Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
To-do list for Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Become a Featured Article!
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Archives

  • Archive 1: October 5, 2004–November 27, 2004
  • Archive 2: November 27, 2004–November 28, 2004
  • Archive 3: November 28, 2004–December 8, 2004
  • Archive 4: December 9, 2004–December 29, 2004
  • Archive 5: December 29, 2004–January 13, 2005
  • Archive 6: January 14, 2005–February 7, 2005


[edit] Controversial message board postings

Shouldn't some variation of this bit from Ashlee Simpson -- preferably condensed -- be included under "Promotion and Marketing" section?:

Ashlee Simpson's marketing campaign has been accused of astroturfing on
various websites. A post on Metafilter claims that the marketing company
posted under the user name "mandyc19" with the text 
 
 I just read about Ashlee in us weekly. Those guys at the football game were
 total jerks. She said she wishes the critics will pick on someone else and i 
 agree. Do you think MTV is gonna play the boo on her show? It's on after
 Newlyweds again right? I hope they let her tell her side!
 
 Mandy

This exact text was posted on over three hundred different music-related forums [1].

No. The only article for which that would be an appropriately detailed level of content would be a subarticle on publicity and promotion, but that failed VfD. There's no way a few message board posts deserve inclusion when people have been deleting information about the vastly more notable NYT and Village Voice critical appraisals. Everyking 11:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This is another important scandal in a career that has been defined primarily in terms of public scandals. 68.118.61.219 13:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I had to laugh at Everyking talking about "an appropriately detailed level of content." And "few" = "over three hundred"?
So, short form:
"In February 2004, a post on Metafilter claimed that a PR firm working for Ashlee Simpson was astroturfing, citing a identical pro-Ashlee message under the user name "mandyc19" that was posted on over three hundred different music-related forums [2]."
Thoughts?
By the way, Google counts 6,360 hits for "mandyc19". I skimmed through them, and couldn't find a single one that wasn't either that exact text quoted above or something commenting on it. I even found a reference on G4TechTV's "Screen Savers" program. --Calton 13:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's still far less notable than all that stuff that was removed before. Let's talk about restoring that, and then we can consider adding this. Everyking 13:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The removed stuff was already considered, which is why it's gone. This is a separate issue, and you don't get to set the conditions of the debate. Anyone else have an opinion? I am loathe to practice Everyking's act-unilaterally-unless-someone-stops-me method. --Calton 02:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't really care either way, but if we're going to place this somewhere, it might make more sense on Ashlee Simpson instead. Johnleemk | Talk 06:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True, the product that "mandyc19" was pushing was Ashlee Simpson in general, not the album specifically. And it already is mentioned in the Ashlee Simpson article.
On the other hand, this article does have "Promotion and Marketing" section, which, since this is a PR gimmick we're talking about, arguably fits there, too. On the other other hand, it occurs to me that my phrasing above doesn't really relate it to PR/marketing. So, does
"Ashlee Simpson's promoters have also been accused of using the promotional technique known as astroturfing; that is, trying to engineer the impression of spontaneous fan reactions. In February 2004, a post on Metafilter cited identical pro-Ashlee messages (under the user name "mandyc19") posted on over three hundred different music-related forums [3]."
Fits? Gives coverage to a new controversy in a way that balances the relentlessly upbeat tone of the existing section. --Calton 01:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As you point out, this really has nothing to do with the album. It has something to do with Internet discussion regarding Ashlee, and by extension it has something to do with Ashlee, and with the Orange Bowl incident. It would take a big leap to justify including a mention of that here. Everyking 01:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


No, I pointed out that IT HAS TO DO WITH MARKETING. As in MARKETING AND PROMOTION. Which is the title of a section IN THIS ARTICLE. The link is arguably peripheral but real, so stop your self-serving twisting of my words. The problem with trying to be fair with you is that you seem perfectly unwilling to return the favor. It's also astonishing how every sub-trivial detail about your idol is important information -- unless it's negative. Now, does someone possessing some shred of perspective and/or objectivity want to put forth an opinion? --Calton 01:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The posting only mentions Ashlee and her show, so it should only be mentioned in those articles, unless you've got some evidence of astroturfing for the album. --Carnildo 05:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ditto Carnildo. Calton's proposal still does not show how it has anything to do with the album. Johnleemk | Talk 08:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually it mentions her butchering of the song she sang at the Orange Bowl, too, but I take your point. Okay, I'm not entirely convinced, but consensus says "no", so it's toast. Does this go into the Ashlee Simpson Show article, then? --Calton 07:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems fine to me at Ashlee Simpson. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving?

Say, I'm getting the message,

WARNING: This page is 119 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing
the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not
approaching or in excess of 32KB.

Archive time? --Calton 13:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just move a bunch to Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive6. --Calton 02:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Data inclusion

Continuing where Everyking and I left off, I would only support the reinclusion of the charting data in full iff if a substantial portion of it was used in the article and not just haphazardly thrown in. For example, "Although Autobiography fell off the top 10 in week X, a month later it rebounded to Nth in the charts." And that has to be done with a substantial portion of the data; if you're going to extrapolate the album's popularity from the charting statistics as a whole, that can be done much more easily by giving its peak position, how long it stayed there, and the full length of the album's chart run. The inclusion of the data has to be justified. Otherwise it would be like throwing in a picture without a caption. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that peak chart positions are just about worth including. Any description of chart movements over time is complete overkill, and tells us almost nothing about the album. It's likely to be of interest only to hardcore fans. I also don't think the graph should be there. It's simply not interesting to the vast majority of readers to know the week by week chart movements of an album. No other albums, even acknowledged hugely influential classics, have this information (as far as I can tell). Worldtraveller 19:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you insist, we can keep going through the same routine forever. Personally, I'd rather compromise. Everyking 22:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd go for having the week by week table because it's more comprehensive than just a table having the peak values. CHALK

The sales figures are screwed up. The album went triple platinum (3 million copies) by Sept 2004, but only 2.5 million by the end of the year??? Smackfu

Yeah, it's right. I don't know the specifics of why the numbers are like that, but I've heard it's a distinction between units sold and units shipped. Everyking 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of reviews

I've trimmed the "reviews" paragraph down to the four reviews I think contribute the most to the article. Are any of the ones I removed are more significant than the ones I left? --Carnildo 06:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Village Voice and the New York Times are both more notable than All Music Guide, I would think. And RS was being mentioned twice - those should probably be consolidated. IGN isn't that notable, however, and can probably go, as can AMG if we're really trimming. That said, I didn't think the merged long paragraph was bad - I agree four paragraphs of reviews were kinda crazy, but I could deal with one long. Snowspinner 13:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Scratchpad

A scratchpad version of the article now exists at Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Temp. Radical editing is encouraged so that we can reach effective compromises there without futile revert wars here; hopefully this will be useful in addressing previous FAC objections. Everyking 07:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm tired of not being able to make changes to this article. Everything I do is either deleted or minimized, and I have no means to pressure anybody into editing collaboratively because I can't revert. Others can and do revert me, but I can't do the same, so effectively I have no influence over the article's content even though I wrote nearly all of it. It's really kind of disgusting. If one side can't revert, neither should the other—the fact that the ruling applies to me alone effectively made it arbitration over content. Therefore I ask those who are still reverting, and Carnildo in particular, to pledge not to revert anymore and opt for discussion instead. Everyking 09:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, no-one else is subject to an arbitration ruling here. I don't see why anyone should voluntarily subject themselves to the same restrictions placed on you because of your behaviour with these articles. Worldtraveller 22:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had an idea based on something I saw in another article: what if I created a subarticle, List of Ashlee Simpson television appearances (or something like that), and just made it a straight, simple, unwikified list of her television appearances? I think this strikes a healthy balance between providing the reader with information and at the same time steering clear of unnecessary trivia. Everyking 16:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's such a great idea because it sounds so specific, but that's just me. Are there any other celebrities with a simiar list of television appearances? If so, could you provide links to them for reference? Thanks. --Deathphoenix 17:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Has she really made enough notable television appearances to justify a full article on them? If not, then the only reason I won't list such an article on VfD is if someone else beats me to it. --Carnildo 20:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, by my definition all her TV appearances are notable, since they are seen by so many people. Everyking 21:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before, I've appeared on TV several times, been seen by millions of people. Lots of people watch TV - that doesn't make TV appearances inherently notable. Worldtraveller 22:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes it does, if the appearances have any kind of significance. Where's your article? Everyking 22:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This scratchpad shouldn't be in the article namespace, it should probably have gone in Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Temp. However, it's been sitting there for a month now without any edits at all being done, perhaps it should just be deleted instead. Is anyone still planning to do anything with it? Bryan 07:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you can move it if you want. Everyking 07:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If nothing's going to be done with it it should probably just be deleted, though (I take it it's just a copy of a particular version of the main article with no new material in it as yet). Are there any plans for actually using it for anything? Bryan 08:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The plan was to use it to work out our editing disputes there instead on the article itself. Unfortunately someone has decided to seek arbitration against me instead. Nevertheless, I hope the scratchpad comes in handy eventually. Everyking 08:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I moved it. Bryan 17:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The currently commented out credits for Harder Everyday (which I tentatively added before, but wasn't 100% sure of) are correct. Go ahead and make it display in the text. Everyking 23:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

Currently we have this chart in the article. It goes up to 30 weeks, which I think is a nice cut-off point. The problem with it, though, is that while it gives a good general impression of rising and falling trends, it's very difficult to read it for the specific numbers. Previously, we had a table in the article which gave the specific numbers, and I'd like to restore it. (Conceivably we could have that and the chart? Might be overkill) I'll note that in the months that have passed since the debate over this other comprehensive album articles have begun adopting tables like the one we used to have here. To me, this helps set a precedent that should make deciding this issue easier. Everyking 08:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] speculation removed

and may have caused "La La", promotion for which began in the U.S. in November 2004, to have fared more poorly on the charts than it otherwise would have

in reference to the orange bowl/snl incidents..... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I added that recently in an attempt to satisfy people seeking more negativity in the article. Oh well, doesn't bother me to see it go. Everyking 05:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

heh heh :). Well, the problem is that it wasn't sourced... if we could source it that would be awesome, because it makes that sentence read better too Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's left, source etc.

  1. "Better Off", described by People magazine... - only positive reviews quoted.
People magazine links points to ashleemedianet to a picture of ashlee simpson... I searched the few pages that were there but couldn't find the specific review page. Also scoured google for it, no go. The specific issue is mentioned in your userfied issue, EK.... perhaps we can requote this a bit for NPOV, or should we look for a seperate source?
  1. the most rapidly added song on radio - what does this mean?
This is a dead la times link... can we verify that it says this a quote something directly?

If you could help on the these that would be great, as I got the rest already.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll be damned, that People link doesn't work anymore...well, don't worry, it's got to be in there somewhere, I'll find it. Everyking 08:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I found it [4]. I think she may alter the links when she adds new pictures, changing the order around, which seems like an insane method of organization, but if so that would mean this link would be frequently changing. So perhaps we should just cite it like a print review and not give a link. I don't know. Everyking 08:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
And the LA Times link has the same problem too? Well, I'll hunt it down. Everyking 08:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Here. Thanks for pointing those out. Hopefully they won't change again. Everyking 08:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and by rapidly added they mean picked up spins most frequently, increased airplay. Everyking 08:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's great! And yeah I changed the template to note the date of the people magazine issue, and noted the full title of the LA Times article (no date). I tracked down the link for the geffen AOL press release too. Thanks! Looks like we can finish this up now :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A possible error?

In the U.S., Autobiography was 2004's biggest debut by a female artist - is this true? I read somewhere that Norah Jones' Feels Like Home sold over one million copies in its first week of U.S. release. Extraordinary Machine 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But that was Norah's second album. Everyking 21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I thought the "debut" part was referring to the album's debut on the charts. I've clarified the sentence a little. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unheard-of sales

The article says:

Geffen President Jordan Schur said of Ashlee's success: "It's unheard of in this business—even for a superstar—to sell this number of records,"

This needs to be deleted or commented upon, because it makes Simpson's management out to look like either morons or blatant liars. There have been at least 157 albums selling more than 8 million copies in the U.S. Has Jordan Schur really never heard of any of those? Tomasboij 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)