Wikipedia

Talk:Rebel Heart/Archive 2

< Talk:Rebel Heart
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Homeostasis07 in topic Requested move 22 January 2017
Archive 1Archive 2

This article's sourcing needs to be examined

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have not done so, so I don't know the article has sourcing problems, but the GA reviewer apparently has not done one either, and yet passed it without visibly doing so. Nothing about the references were mentioned in the GA review except the for minor formatting issues. Per WP:GAC "all in-line citations [should be] from reliable sources [and the article should contain] no original research", so this article should not have passed GA review without a thorough source check. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Songwriting Credit Issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

Xboxmanwar please stop with the blatant violation of WP:OR by adding producers to songwriter's field. They are not the same and do not get songwriter royalty. The two are not same and is widely established. Do not put false information in the article which is a featured content and is adequately sourced to indicate who are the correct songwriters and producers. —IB [ Poke ] 16:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Lol, you are totally wrong, of course they are the same, check the source I added, and do your own damn research if you think I'm wrong because I'm not. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Really? I don't need to do research Xboxmanwar, the sources you list first of all are dead links. Second of all BMI does not list Travis Scott or any variation of it as writer for the track Illuminati. And Heat is not even associated with BMI. So, yeah, try better next time. I am giving you a final chance to self-revert yourself, because it will eventually be reverted. I am inviting other music editors like SNUGGUMS, Bluesatellite, Chasewc91, Calvin999. —IB [ Poke ] 18:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note Xbox, the credits are listed in full in the album's booklet and can also be viewed here. —IB [ Poke ] 18:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: No, your still wrong, and you need to do your research, you can search it up on BMI here, search the BMI Repertoire, put the search category Artist and search Madonna, then select the first option, then find Illuminati and select and boom, you have Travis Scott and Charlie Heat (Ernest Brown) in there. Do it and come back to me, because you are wrong. Also, Heat is associated with BMI, you will see it in the credits of Illuminati, and BMI lists all the preforming right organizations or PROs (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc) included in the track, same with an ASCAP search. Plus, sometimes the PRO's tend to list the name backwards, and/or mess up the listing, since they have to manage thousands of people, for example, Travis Scott, can be Scott Travis, ASCAP does the same thing sometimes. One more thing, Travis Scott has his publishing on the track too (same with his songwriting credit), which proves that he lists his name in the track to get the royalties from the song, which again, is a music industry practice. So yeah, your still wrong. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
That does not explain what is listed in the liner notes. If Travis Scott and Ernest are songwriters then they would be listed as such. Per WP:BRD you need to wait till consensus is reached. I have already raised a discussion here. I would request you to comment there. So as to the other editors also regarding BMI/liner notes differing. —IB [ Poke ] 18:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: The liner notes doesn't mean anything, what you see in BMI is registered in the system, the author in the liner notes could have made up whatever they wanted the liner notes to say, but BMI is registered, you can't defeat that. Its not a big deal, just leave it in there, its official. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You are not getting the point Xbox, this needs a much bigger discussion. Because then we would have to go with the BMI/ASCAP sources when liner notes fail to give proper information. And liner notes are directly accessible reliable source. Hence to sum it up for you, both are highly reliable, both are abundantly used. But when there's a conflict which one should be depend on that;s the community consensus. This is not a discussion for Rebel Heart anymore. —IB [ Poke ] 18:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: No, it doesn't need a bigger discussion, because I did this before. I put in info from BMI and ASCAP into other articles, and nobody had an issue with it, only you, the liner notes you linked in this debate, even through official, aren't even good, because it doesn't even list the songwriters, which versus BMI and ASCAP, it clearly does. So, just leave it because BMI and ASCAP are reliable sources too, and it can be used. Remember, its in the system, liner notes can say whatever they want, but it's in the system, which is a more reliable source than the official liner notes. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it needs, just because others haven't reverted you or simply did not notice does not mean that we should not have a community wise discussion. You are free to participate in it or be on your merry way, I don't care. But the discussion will continue and a consensus needs to be achieved. —IB [ Poke ] 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: No, I put in revision edit notes in articles that I add info I got from BMI on, I have said that I got it from BMI as proof, as I did for example with TM88, check the view history, obviously they could revert it, but since BMI registers that info into their system, it is proof, and those articles that I put BMI info into no longer have to be discussed further. As with you, your making it a big deal, if the liner notes fail, they fail, ok, just use another reliable source, BMI and ASCAP. So I will do the same for you, I don't care what you think, but consensus doesn't need to be achieved, and the edit will stay on this article, because it comes from a valid source. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, why don't you understand a simple thing that you and me are not the community. There are multiple articles in Wikipedia where the liner notes can be a problem and that's where we need consensus. You might think BMI is right (which I personally think so too, my issue was not finding Travis there), but some other editor/project might give stress on liner notes. This is what you don't understand that the community for music guidance needs a precedence or a consensus in those cases. You are welcome to comment here with your expertise, or else don't, but don't keep on harping the same thing that you are right/wrong and I'm making a big deal. If I'm making a big deal that's none of your fucking business. —IB [ Poke ] 19:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Who gives a fuck about the stress on the liner notes, they can deal with it, not us, your just their ass, just leave it, and I know its none of my fucking business that you're making a big deal, its just a pain in the ass as to why you started it. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Who's asking you to take the pain? —IB [ Poke ] 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
What about doing something similar here, per Wyoming Bender and Teddy Riley on "Teeth"? The note in the article states "While Bender and Teddy Riley are not credited as songwriters of "Teeth" in the album liner notes, they are listed as songwriters by BMI." Just a thought. Ignore me if you please. :) Carbrera (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC).
@Carbrera: that's exactly what I did if you see my second last edit on the article. —IB [ Poke ] 19:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoops! Didn't see that! Thanks anyway! Carbrera (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Nobody's asking me, you stated "some other editor/project might give stress on liner notes", what is your meaning of "stress"? Also, while it seems that they are not credited on the liner notes, some artists tend to not credit them, but there is still official credit on them. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll just say this: don't list anyone who isn't officially credited. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You guys have to understand that "released recording" and "registered recording" can be different. Demo recordings can be registered, while they are not released. For example, "Bitch I'm Madonna" is credited to Onika Maraj (Nicki Minaj) on the official album credits, but she is not credited on ASCAP (search "Bitch I'm Madonna" in the link). Minaj always wrote her rap verse, always! So it means that the registered one does not include her writing parts. So there is possibility that the registered "Illuminati" and the released "Illuminati" is different. Bluesatellite (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good point Bluesatellite. Let's see if Xbox has any expert comment to add to it, clearly he seems to be very proficient about matters regarding BMI. —IB [ Poke ] 22:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
How do we find out which version has been registered with BMI or ASCAP? The Illuminati entry here does not give a date unfortunately. —IB [ Poke ] 22:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
We will never know, though. I believe that this problem is solved by now. Xboxmanwar only failed to provide direct source, so IndianBio thought it was original research. About the true credits, only Madonna and the involved songwriters know. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bluesatellite: @IndianBio: Explain what you mean by direct source, and this is what I mean by the author of the liner notes, they can put whatever they want, since the liner notes credited Nicki Minaj, but she isn't credited for songwriting in ASCAP, but still credited for the featured artist in ASCAP, maybe she didn't write her verse, but I doubt that, they could have possibly forgot to register her name, but they have contracts and stuff with her that I'm sure they deal with internally. Come on guys, its logic for the song Illuminati, they all have the same credits, in BMI and in the liner notes, except Charlie Heat and Travis Scott, but again, it's a music industry practice, for example, Diplo, who produced some of the songs on this album, also gets composer credits for the song, because he composed it, he made the song, so he gets the credit, to get the royalties, same with Heat and Scott, they also helped produced Illuminati, they made the song, so they composed it, and they get the credit, to get the royalties. They are simply uncredited in the liner notes, you guys can't put all your trust in the liner notes, there are other sources too. Check other songs on BMI and ASCAP, a ton of song have the names of all the people and companies involved in the song the 95% percent of the time, and also they list some of the artists names backwards, like if you search Minaj Nicki in BMI, you will get the right results. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Songwriting =/= Producing, you cannot use your own assumption whether the producer write or not. Madonna produced "Bedtime Story" but she didn't write it. She could have altered some words to get credit, but she didn't. I don't put ALL my trust in the liner notes, I go with WP:V. And you should not believe everything on those licensing websites, as I have proved the flaw. It seems the problem is already clear, and I don't want to comment anything more. Cheers! Bluesatellite (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the report on the Administrators Noticeboard. Our general precedent is to use the officially released sleeve notes unless there is a good reason not to (eg: see Matthew Fisher's songwriting credit for A Whiter Shade Of Pale, granted over 40 years after original release). As others have said, producers not credited as songwriters get none of the appropriate royalties - George Martin gets nothing there for Abbey Road. As a parting note, Xboxmanwar needs to chill out and not make things personal when he disagrees with people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on the fate on the songwriting credits, first of all, I'm chill, I'm just putting my effort on this issue, and I'm not making things personal, I don't know where you go that from, but thats not important, your mention on Matthew Fisher doesn't fully relate to this issue because that conflict includes lawsuits and copyright, thats not what this issue is about, please take a look at this, as there are claims as to why to not always rely on the official liner notes. Xboxmanwar (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Lol, Xbox you are now contradicting your own assumptions about reliability of ASCAP and BMI, with the statement "but still credited for the featured artist in ASCAP, maybe she didn't write her verse, but I doubt that, they could have possibly forgot to register her name". The key here is WP:V as Bluesatellite pointed out and as the editors are deciding here, there's nothing wrong in the liner notes, because they are the ones officially released. To the editors here partaking the discussion, I thought of another case where royalties are probably awarded to a person who might be contractually bound to receive, but has renounced the visual and readable claim in commercial releases. That might explain why we have Travis and Heat in BMI but not in liner notes. —IB [ Poke ] 08:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@IndianBio: Holy crap, are you kidding me? Read Bluesatellite's comments about this. This is what he said:
I repeat, the Publishing Rights Organisations (PROs) - ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, SOCAN, APRA (and others with searchable databases) are probably more accurate and discrepancies should be noted and not ignored. Only for example and without commenting, Bitch I'm Madonna, I note that Nicki Minaj is a BMI-Registered songwriter and that the song does not appear in the BMI catalogue. There are several reasons for the omissions, and I note 3 of them, 1. She didn't write anything for this song, 2. Somebody in the NM camp didn't complete the paperwork correctly, or 3. Both BMI and ASCAP have made a clerical error. As no editor can ever know what really happened, just explain the differences. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. I have just searched songfile.com and that also lists NM as a songwriter of Bitch I'm Madonna. On balance, we now have two sources which agree independently so I think I would go with NM as a writer of the song. NB FWIW, The reason I put additional credence on the PROs is because that's how the writer gets paid - if that's wrong you don't get paid! --Richhoncho (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not contradicting the reliability of BMI and ASCAP, because there are still reliable sources (SongFile) other than the liner notes, which still show the songwriting credit of Nicki Minaj, and BMI and ASCAP are still reliable sources. Xboxmanwar (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Xboxmanwar is currently blocked for 48 hours, however, to answer his point, I am trying to gauge the possibility that a songwriter was initially assigned credit maybe to a demo/initial version of a song when it was registered to BMI. However, final versions change many times and maybe at that time they were removed from the final credits. @Ritchie333: as you say that you are a musician and more knowledgeable about royalties, would you say such can always be a possibility? Can a person be contractually bound to receive royalties when the first version was registered, but was later removed from the final version? —IB [ Poke ] 09:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, once a song is registered on BMI you need a lawyer to change it and for all parties to agree. If you want a more authoritative answer, I would recommend asking User:Rhondamerrick (use the "email this user" feature, she doesn't log onto Wikipedia much) as she recently ran a workshop explaining PPL / PRS royalties to layman musicians - so if she doesn't know, she'll be in first hand contact with someone who does. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, will definitely do it. I have also asked other articles where these changes were taking place so all editors can come to a consensus. —IB [ Poke ] 09:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi to all editors and talk page watchers. I am proposing to promote this article to A-class rating per WP:A? criteria. May I have uninvolved editors review the article and mention their support or oppose for the promotion? I believe the article is concise, touches all points, the references are polished and prose is near FA quality. —IB [ Poke ] 11:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: will you have some time? —IB [ Poke ] 05:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure, but I've previously been too involved to really review it regardless :/. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as there was a clear consensus for a primary topic. (non-admin closure) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

– The Madonna album Rebel Heart is by far the most notable topic listed at (the current disambiguation page) Rebel Heart. According to the traffic statistics, the Madonna album reaches a daily average of 1,115 views. Compared to Rebel Heart (film) with 22, Rebel Heart (Dan Seals album) with 4, "Rebel Heart" (The Corrs song) with 3, and Rebel Heart (novel) with 1. Source. When using a Google Search string that eliminates personal search bias, the results overwhelmingly relate to the Madonna album - link. TheKaphox T 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Part II : "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" difficult to claim that for an album with a highly generic title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
In ictu oculi: It's what you think based on a part (bias) of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that is not applicable here. Less educational, relevant or notability have the other current works even. Is an album, but Madonna related works always have a social/cultural impact and is not from fans. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing this, as a move review has been initiated. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

– Homeostasis07 thinks that the "support" arguments above are wrong and there is in fact no primary topic. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that evidently isn't true, how exactly are WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject BBC editors to receive alerts of this discussion? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand that, but there's no better alternative short of manual notification. If you bring the RM here, it automatically pops up at the dab page. If you bring it at the dab page, it automatically pops up here. Since no other pages are directly affected, it won't pop up anywhere else without manual notification. But I'd also note that from what I can tell, most of the participants in the previous RM are not in WPMadonna. Dohn joe (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Just because one isn't a registered member of WP:Madonna doesn't mean they wouldn't have a vested interest. A lot of the comments in the above RfC prove that. I thought from the get-go that a Move Review was the better option. GeoffreyT2000 thought otherwise. Colour me neglectful for not being more forceful trying to be diplomatic. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I would've thought the two best options would be to re-open last month's RM, or go for the move review. And really, since it's been three weeks, move review makes the most sense. Dohn joe (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. Where a discussion takes place affects who sees it. In the previous discussion if the discussion had been on Talk:Rebel Heart which was then the dab Talk page, then the dual effect of pagewatch and project alerts bot would not have called in editors attached to only one of the articles affected. No doubt in good faith but it technically stacks RMs to have the discussion on the Madonna album page rather than on the dab. A similar example was just seen on Talk:Superliner (railcar) where having the RM on the chosen topic pulled in rail editors not shipping editors. That's just how alerts work. It doesn't always benefit the project. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, I see the issue, but your solution doesn't fix it. If the previous RM had been posted on the dab page, the RM notice still would only have been posted there and the Madonna album page, right? Dohn joe (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is other Wikipedia's policies that support the article's title now. Just to clarify I was this user that "accused" the other one with: "Madonna related works always have a social/cultural impact" because the statement was: "difficult to claim that for an album with a highly generic title". My question remain if is there a "cultural form/term" in Rebel Heart (disambiguation)? I don't see that, just others articles about "entertainment" even if are related with a War or something. I will assume good faith, but the user that opened this discussion "was active" during previous request. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Can we put an end to this discussion? Let's give the experiment one year or so and see whether people are satisfied. The rushed RM is unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An attempted move review prompted me to change my comments. The whole tirade (or situation) is.... mind-boggling and intense to handle. Since speedy close is out of option, I don't think I can control the crowd. I see that the community is divided over the "Rebel Heart" thing, and... I'm almost out of comments to explain this. I'll just... *sigh*. --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebel_Heart/Archive_2&oldid=1190243011"