Talk:Hidden track

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives Archive 1

Contents 1 Original research problems 2 Cite Revision Of Sorts 3 Opinion of Cite 4 Reasoning

[edit] Original research problems

References have been requested for this article for over half a year now, and many of the sections are comprised entirely of original research. Starting tomorrow I will begin removing some of the non-verifiable content. We owe it to our readers to do better than this. (jarbarf) 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it only *said* citation needed in 3 places. You want citations, mark where you want them. I'll note that I found the cite for why the ramones track was removed from the original album in under 5 minutes searching. The other call for cite is over the Catch 22 issue, which also gets mentioned on the Dinosaur Sounds page (it's also not cited there, but it's written better). The article is definitely heavy on the examples rather than discussion, but everything that I've found actually seems verifiable. Please refer to things as 'unverified content', not non-verifiable, if the issue is just that you don't want to go verify it.Thespian 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a version in which all unverified content is marked: [1]. I also reverted myself after adding them, as there are so many that they disrupt the article. Still, you and others can use them as a basis for finding citations for the statements in the article. Also, please understand that the burden of finding citations is in general on the one who wants to keep that particular information.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. But mostly what I do is munch around and cite or remove stuff, and occasionally edit when I find something that is similar in intent/content to what is there, but can be cited; if people who *want* more citations don't mark 'hey, I think that needs more backing,' on the article, I'm not going to notice where they want citations. In point, I don't want to keep *any* particular information in wikipedia, and I think that removing or keeping info based on what people *want* is actually going to screw NPOV (which is why I do a lot of cites for things I don't care about, like hidden tracks and Michael Landon)

Now, that said, what do you want for an citation, when the methods mentions Methods xxxxxx, which does this, and is used on Some Album Name'? Do you want a reference to each one of those types? Very few exist, for things like say, the style of leaving a long silent space in between the last track and the hidden one (as on Dookie or Jagged Little Pill). Reviews will, if anything, just say, 'the hidden track', without mentioning the technical implementation of it. So What exactly is it you think this needs for a citation? It'll wind up with an awfully long cite list that just repeats the article, I suspectThespian 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also just want to note that every time I've followed the link to the album in question, there's been a full thing on the hidden track there. So by most wikipedia standards (links to an article with more information on the album in question), the call for cites (if more are needed) should be being made in those individual articles, and not in this article, which has no need to provide citations for the very existance of the tracks in question. Some of the more speculative stuff certainly needs to be sourced, but it would actually be silly to cite this to the extent you seem to think it merits.Thespian 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with you. Since the information is present in both articles, the references should be present in both articles. There is nothing wrong with long lists of citations, there are many articles with over 50 references and it is what we should have for more articles. This article has a long section on methods for hidden tracks, so that section should be thoroughly referenced, with proper references. That means that citations should be found that actually describe the methods, not just links to reviews talking about one "hidden track", without explaining the technical implementation. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked what you claimed (a "full thing" in many of the albums' articles), for the methods section:

• London Calling: No mention that there is a hidden track, only a "a last minute addition", unsourced
• Dookie: No "full thing", all that it says is Contains the hidden track "All By Myself" (Tré Cool), unsourced
• Songs in the Key of X: Short mention, not more info then here, unsourced
• Factory Showroom: Short mention, unsourced
• The data track method does not even link to an example album
• Not So Tough Now: No "full thing", all that it says is Secret Track, unsourced
• Kerosene Hat: Short mention, unsourced
• Broken: Short mention, unsourced
• Cry Baby Cry: No mention that there is a hidden track, only that the track also includes a very short unrelated song
• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: No mention that there is a hidden track

All in all, there appears to be little to no support for many statements here when looking at the full articles for the albums. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite Revision Of Sorts

I have just added links directly to a dozen or so songs at Hidden Songs that mention how to find the songs (in ways that line up with the methods, even when they don't directly confirm the method). For the record, I don't actually care about the subject one way or another; I was here because as 'payment' for my use of any entry, I try to clear up one 'citation needed' tag when I use Wikipedia, and it does bother me to see people confusing 'original research' and 'unattributed' (the one is not proof of the other). At this time, I have no real interest in really following up on this; I'll check back later when I find I have nothing else to do. If you're reading this, and thus actually care about the article enough to be reading the talk pages, maybe you could do a cite or two yourself.Thespian 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those links, I suppose that website it the best we have for now with regard to referencing, I agree with that (and will add some references soon). But with regard to the difference between original research and 'unattributed', I again disagree. If someone writes an article about hidden tracks without using any references, but compiling the article from his own knowledge and CD collection, that is original research. The fact that later references can be added that confirm the article make it no less original research. Currently, however, wikipedia no longer considers such an article original research, although technically it still is. If someone writes an article about hidden tracks, using but not attributing external sources, then it is NOT original research. Unfortunately, these two types of articles often cannot be distinguished from each other.

So in summary, although you are right that 'original research' is different from 'unattributed', the reverse is also not true. The fact that something later can be referenced, doesn't mean it was not original research to begin with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Excepting that you have no proof that it was all from someone's own knowledge and cd collection, and considering that I found a number of things mentioned on Hidden Songs there that, while not being word for word the same, expressed the same things indicates to me that it wasn't done properly, but that it wasn't original research - merely a case that it was done for two or three of the first entries and so people assumed that that was what they could follow with. My statement was not that it can't be, but that people seem to be "confusing 'original research' and 'unattributed'". There's been a LOT of people of late wandering around who never seem to contribute anything to the site except to walk around with a big yellow marker adding 'citation needed' (and frequently in places where its completely unneeded). I wouldn't mind it so much if (unlike here), I didn't spend piles of time adding cites that were available in seconds on Google to Wiki articles where people have been threatening to delete things in the :Talk pages. Deleting always weakens an article, and there's been so much of it going on on citations that would have taken less time to find than for the people threatening 'cite this or I'll start deleting!' took, that its really starting to bother me.

Ok. This was an obscure place to get that off my chest. :-) Thespian 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion of Cite

This is from the Tool FAQ, Question E11:

E11. Hey, my vinyl copy of "Opiate" doesn't have the hidden song!

This was thought to be some terrible oversight until someone figured this out:

"If you'll notice, the secret song on the Opiate album appears not to be on the Opiate vinyl. I was listening quickly to the vinyl one day, lifting the needle from song to song when suddenly I noticed the secret song ... during Cold & Ugly! It just so happens that the vinyl was specially made so that depending on where the needle falls, you will hear either Cold & Ugly or the secret song ... once the secret song finished, there will be silence until the needle goes back onto the right track .. you will then hear Jerk-Off."

Does that provide a clear enough description of the results of of double-grooving (while it doesn't refer to it as such) for this particular EP? It's not great, as it more describes results, but the results are consistant with the method (which is to say, the album is double grooved, and depending which groove you're in, you'll get a different song, just so you don't need to go find the part of the article I'm referring to) - Thespian 09:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That reference sounds fine to me, I've added it to the article. I've also added a couple of book references, found via Google Books. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning

I'm thinking of either scrapping the Reasoning section or looking for stuff that's more readily cited; I can find things like reviewers saying 'It makes sense that Horse is a hidden track, as it's so different from the rest of the album.' but nothing from the actual band themselves. While the information is no doubt out there, rather than backing this up, it might just be easier to find things like Alanis M's many interviews where she discusses why "Your House" is hidden, etc.

I've just added some more references and removed all that remained unsourced from the reasoning section (for which I could not find references anywhere). The only section that remains to be sourced is the "titles" section. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)