please don't go overboard. Ambi 14:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Hell, no. How is this different from the first poll above?
  2. The amount of chart data that would be reasonable to include would not require tables. iMeowbot~Mw 09:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Vague | Rant 12:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) I agree with iMeowbot, a list of peak positions would only be brief.
  4. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. This is taking the level of information to an absurd level. I'd support the removal of it from other music articles too, if they actually have it. --Improv 14:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Calton 03:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC). No way.

Undecided

Calton 11:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC). That depends. What are some specific examples you had in mind?

Poll 5

A table (or equivalent) showing peak positions of an album's singles on various charts is standard for album articles, and should be restored to this article at the bottom. (Presently these all exist on individual singles pages, so the question is whether they should all be available in one consolidated place in addition to being spread out across the singles articles.)

Yes

  1. Everyking 02:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Even more illogical than recording the chart positions of the album alone. That could be understood, if not condoned. Singles are unique records, separate from albums.
  2. Singles charts are even less meaningful than album charts. iMeowbot~Mw 09:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Vague | Rant 12:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) Belongs on the singles' articles.
  4. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Again, this is taking the level of information to an absurd level. --Improv 14:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Calton 03:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC). It's clear what Everyking wants, and it's absurd.

Undecided

Calton 11:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC). That depends. What are some specific examples you had in mind?

Image:Autobiography-weekly-performance.png

Please lose this graph in a hurry, this is exactly the kind of misinformative interpretation I was concerned about when repeatedly saying that detailed chart information should not be included. Rather than repeat myself, I've added a Limitations section to Billboard 200 explaining why this kind of plot is bogus. iMeowbot~Mw 09:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple statement of facts, Meowbot. People use charts and rely on them. They may not be an ideal mechanism, but that's how it is. Everyking 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There really isn't a nice way to put this, so I'll need to be sort of blunt. Simply stated, you don't know what you are talking about. People do 'not rely on those charts for anything substantial, they are published mainly for entertainment, like horoscopes, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONTAIN THE FACTS. Again, the real numbers are the UNIT SALES. RIAA awards are meaningful numbers. Billboard and similar chart positions are not. Imagine if casualties in Word War II were given in this format: On week three, Germany lost more lives than France, but on week four the French lost more people than Fiji. This is absolutely bogus because the magnitude of the differences is being completely ignored, and including tallies of that nature would be laughable. In an album article, doing so is equally laughable. If you want to include the actual sales data, GET THE ACTUAL SALES DATA from SoundScan. The numbers you are insisting on including are garbage. iMeowbot~Mw 19:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, whether you like the mechanism or not is totally irrelevant. The question is one of notability. People use charts and rely on them, so we include them. If you can dig up sales figures, be my guest. Note that this article actually did include sales figures for the first ten weeks before someone removed them. Everyking 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To those voting no in polls 4 & 5: I don't understand why ever other album article should give peak positions but this one shouldn't. Frankly, that seems crazy. Everyking 12:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is the album chart I mean:

Album

Year Country Chart Position
2004 USA The Billboard 200 1
2004 Canada Top 100 Albums 8
2004 UK Top 40 Albums 31
2004 Norway Top 40 Albums 29
2004 Switzerland Top 100 Albums 36

Every other album article seems to have charts like this! Why should this be an exception? I'm stunned that people are voting no; I assumed the vote would be a mere formality. Everyking 12:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem easily stunned. In any case, I did a search of a sampling of album articles, since you were unwilling to provide specific examples instead of the hand-waving "every other album article" claim: Every other album certainly does NOT have a chart like this, and the one I found was certainly nowhere near this elaborate. Data points:

--Calton 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The plain-line text was an early form of the table format. Recently there's been a shift towards the tables. But it doesn't really matter. If you want the ugly plain format, fine, better than nothing. Everyking 03:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You claimed "every other article" has this chart: my sampling of 5 extraordinarily noteworthy album articles indicates they don't. I asked for specific examples to compare: you haven't provided them. Now, you claim there's some sort of shift from plain-text to tables (along with a strawman fallacy about what I allegedly want) to rationalize the fact I couldn't find what you claimed.
So please, put up or shut up. Find 10 examples of album articles that
1) use a chart -- any chart -- for peak positions
2) that list positions from multiple countries (minimum 3)
and/or
3) use your format
And by the way, if the chart goes in, that means that a couple of paragraphs of eye-glazing detail in the "Sales and chart performance" section can be trimmed into something readable, right? --Calton 03:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ridiculous. I don't even think it was me who added the table to begin with! I'm pretty sure it was User:DCEdwards1966, who's added lots of tables like that to album articles. Everyking 04:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
More handwaving and misdirection: in my sentence, "your format" = "the format you are advocating", at least to native speakers of English. And, by the way, where are examples of "every other album article" as you claimed? --Calton 06:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uh, folks, could we please consider voting yes? How about we just mention the peak positions for a few countries: the US, UK, Canada? There's no sane reason why every album article should mention peak positions except this one. Everyking 13:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no good reason to leave this out. It's quite useful (and indeed, having Australia on there would be nice). Ambi 14:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Then vote, Beck. And I think the album peaked at 40 in Australia, but I'm not sure, so I haven't included it. Everyking 14:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's no sane reason why every album article should mention peak positions except this one The article does, already. Perhaps you ought to avoid obvious hyperbole. --Calton 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and perhaps you ought to start being civil, but I don't hold out much hope for that, either. Everyking 03:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Being "civil" is meaningless to the hypersenitive, such as yourself. I gave you some advice on persuasion: that you chose to interpret it as an attack is direct evidence if ever there was of my point, your consistent employment of hyperbole.--Calton 03:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point 2 has a majority and Point 3 has a clear consensus, so I suppose I will implement them soon, unless somebody else does it first. I think that many of the no voters in Poll 4 did not understand the question and consequently their votes should not count unless they return to clarify that they did in fact understand what they were voting for. John, for example, did not seem to understand that the issue was completely separate from the table being discussed in Poll 1. Everyking 21:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taking a poll and then trying to throw out the results because you don't like them is showing an awful lot of bad faith, in my opinion. Perhaps you should consider the case of Iasson and his constant attempts to rationalize overwhelming votes against him: you seem to be heading down the same road.--Calton 03:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anybody can read the comments and see they were made on an apparent misunderstanding. Do you deny that it appears that way? Everyking 03:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Of course. Your hyperbole and self-serving readings of consensus throughout this entire Ashlee Simpson Empire-Building episode is well known. Hence my comment above about you being "easily stunned" by any opinions diverging from yours. --Calton 03:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This reminds me of the 2000 US presidential election. Anyway, to avoid further trolling from Everyking, my votes still stand. Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Trolling! But I thought calling someone a troll was something a person should be punished for, John. Isn't that right? Everyking 07:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He's not describing an individual, he's describing your behavior. Do you deny that it appears that way? --Calton 06:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would suit me just fine if he, along with you, would abandon this article completely. Why don't you do that, so I can't "troll" you anymore, and then I can edit in peace? Alternatively, you could adopt a positive spirit and we could try to work together to improve it. But the incessant belittling achieves nothing and wastes everyone's time. Everyking 06:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would suit me just fine if you would answer direct questions put to you instead of dodging them. It would suit me just fine if you would respect the results of polls you yourself take instead of trying to find loopholes or ignoring them entirely. It would suit me just fine if you would stop trying to game the system regarding ArbCom's ruling about reverts. It would suit me just fine if you would stop your back-door attempts to assume ownership of anything and everything regarding Ashlee Simpson (I can edit in peace; i.e., unchallenged). It would suit me just fine if you would stop the hypersensitivity, hyperbole, and wounded innocence, because I seriously doubt there's a person reading these words who takes them seriously.
we could try to work together to improve it. Clue 1: "work together" doesn't mean "my way unless everybody objects". Clue 2: "Improve" doesn't mean "work it into a state where Everyking is the sole arbiter of good". And spare me the claim that you've been open to suggestions or compromise: ArbCom ruled explicitly that you weren't.
You dug this hole you're in, and you can stop digging any time. If you're serious, you'll actually respect consensus and/or majority views instead of resisting them. And I'm not wasting anyone's time, you are: a poll on that issue, I'm sure, would be pretty lopsided. --Calton 08:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you'd leave me alone or work cooperatively with me, a vastly better article would exist. One where a reader could be almost guaranteed to find whatever information he or she is looking for. Instead, a couple things have happened: I can't edit much anymore because a lot of that would require restoring text, and according to some people, that's a revert; and I'm bogged down in discussion here, fending off your bitter insults in particular, when I could be doing something constructive. I think clipping my toenails would be better use of my time, because any time I'm going to write something, I have to think: "OK, wait a minute, be careful. You've got to make it 'Calton-proof' so he won't find something in it to attack you for." But then I do that and, without fail, you find something in it to attack me for no matter how careful I am. And we've got volumes worth of this stuff, insult after insult after sarcastic remark. But the alternative is that I just stop talking, and then the article stays perpetually in its presently stubbish state. So I keep talking, and the same old routine gets played out over and over again. So, Calton, and John and anyone else involved also, why don't we make a deal: no more insults, belittling remarks, bitter sarcasm/cynicism, etc., from either side. Just content discussion and friendly conversation from here on out. Is that fair? Everyking 08:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you'd leave me alone...a vastly better article would exist. Very telling. "Leaving you alone" was precisely what was going on before ArbCom stepped in -- except you got people to "leave you alone" by driving them off -- and vastly better articles did NOT result (not according to "some people", as you mischaracterize it, but by an over-whelming majority). And as for the rest of your paragraph, I dispute every single sentence in it as being, variously, misleading, hyperbolic, disingenuous, and occasionally outright false -- and, sadly, not out of character. So no, it's not "fair" -- especially since content discussion HAS been going on, with you leaping to self-serving conclusions, dodging simple questions, and hunting for loopholes. You want me to assume good faith -- demonstrate some. --Calton 11:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All right, then, I suppose you reject the deal. At least I tried. From now on I'm just going to ignore you unless you talk about content instead of taking jabs at me. Everyking 12:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At least I tried. No you didn't. It was a self-serving attempt, backed up by hyperbole and disingenous claims of victimhood, to game the process and dodge responsibility for your actions and edits. --Calton 07:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you'd leave me alone or work cooperatively with me, a vastly better article would exist. One where a reader could be almost guaranteed to find whatever information he or she is looking for. Debatable. It's a lot harder to find a fact you're looking for in four or five pages of meandering trivia than in two or three of facts people want to know. People aren't looking for an article on what others say about Autobiography or what Ashlee thinks of something or something about a music video that just happened to be for a song on Autobiography or mind-numbing extensive details of charting positions. They're looking for things someone would expect to be able to find out about Autobiography in an encyclopedia: who made it, what songs were on it, a brief description of the songs, a little bit about how the public and critics responded (not two pages worth of critics' quotes and statistics from which little can be inferred; Wikipedia is not home to source material), and maybe a little bit about how it was promoted (although I doubt few would be interested in reading more than three paragraphs on this).
Instead, a couple things have happened: I can't edit much anymore because a lot of that would require restoring text, and according to some people, that's a revert; Restoring an article to an older revision with or without a few tweaks is a revert. Plain and simple. It's clear-cut. In addition, reverts are not an entitlement; refer to the arbitration case on the Darwin-Lincoln dispute (which oddly mirrors this one quite a bit). and I'm bogged down in discussion here, fending off your bitter insults in particular, when I could be doing something constructive. You made those polls. Voting should be accompanied by discussion; otherwise there is no point. If you were expecting people to just nod their heads and agree with you, well, sorry... I think clipping my toenails would be better use of my time, because any time I'm going to write something, I have to think: "OK, wait a minute, be careful. You've got to make it 'Calton-proof' so he won't find something in it to attack you for." That should show just how untenable your position is. But then I do that and, without fail, you find something in it to attack me for no matter how careful I am. Dodging the point as you always do. Whenever we ask you a hard question, you never fail to go off on some long diatribe about how annoying we are and WHY WON'T WE JUST LEAVE YOU ALONE. But the alternative is that I just stop talking, and then the article stays perpetually in its presently stubbish state. So I keep talking, and the same old routine gets played out over and over again. You are expected to talk. That is how articles are built. Through community consensus. Articles are not built based on deference to an expert's views; they are based on deference to the community opinion, which in this case is clearly against you.
So, Calton, and John and anyone else involved also, why don't we make a deal: no more insults, belittling remarks, bitter sarcasm/cynicism, etc., from either side. Just content discussion and friendly conversation from here on out. Is that fair? Only if you agree to stop dodging the point and answer the questions put forth to you. So, let's start. Why did you ask to throw out our votes just because we might have misunderstood the issue? Why didn't you contact us via our user talk pages and clarify the situation? Were you intentionally trying to go behind our backs? Or were you just ignorant because you're so used to acting unilaterally and without discussion? Or is it both? Or is it neither? Whichever way, I would honestly love to understand why you tried to circumvent the mechanisms in place. Johnleemk | Talk 10:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a proposal which can be made conditional on anything other than the other side's agreement. Either you agree not to insult and belittle anymore, or you don't. If you're going to impose some unrelated condition—I'll stop treating you that way if...—then there's no deal.

Certainly articles need to be accessible. This does not require throwing out information. I can write one or two very simple and accessible paragraphs summing up World War II, but they'd be almost worthless as an article. It's all a matter of organization. You have a good lead section. Then you have sections with headings, you have summary sentences within them, and you link to subarticles with further detail. Thus you satisfy people who are looking for all different levels of detail. Furthermore, I think it insults the reader to say, "You don't need to know about this." If I wrote a section called "Album design", nobody who didn't care about the album design would bother to read it, they'd just move on. But for somebody who was interested in that, we would become an invaluable resource on the subject of Autobiography album design.

You did not seem to understand what you were voting for, based on your comment. I requested that you clarify your vote, that's fair. If you're holding a public vote on, say, a law on the restriction of alcohol sale, and some guy calls out, "Yeah, we need to deport all them damn foreigners!", well, you're probably not going to count his vote as a "yes" unless he'll clarify what he means. I cannot imagine how writing it right here on the relevant talk page could be considered doing it behind anyone's back. Everyking 11:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a proposal which can be made conditional on anything other than the other side's agreement. Then I suppose you'll continue dodging the hard questions. Fine by me. Certainly articles need to be accessible. This does not require throwing out information. Of course not, but recording data is a whole other issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not home to source data. Chart details are source data unless we use them to explain or clarify something. The World War II article doesn't have a table about casualties or drones on about how "X people killed were Germans, while Y people killed were Americans..." Data and information are not the same. I'm not arguing for articles that must be readable by all, but I'm arguing for articles that are informative and not masses of raw data readers are expected to piece together. You did not seem to understand what you were voting for, based on your comment. Possibly. I requested that you clarify your vote, that's fair. Most of us don't keep this page on our watchlists, let alone visit it everyday. If you were sincere in gaining our attention, why not use our user talk? That's what it's there for. I cannot imagine how writing it right here on the relevant talk page could be considered doing it behind anyone's back. People do not follow talk pages avidly. Get used to it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would be appalled to find that the WWII article doesn't talk about casualties. Surely that's not the case. And no, I am not going to take every little thing to your talk page for your convenience. Either follow the talk page or accept not having input. Nothing is being done overnight. If you even check here once every few days you'll still have input. But if you rely on me to bring things to your attention on your own user talk, well, I guess you won't have input, then. If you don't care enough to keep it on your watchlist, then you shouldn't care if your opinion goes uncounted. Everyking 12:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
See for yourself. Aside from a few sentences, they don't bother giving more than one or two hard facts. They don't provide a complicated breakdown of casualties by nationality or side or anything like that. Why? Because most people don't need them. Maybe a summary, which is what I've been advocating, but certainly not every conceivable trivial data one could conceivably desire to know. But if you rely on me to bring things to your attention on your own user talk, well, I guess you won't have input, then. If you want to ignore others' opinions, asking them to clarify first would always be a good thing. Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An article on WWII definitely should mention casualties by nationality (possibly in a subarticle). That is extremely important. Our philosophical differences seem to be huge. It would be much easier to deal with a standard POV dispute than this. I also think it's weird that you can respond so quickly despite not having the article on your watchlist, but never mind. Everyking 12:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is a list of casualties article, but it takes a bit of digging to find, and is of dubious enyclopedic value. You see, the articles don't prize the data as much as you seem to prize charting data. Instead, they use the data to illustrate and explain. For example, they might note that the Americans suffered fewer civilian casualties because the war was not fought on American soil. Or they might demonstrate Stalin's willingness to sacrifice his soldiers by pointing to the enormous casualty figure for the Soviets. They would not blabber, "The Americans lost X soldiers and Y civilians, while the British lost U soldiers and V civilians. The Germans on the other hand suffered heavier casualties of W soldiers and Z civilians." That is exactly what you were doing when you argued for the inclusion of chart data whether in prose or tabular form. If you did something with the statistics, made them actionable as in Wikipedia:Informative, there would be a case for including them, but you do nothing. You slap them on and act as if they inform the reader. They don't. They just add meaningless data. 08:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We just plain disagree about the value of the data. I guess neither of us will be able to convince the other. So we might as well talk about compromises, right? What do you think of the chart in the article now, the graphic? I don't like it much, because it's hard to read and I can't update it (it's already one week out of date and about to be two). But it does have the advantage of showing the movement up and down more clearly. The thing is, if we had the sales subarticle still, we could have both! Because that'd be a whole article devoted to that kind of thing. What do you think? Everyking 08:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We just plain disagree about the value of the data. Straw man alert!
And I gave you the benefit of the doubt: I voted "Undecided" in your poll because I wanted to see examples of what kind of chart you had in mind. And you didn't -- and still haven't -- backed up your claim about "every other album" -- or even a measurable fraction -- using charts. Why should anyone take any statement you make at face value if you're clearly unwilling to back them up except with hand-waving? Why are you demanding the good faith you're unwilling or unable to offer yourself? --Calton 07:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would object to my votes being discarded. I stand by my opinion that the table is unnecessary. It's five numbers and five countries. The table, I agree with ambi, is not enormous, however it takes up more space that it needs to. If anything, ambi misunderstood the intentions of those who still want the information in the article, but just don't want the table. - Vague | Rant 11:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autobiography_(Ashlee_Simpson_album)/Archive_6&oldid=1140243438"