Jump to content

Talk:I Became Birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Album

[edit]

Some quotes from the sources on this article. “On their bracing first official LP I Became Birds,”

”Home Is Where’s debut album I Became Birds”

“Their debut album, I Became Birds”

”To be clear, it’s an album, not an EP, despite its relatively brief 18-minute runtime. “We militantly adhere to Sum 41’s philosophy of all killer, no filler,” jokes MacDonald.”

“The band’s second LP The Whaler”

“Home Is Where’s official debut LP”

just because you personally feel it is an EP does not make it an EP SenkiZesshou (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never wrote that. I added a source stating that it's an EP and you removed it. Why did you do that? I will revert to before the dispute. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

@CureComet: Please use this space to add relevant sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources stating that it's an EP:
Sources describing it as a "record":
Sources calling it a "mini-album":
Note that "mini-album" has been considered equivalent to an EP in many discussions at WT:ALBUM: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_38#"Mini_Album"_as_something_other_than_EP_or_Studio, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_29#Chronology, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_67#Album_vs_EP, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_23#Singles_2, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_24#EP_formatting, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_58#"Single_Album". Additionally, extended play is categorized on Wikipedia as an album type and Category:EPs is under Category:Albums.
I think we can both agree that many reputable sources call this an EP. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so clearly sources can’t agree, but there is an interview with the band linked in the article that specifically goes out of its way to mention that it’s “not an EP”. that’s the most direct source we’re gonna get. also, none of those sources you listed were ever used in the article. every source in the article calls it an album SenkiZesshou (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your sources to not mean more than my sources. we can also agree that many reputable sources call this an album. the one's closest to the band specifically call this an LP. SenkiZesshou (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone personally feels it's an LP doesn't make it an LP, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the second sentence of the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please read the third sentence of the article SenkiZesshou (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i can also add shit in the article, pretend it's been there the whole time, and then use it as my proof that i'm right LOL SenkiZesshou (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pretend it's been there the whole time. I'm pointing out how you're not paying attention or trying to be collaborative and just ignore questions that you don't like. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: This user is not interested in discussing and is not being serious. Are you motivated to mediate here or otherwise guide us thru the dispute resolution process? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm very interested in discussing. you've provided no real argument as to why it should be an EP other than you think it should be based on the length. the sources are split 50/50. SenkiZesshou (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you reliable sources that say so and I asked you several questions that you ignored. You're not engaging in good faith or possibly even not reading what I write at all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i have also given you plenty of reliable sources that say it's an album. the only question you have asked me in this entire exchange is "why did you do that" which is because every source in the article called it an album. you are not engaging in good faith, and ignoring anything that says you might be incorrect. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because someone personally feels it's an LP doesn't make it an LP, correct?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i have plenty of sources that say it is an LP, same as you do with EP. you seem to feel that your sources and opinions are simply more important than mine, which means this argument has gone nowhere. you are possibly even not reading what I write at all. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am and you're just being antagonistic. It also seems like you feel that your sources and opinions are simply more important than mine. When this happens, we don't resort to constantly reverting and making up false accusations against others or inserting irrelevant content into articles. Instead, we use the dispute resolution process, which is something you still haven't read and have no interest in actually trying to follow. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if i'm being antagonistic than so are you. i have told you my argument is that the band themselves specifically and consistent;y cite this as an album and not an EP, and interviews with the band point it as such. your argument is that a random exclaim! editor called it an EP, and it's short, therefore it's an EP. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i also have more sources calling it an album than you do calling it an EP. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution or WP:BRD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you want me to read on the first one because that doesn't link to any information. also, per the last one, we are discussing! SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you wouldn't call Unsilent Death an EP just because it's short, and this is considerably longer than that. i don't get why length plays a factor here SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read extended play? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, this album doesn't seem like it would fit the classifications on there SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That answers your question about length, which is a common criterion for determining an EP. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In the United Kingdom, the Official Chart Company defines a boundary between EP and album classification at 25 minutes of maximum length and no more than four tracks". this has 6 tracks, which i think means they would classify this as an album. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the several other parts of the article that mention length or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly are you asking me to read here? "On the other hand, The Recording Academy's rules for Grammy Awards state that any release with five or more different songs and a running time of over 15 minutes is considered an album, with no mention of EPs." that would classify this as an album.
"The Recording Industry Association of America, the organization that declares releases "gold" or "platinum" based on numbers of sales, defines an EP as containing three to five songs or under 30 minutes." that would classify this as an EP, but it would also classify Unsilent Death as an EP, which it isn't. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for instance. I suggested that you could read the article and see how this would qualify as an EP. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
two of the three methods in that article classify it as an album. SenkiZesshou (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I wrote above, EPs are albums. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok so going by your logic, one says EP. one specifically says not EP. one is inconclusive. we are no closer to solving this. SenkiZesshou (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like we need to discuss in the article text how some sources describe it as an EP and others call it an LP. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
looking through the article text.
three specifically say an LP, not an EP (source 1, 2, 6).
one says "album" but notes that it is their debut, which it would not be if it was an EP as they released one in 2019 (source 4)
one does not say one way or the other (source 5)
one (the one you added to prove your point, that was not there when I made my initial album edit) says it is an EP (source 3). SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4 is WP:OR. Have you read that page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't add that source to the article so i don't know what the problem is. are you upset that it's a top 30 albums list? because so is source 3. the one you added. SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. As far as I know, you have not read any guideline or policy pages in five years and have ignorance of them until I direct you to them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
are you here to have an actual discussion about this or are you here to just call me an idiot repeatedly? SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never once called you an idiot. I'm responding to what you wrote. You still did not answer my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you seem completely unwilling to have any form of good faith discussion on this issue and are instead repeatedly linking me wikipedia pages and calling me ignorant for not having read them. SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you know more about the inner workings of wikipedia than i do. we might be able to get somewhere if you discussed this with me and were willing to actually talk about these instead of linking me a page and repeatedly going HAVE YOU READ IT? HAVE YOU READ IT? over and over SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you ignorant and only mentioned you being ignorant of that page. You also still have not answered my question. I tried posting to your talk page and you chose to ignore it and continue reverting here. An admin got involved asking you to stop with that and you have still not engaged here in good faith trying to resolve things and still insist on reverting to your preferred version of the article, ignoring what I write and brushing it off as "my opinion" when I provide reliable sources. I would actually like an answer to my question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i've looked over the page you want me to look over. i still don't know what the problem is in relation to source 4. that is why i asked you to explain it to me. SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you specifically said i am ignorant of every guideline and policy page
i am trying to discuss this. linking me policy pages is clearly not doing anything in this discussion
i am also providing reliable sources. you are even more guilty of ignoring as they were already in the article before i ever edited it. i left your source in the article anyways!
SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"you specifically said i am ignorant of every guideline and policy page" No I didn't. Please stop writing these untrue things. I can't tell if you're lying or just paying no attention at all, but I did not write that nor did I ever write that you were an "idiot" or ever use that word. These kind of untruths make it hard for me to assume good faith. " linking me policy pages is clearly not doing anything in this discussion" It's hard to know what you do and don't know, hence I have to assume that you don't know about our policies and guidelines. You object to me linking them but you also object when I assume you're ignorant of them: which one is it? Do you want me to assume you know the rules and are just breaking them or that you don't know the rules and try to discuss the basis of them? "i left your source in the article anyways!" Except when you removed sources I added. The problem with 4 is the inference that you made: that is original research. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you just posted "As far as I know, you have not read any guideline or policy pages in five years and have ignorance of them" what the hell are you talking about.
"Except when you removed sources I added"
the source is literally still in the article
"The problem with 4 is the inference that you made: that is original research."
ok. source 3 is original research as well then, correct? that's the source you're going off of to call it an EP. should i edit the page to remove both? SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"what the hell are you talking about." You wrote that you couldn't have previously read about the dispute resolution process because I hadn't linked it yet. I am responding to what you wrote: "no i haven't, because you haven't linked them to me until right now." What do you want me to take from that? "the source is literally still in the article" No, it's not: you removed the Uproxx source I provided. Again, I am begging you to stop writing things that aren't true. Can you please do that? "source 3 is original research as well then, correct?" No, not at all: citing sources and reproducing what they say is the exact opposite of original research. What in the world are you talking about? Have you read WP:V? This is a core content policy, so I'm hopeful you have, but I have no clue how you're going to respond to me asking, since you write that citing sources is original research. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok we're not talking about the same thing. i'm talking about your exclaim! source that is still in the article.
i thought you were telling me that it's original research because it's a top 30 albums article? which source 3 also is? what are you trying to tell me about source 4. please tell me. what makes it original research??? i have been trying to get an answer and you do not seem interested in telling me SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop this frantic spate of posting the same thing over and over again. I answered your complaint below. Please just calm down and stop this break-neck editing, such as what began here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=I_Became_Birds&diff=1161354141&oldid=1161292680 or posting multiple comments over and over again, multiple times in a minute. I've asked you numerous times if you are going to revert yourself per BRD which reads in part "you must not restore your bold edit". I am asking you one more time: are you going to revert yourself, or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i edited something, realized, i misunderstood you, and reverted it SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CureComet: "I am asking you one more time: are you going to revert yourself, or not?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am trying to compromise with you further down here can you please answer that so we can get an ending to this stupid ass argument SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I am asking you one more time: are you going to revert yourself, or not?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know many of the policies! you do! that's why i'm asking you to help explain them to me instead of just giving me a link and hoping i find the right section, and complaining when i don't SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not complaining that you don't know them, but I am surprised that you've been here for five years and aren't familiar with them. I'm happy to explain them, but again, I'm having a hard time telling if you're acting in good faith, as you ignore parts of these pages or seem to not want to engage in any structured discussion. You ignore questions, write things that aren't true, take things as personal attacks, and are still refusing to revert yourself per BRD and being collaborative. You seem to want to interject as soon as possible whatever edits you think need to be made instantly and call what I write my opinion no matter how many reliable sources I provide. And you also just straight up ignored me posting to your talk. Do you not understand how that makes it difficult to communicate with you? Also, splitting this thread by posting four comments in two minutes over and over again rapid-fire is not helping. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You ignore questions"
i have been trying to ask you about original research for how many messages now? and you haven't answered
"write things that aren't true" we are talking about a different thing
"take things as personal attacks" you are personally attacking me
"you also just straight up ignored me posting to your talk. " you posted to my talk about me to post on this page. which i did??? why are you writing things that aren't true SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer you: "The problem with 4 is the inference that you made: that is original research." The issue isn't the source itself being original research, it's that you wrote, "The source says [x] and really that means [y]". You are interpreting what it means instead of reproducing what it says. "you are personally attacking me" I did not make any personal attacks. Again, your claim that I called you an "idiot" is just not true. Call that a lie if you want, call it... an honest mistake? I never wrote that. "why are you writing things that aren't true" You did ignore what I wrote on your talk page and only bothered to post to talk here after reverting again and never having read the dispute resolution process. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i see what you're saying now. i thought you were calling the entire article original research because it was a list, and when you said "the problem is the inference you made", i thought you were saying that meant i was correct. which led to me thinking #3 would be too as it is also a list. SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one does link to information, such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You again, still haven't answered my question. Have you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Have you read WP:BRD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no i haven't, because you haven't linked them to me until right now. i am reading them SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
y'know for someone who really wants to preach conflict resolution you seem to not be following a lot of the core principles on this page. and i will fully admit i haven't been either, but at least I didn't know the page existed. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so are you going to abide by WP:BRD or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, again, just read it now. SenkiZesshou (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm waiting. Please do so. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CureComet: I'm still waiting for you to do what you said you would do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns"
did i not do that? SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I am asking you to revert yourself as you said you would per BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i did not ever say i would do that. i seem to have a better understanding of your concerns and attempted a new edit SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you did not read BRD or you lied to me. BRD explicitly says "you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." Are you going to revert yourself or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
have we not also started a larger dispute resolution process? i thought you were trying to SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
have you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? you seem to be resorting to a lot of ad hominem attacks, which that page specifically says you should aim higher than SenkiZesshou (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Yes. Please give an example of an ad hominem attack. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CureComet: "Please give an example of an ad hominem attack". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems you did not read BRD or you lied to me."
i did read the page. you have a different understanding of it than i do. i did not lie to you, that feels like an attack on the authority of the writer SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." Are you going to revert yourself or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chelosky, Danielle (2023-05-03). "All The Best New Indie Music From This Week". Indie Mix Tape. Uproxx.

can we please talk about the actual album/ep thing for the love of god

[edit]

look man this has gone on for like an hour now and all you've done is talk about me as an editor and never actually discuss this page with me can we talk about the page and lay out arguments or whatever SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here is my argument. 4 of the 6 sources in the article call it an album. 3 of which specifically call it an LP and one goes out of it's way to insist it is NOT an EP. the band, throughout numerous interviews, statements, and their own bandcamp, have said that it is an LP, and specifically not an EP. going out on google, i have been able to find many other sources that say it's an LP that is why i believe the page should say LP. what is your argument @Koavf SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is my argument? I have reliable sources calling it an EP: I started this discussion so that we could talk about them. Have you not looked at them? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. i also have reliable sources calling this an album. where can we go from here? SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. I already told you this: "It's almost like we need to discuss in the article text how some sources describe it as an EP and others call it an LP." It's so exhausting when you don't pay attention to what I write and ignore the effort I put into engaging with you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i misinterpreted that as reading what the sources in the article said to find an answer. you think an EP still counts as an album. would you be opposed to just leaving it as "2021 album by" and then talking about the ep/album thing later in the article SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"you think an EP still counts as an album" Yes, we consider EPs to be albums here, as I've already outlined above. "would you be opposed to just leaving it as '2021 album by' and then talking about the ep/album thing later in the article" How about "2021 release by..." and then having a section about recording and release that includes discussion of how it's categorized by certain outlets? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is perfectly fine SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
amazing what can get done when we aren't arguing over whether or not i read a policy page SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or when you actually read the things I write and respond to them. I wrote this a long time ago and you didn't bother reading or engaging with it. As I suggested above, instead of frantically responding the second you see something, it would probably be better to actually read it, think about it, and then respond to it. We could save ourselves a lot of trouble that way. As I have asked you probably a dozen times now: "I am asking you one more time: are you going to revert yourself, or not?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i already got rid of what's causing the argument. it's changed to "release". do you want me to revert and then revert back to how it is now?
"I wrote this a long time ago and you didn't bother reading or engaging with it." please show me where i'm genuinely interested. just using "release" was never brought up anywhere in this. SenkiZesshou (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show you where you ignored me? I've asked the same yes or no question a half-dozen times and you won't answer it, including in your last post: "I am asking you one more time: are you going to revert yourself, or not?" Is this some kind of joke? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Became_Birds&oldid=1207682863"