Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Promotion

I believe that the next step towards improving this article is to work on the "promotion" section. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this, if anyone has any to offer. Personally, what I think is lacking is a one paragraph overview that basically characterizes the album's promotion—the image associated with it, the reality show, maybe the degree of corporate muscle behind it, etc. But it's a difficult thing to write, to be sure of it being entirely accurate—not just broadly, but also in the more subtle aspects where things might be left somewhat open to interpretation—and NPOV. So I'm still thinking about how to craft a paragraph like that. But anyway, I envision a two paragraph section there: one that's a basic outline as described above, and another (well, it might take two) summarizing as briefly as possible the chronological release of the singles and the notable TV performances. Then I'd like to take the rest of the detail and split it off into a subarticle. What does everyone think about that? I know that Tony and maybe John didn't like my last subarticle, so I'd especially like to get their agreement to this proposal. I also hope we can concentrate our efforts on this one section, maybe work through it one sentence at a time, instead of doing massive rewrites that just produce conflict. Everyking 03:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the next step towards improving this article is to trim it massively and remove large amounts of trivial, non-encyclopaedic information which is only of interest to hard-core fans. Please stop reverting any changes you don't like, Everyking - yours is not the final word. You're making this article worse and worse. Worldtraveller 04:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Insults aside, could you identify what in the article you consider trivial and nonencyclopedic, so perhaps we can talk about it? Everyking 22:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well I am sorry if you perceived an insult in what I wrote - none was intended. I'm just trying to be honest. There have been plenty of suggestions of what should be changed about this article, and plenty of attempts to edit it according to what the broad concensus suggests, but you've ignored and reverted everything. It looks like it would be a waste of time for me to list my concerns as well, or edit the article at all, while you continue to revert people's well-intended editing with comments like ok, there was one useful change i found in there, but rv the rest, i don't like it. You should stop behaving like you have the final say on this article, and then it will improve, because many people can produce better work than one person alone - that's what this whole Wikipedia lark is about, no?
By the way I did really like your 'Astronomy-cruft' comment about the Cat's Eye Nebula article :) Worldtraveller 00:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It isn't like I have any greater say than anybody else. Now that I've moved out so much detail into subarticles, I'm not sure what's left to be considered trivial fancruft. I'd be open to considering anything if it was pointed out to me; I intend to nominate it on FAC again at some point down the road, and I'd like to have at least some people's objections addressed before I go ahead with that. Everyking 00:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My rewrite

Hopefully this thing will work out properly this time because I'm really sick of having to deal with all this, ahem, crap. I think the article's a tiny little bit lopsided in its POV, especially regarding the reviews; I tried to balance this by taking out one paragraph full of nothing but positive quotes from the Village Voice, but overall, there are noticeably more positive than negative quotes about the album. Anyway, please avoid blanket reverts. You urge me to discuss and then go ahead and revert without leaving a note on the talk. "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't very encouraging (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good example). One or two mistakes or bad wording don't give you licence to just destroy everything. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's like I didn't even write what I did above. Please avoid massive rewrites, let's concentrate on one section at a time and work gradually...and then you go making a massive rewrite. The offer still stands. Let's work gradually and discuss things individually. I'm not saying things have to meet with my approval beforehand. I'm just saying we should work gradually and concentrate on discussion. Everyking 17:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you're so eager to discuss, then I suppose you could start by explaining what was wrong with my changes. And I see no good reason to not rewrite; I'm just following community consensus since a lot of people on FAC and PR asked that the article be trimmed. Johnleemk | Talk 18:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You removed some info. Looking over the edit, I see now it was not quite as massive as it first appeared. I'll think about incorporating some of your changes back into the article. In any case, I really want us to focus on working on one part of the article at a time and reach a consensus about it, and then move on to another. I suggested we work on the promotion section that way, but if you like, we can start with the lead.

Your version:

Autobiography is the title of American singer Ashlee Simpson's debut album. It debuted at number one in sales upon its release in the United States by Geffen Records on July 20, 2004. The album, a mixture of pop and rock — its rock elements distinguishing Ashlee from her sister, Jessica Simpson, already a famous pop singer — includes "Pieces of Me", a hit single in many countries in mid to late 2004, as well as the follow-up singles "Shadow" and "La La". The process of making the album was recorded in Simpson's MTV reality show, The Ashlee Simpson Show.

My version:

Autobiography is the first album by the American singer Ashlee Simpson. It was released in the United States, where it debuted at number one in sales, by Geffen Records on July 20, 2004. The album is a mixture of pop and rock—its rock elements helping to set Ashlee apart from her sister, Jessica Simpson, who was already a famous pop singer—and includes "Pieces of Me", a hit in many countries in mid to late 2004, as well as the follow-up singles "Shadow" and "La La". The process of making the album was recorded in Simpson's MTV reality show, The Ashlee Simpson Show.

One difference that stands out is that you changed it to say "is the title of..." This isn't conventional, is it? We don't start bio articles like "John Forbes Kerry is the name of...", or anything like that, generally speaking. Your revised second sentence may constitute an improvement, it may be more clear, I'm not sure. You changed "helping to set her apart from her sister" to "distinguishing", which is less wordy, I'll grant, but I'd rather that it said "helping" in there somewhere. Also, at the beginning you use the word "debut" twice in quick succession, which I don't like. Everyking 18:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So your solution is to revert instead of fixing those problems? Johnleemk | Talk 19:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If there are problems, they can still be fixed, John. I'm getting tired of talking to myself and hearing my own echo. If you don't want to discuss matters, just drop it and let me continue my normal work. Everyking 00:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then why is your solution to the problems reverting? You err on the side of keeping your edits; I err on the side of deferring to others. That's why I haven't bothered to revert you and I don't revert edits I don't like to articles I had a heavy hand in writing just because I don't like them. Jgm in particular trimmed A Day in the Life and The Long and Winding Road, something I was not very happy about but did not revert. I had a vigorous argument with Drbalaji md on Coca-Cola, but reverted only edits without anything of value in them which were quite rare from him. Instead, I tried to incorporate his changes into the article. You seem more interested in preserving your work, assuming that just because it's been there for so long, it's better to err on its side than on the side of someone else's edit. I repeat: Blanket reverting an edit with good changes in it instead of fixing the bad changes is not a solution to any dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If an edit decreases the quality of an article, then you absolutely should revert. It's not some badge of pride to wear that you let bad edits stand. Everyking 04:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If an edit isn't outright vandalism or utterly destroys an article's formatting, reversion should be the last resort. Jimbo calls a revert "a slap in the face". I didn't make any drastic fuck-ups (although perhaps another editor would be a better judge), but thanks for the slap anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I incorporated what I thought was useful in the edit. It wasn't a blanket revert as you claim. Everyking 05:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is a blanket revert. More than 90% of my changes were reverted, and if anything, I find your version less informative. People who don't know much about the record industry might wonder how "Pieces of Me" was a hit before the album's release; calling it a hit single clarifies that. And just what was the error with the vocal backing track on SNL? Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I want to create a separate "promotion and publicity" article (suggestions for better phrasing?). This article will continue to grow quite substantially in the future, and I need more space before I can even start to address User:Sjc's FAC objection (it was Sjc, right?). So I would like it if everyone involved in this dispute would state their opinions on this and hopefully agree that they will vote to keep the subarticle if it gets listed on VfD. Tony hasn't been saying anything much on this lately, but he's a prime suspect for wanting to delete the subarticles, so an agreement from him to vote keep would be especially good to hear. Everyking 01:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just because you can't solve editing issues in the main article doesn't mean you offload the problem to other articles. That's getting seriously near fancruft and I would gladly vote to delete and/or merge & redirect. Singles are notable in their own right, but an article on promotion for an album? Johnleemk | Talk 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is it with you? The only problem to be solved is overcrowding. Now how am I supposed to "solve" that in the main article without simply deleting a bunch of valid content, which would be even worse than having a 50KB article? The way to solve is it to move it out to a subarticle, which is what I'm trying to do, so if you could just agree to it, that would be great. Everyking 04:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that much of the article is unencyclopedic fancruft. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, then. But I don't know what in the article you think is fancruft, because you haven't told me. You complained about the chart stuff, but that's fixed now. So what's left? If you told me, it might turn out that we actually agree, you know? Everyking 05:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The singles charting info should be moved. The promotion section could be condensed (instead of giving each appearance one sentence, chuck as many as you can into one sentence). And we don't need to know what songs Ashlee performed at each appearance; just say she performed tracks from the album at performances X, Y and Z in Europe or she performed a hit single at concerts F and G. Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See, John, we aren't so far apart, really. I could accept removing the singles chart data, since it's already in the singles articles as well as Autobiography sales and chart positions. But the problem is that having it seems to be standard for album articles, and I hate to break with convention... As for promotion, I think we basically agree there, too. It's just that I want to preserve the info elsewhere, whereas you seem to want to remove it without moving it anywhere else. But if you could just agree to vote keep on a subarticle, that problem would be resolved. Everyking 06:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's what external links are for. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a free resource; there's absolutely no reason to rely on external links, none of which are likely to survive for all that long in the scheme of things, in place of having the information here. I don't ever argue Wikipedia ought to be a knowledge base or whatever you deletionists are always saying, but I believe the promotion of a multiplatinum album across several countries is a notable subject and therefore warrants inclusion. Tell you what, John: we'll compromise. I'll remove the singles chart data if you agree to support a promotion subarticle. Is that fair? Everyking 08:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you create the subarticle, I will I vote delete if/when it gets to VfD. It's as simple as that. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where's the spirit of compromise? I offer to give a little, but you absolutely refuse to reciprocate. Is this why you prefer arbitration to plain discussion? Everyking 09:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have to have the final say on everything? I'll remove the singles chart data? It's like you're the only one who can make any decisions on this article's content. We don't need a promotion subarticle; there's enough fancruft that can be trimmed, and I don't see why an encyclopedia article needs to describe in agonising detail any particular promotional appearance. Johnleemk | Talk 09:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, John, you can remove the singles chart data. What, are you looking towards a degree in psychology someday? I offered a pretty simple and generous compromise: remove what you consider "fancruft" from this article, but preserve it in another article. And I even threw in that offer to remove the singles data as a bonus. But that's still not good enough. Well, if my compromises aren't good enough, I'd like to hear some of your ideas. Everyking 09:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
After taking a wikibreak, I have decided to bail out of this shitty controversy. If you want to continue this article's stagnation, it's none of my business. I hope I won't ever have to deal with this again, but if it comes to an RfC or worse, an RFAr, you can bet I'll be involved. I won't be the one to file those, though; I think I've wasted enough effort trying to deal with this business. Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, if all you want to do is threaten me with arbitration and not discuss anything despite all my best efforts, then all I can say is good riddance. Everyking 22:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion

I don't agree with what was effectively a wholesale reversion of my edits to the article. The only things you allowed to remain were rewords which didn't alter the article's POV, like my change of "but it gets" to "which is". Other changes actively removed POV from the article, like my change from "The Village Voice praised Simpson's singing, stating:" to "The Village Voice described Simpson's voice, stating that:". The following quote reads "Simpson can pack so much contradictory emotion into a single line—a single word—that the music can barely contain it," which can be interpreted as praise, but may not. If the reader wants to interpret it as praise, let them, rather than informing them of what is praise before they are allowed to make their own judgment. I don't engage in reverting, because it never works anyway, the other user will simply revert my revert anyway, so I won't change the article any further. However, I think it should be said that any time an editor decides to give up on an article because of another user's actions, it displays a great failing on the part of one of the users, and in this case, it certainly isn't mine. - Vague | Rant 04:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say I kept a fair proportion of your changes. I'm always glad to have a fresh pair of eyes look the article over; sometimes they spot something I've been overlooking, and in your case you did catch some things. As for the VV, it certainly is praise, if you read the review, but if the point is important to you, I'll change it. Everyking 05:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I said, those were examples. I resent that I have to spell it out to you, but I suppose I shall.
Yours: Autobiography is the first album by the American singer Ashlee Simpson. It was released in the United States by Geffen Records on [[July 20, 2004, and debuted there at number one in sales.
Mine: Autobiography is the first album by the American singer Ashlee Simpson. It was released in the United States by Geffen Records on July 20, 2004, and debuted at number one.
You reverted that. Why? The "there" is simple redundancy. There is no purpose for it whatsoever. As for "in sales", it's unnecessary. What else could it have debuted at number one in, bananas? Sales is obvious, it doesn't need to be said.
The next change was mostly semantics, I don't mind really, but it's not as much Simpson's show as it is MTV's. She doesn't own it. MTV does.
The next edit clearly removed POV, and yet you reinserted it.
Yours: As she said just before the album's U.S. release:
Mine: Prior to the album's release, Simpson said:
Saying "as she said" is to agree with her. We're not here to agree with anyone. It's an encyclopedia.
I removed this:
Musically, the album incorporates both rock and pop elements, in notable contrast to the more strongly pop-oriented music of her sister Jessica.
That has already been stated in the intro. Why be redundant? It's probably the reason why this article is so ridiculously oversized. You put it back in.
The next part is simply horribly written. It begins with Critical reviews of Autobiography have been mixed, and yet what follows are a series of quotes which praise the album. Only in the next paragraph are the negative reviews. An intro to a paragraph should discuss the paragraph, not that paragraph and the next one after it.
As for your repeated linking of Jessica Simpson, you should be aware that one is not supposed to link the same thing multiple times. If absolutely necessary, one can link again later in the page, but how is this necessary?
Then you reverted my change from "[[suburb|suburban]]" to "[[suburb]]an". I have no idea what you're thinking doing that, the linking style you reverted to is plainly incorrect. In the same paragraph, you removed a link I placed to police. No idea why. You just removed it. Great.
The next part has me baffled. You appear to have misunderstood a quote.
Yours: The fifth track, "Love Makes the World Go Round", was described as "a smooth, clean, Top40 ready slice of generic pop" by IGN in its review. People magazine, however, said that Simpson "succumbs to cliché" on this song.
Mine: The fifth track, "Love Makes the World Go Round", was described as "a smooth, clean, Top40 ready slice of generic pop" by IGN in its review, and People magazine said that Simpson "succumbs to cliché" on this song.
The IGN quote is negative, just as the People quote is negative. You really think "generic pop" is a compliment? That's incredible. I don't know how anyone could possibly consider it a compliment. Here, you have reverted to a version where a negative quote is treated as a positive one, and even compared to a negative quote.
You do the same again in the next reversion of my edit.
Yours: "Better Off", the album's sixth track, was described by People magazine as a "bubbly" song that "should have Hilary Duff worried". However, IGN, in its review of the album, called it a "slow-to-mid-tempo shuffle that actually features some poignant imagery", but "falls victim to the run-of-the-mill production and eventually simplistic lyrics."
Mine: "Better Off", the album's sixth track, was described by People as a "bubbly" song that "should have Hilary Duff worried". IGN called it a "slow-to-mid-tempo shuffle that actually features some poignant imagery", but which "falls victim to the run-of-the-mill production and eventually simplistic lyrics."
Both of the quotes are positive. You're saying "however" as if they're complete opposites. The third quote could perhaps be preceded by a "however", at most.
I removed some redundancy in the next section, which you replaced, fine, I won't go over that again. But then you replaced the incredibly POV word "humorously". I don't find it funny. Steven Hawking's football boots don't find it funny. Maybe you do, but you are POV, everyone is POV, that's why we try to stop ourselves. But I remove your POV, and you are either blind to it or prefer to actually leave POV in the article.
The next paragraph begins with "it", which puts a lot of stress on the word. It literally has to carry the sentence. I replaced it with the song title, but no, you reverted it. Bad writing seems to be your preference.
The next thing you did, I also do not understand.
Yours: "You can't push a river, you can't make me fall / but you can make me unreachable," she sings.
Mine: "You can't push a river, you can't make me fall / but you can make me unreachable."
How is "she sings" necessary? It makes it sound like a fan site, and doesn't add anything. Are people going to be mistaken and think that someone else sings that line? No, they're not stupid. "She sings" would be fine on your home page, but keep it off Wikipedia.
Next you remove my links to minute and second. No reasoning I can see, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Now, you side with Simpson, and this introduce POV.
Yours: Perhaps the most notable of Simpson's 2004 televised performances came when she appeared on Saturday Night Live as a musical guest on the night of October 23/24, and was scheduled to perform "Pieces of Me" and then "Autobiography". She was unable to perform the second of these songs due to an embarrassing error with a vocal backing track, which she needed because her voice was weak that night due to acid reflux (a condition which had also featured on The Ashlee Simpson Show).
Mine: Perhaps the best known of Simpson's 2004 televised performances came when she appeared on Saturday Night Live as a musical guest on the night of October 23/24, and was scheduled to perform "Pieces of Me" and then "Autobiography". She was unable to perform the second of these songs due to an error with a vocal backing track, which was said to be needed because her voice was weak that night due to acid reflux (a condition which had also featured on The Ashlee Simpson Show).
Whether it is "most notable" is not for you or anyone else to say. But the fact that it is best known is simply undebatable. And as for the conclusive statement that she needed the voice track because of acid reflux: proof, please? Mine is more accurate. It gives the reason stated, rather than giving the reason. Even if someone were quoted as saying it, it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just say "This is the facts because Ashlee Simpson said it". There is full motive for not being honest here, and while I don't know which way is true, I think that no one else does, either. No one can prove it either way, and the article should reflect this.
The next (the/their) is semantics, mine is better English, but we've covered bad writing already. Then I added the word "also", which you removed. Mine clarified that we were still talking about the same episode. Yours is unclear.
I don't know how you can claim that you kept a fair amount of my changes in the article. I just listed the things you didn't keep, and on a cursory glance through the diffs, you kept four minor changes. I don't know what you consider "fair" about that, but perhaps you'd like to specify that yourself.
Vague | Rant 06:15, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

All right, all right, you make some good points. I'll go through the article and change some things accordingly. The problem with a lot of it was that a paragraph placement got moved and therefore a whole bunch of paragraphs were red, making it difficult for me to determine what was changed. So I erred on the side of caution and restored my version. But with most of what you point out, I agree with you. I think Jessica's only linked once; she was linked twice, but you fixed that, and then I kept your fix. I think I remember doing that. I also kept your change of "most notable" to "best known". As for the "Love Makes the World Go Round" issue, the quote seems positive to me. "Smooth", "clean", "top40 ready"...all that sounds positive to me. "Generic pop" obviously doesn't. So I think it's mixed, and I'll change that accordingly. Everyking 07:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and as for minutes and seconds, they're already linked in the infobox, and I feel that's more than enough. No need to overwikify. Everyking 07:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excuses

I can't believe this. "A paragraph placement got moved and therefore a whole bunch of paragraphs were red, making it difficult for me to determine what was changed. So I erred on the side of caution and restored my version" That is the most pathetic excuse for almost wholesale reversion of another person's edits that I have ever seen. If you can't be bothered to proof an edit, how dare you revert it. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christ almighty, I'm sorry I didn't spend quite as much time on it as I should have. You act like a revert is the crime of the century. Everyking 10:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your use of wholesale reverts on articles relating to Ashlee Simpson is damaging, in my opinion. I think you should step back for a few weeks and see what happens without your constantly squatting over the pot like this. You might be surprised at the quality of the work. Don't you ever want to see this article make FA? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure I do, Tony, and I'm confident it soon will be. It could get there sooner with your help, I believe. But what good would it do to exclude me from the editing? You said you hadn't even heard of Ashlee before, didn't you? I think we're better off working cooperatively. Everyking 11:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I won't edit this article again because it would be, as before, a complete and utter waste of time to try even a fraction of the kind of reformatting this article would need to bring it up to Wikipedia standard. You just revert it all. That is not cooperation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what way do you feel it falls short of Wikipedia standards? If you're not willing to edit yourself, if you'd explain your complaints to me perhaps I could fix them for you. Everyking 12:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be compressed. The quotes are too long and the over-faithful reproduction of every "I was like" and "um" from interviews and shows makes her look like an imbecile. There is too much devoted to lovingly cataloguing every single TV show performance of every single track. Just because something happened and there is abundant information about it doesn't mean that it is worth devoting a lot of space to. At the same time when people try to put really important things (like Autobiography staying in the top 2 for five weeks) into the top paragraph, don't remove them. That's where really important things belong.

Don't make a meal out of the obvious. Of course Autobiography is autobiographical ("According to Simpson, the songs on Autobiography are, as the title suggests, strongly autobiographical"). You don't need to treat this as speculation by Simpson, she knows. A strong statement ("Simpson says the album was inspired by 'what I have gone through in the past three years'...") would be good here.

There are too many quotes from rock media. Don't sweat it, don't even bother to attribute within the text when that would be intrusive. Summarise and put the source in the "External links" for those who want the skinny. Five paragraphs on the critical reception? Trim it to two. Trim it to one if you can. One sentence if you dare. Rolling Stone, NY Times and the Voice matter, the rest dont.

You don't need to laboriously describe banal detail. This, for instance:

In the video, which includes considerable symbolism, Simpson plays two different versions of herself, blonde and brunette, who live in separate "worlds" which exist side by side. The world of the blonde Ashlee appears happy and perfect, while the brunette Ashlee seems to have more negative feelings—at one point she shoves a bowl of cereal prepared by the blonde Ashlee off a kitchen table—but eventually it is revealed that the blonde Ashlee is not as happy as she seems. At the end of the video, shadows are seen symbolically leaving the brunette Ashlee.

Compare with this:

The video treats the Shadow theme as allegorical; Simpson plays both the light and the shadow, but there is a suggestion that the light is not as happy as she seems.

Anybody who wants more detail can, well, you know, watch the video.

Rinse and repeat, trim out what is not necessary. Don't be scared to be ruthless, you can always restore stuff if you change your mind. But don't just keep adding stuff until you've given the thing a serious pruning for relevance.

Of course this is what people have been telling you for weeks, so I'm not particularly hopeful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on quote trimming for a while; I've removed a lot of ums and you knows. One thing I'm uncertain about is whether um should be replaced by ... or just eliminated completely. I've been putting in ..., just because I live in fear of factual inaccuracy of the slightest kind.
You say not to make a meal out of the obvious; well, someone else added in that "according to Simpson" to the "strongly autobiographical" part. I had just written it as a plain statement of fact before. I thought the change was perhaps of questionable merit, but I could see some sense in it, so out of deference to the work of others I left it in. As you can see, your claims about my proprietorial attitude are greatly exaggerated. In fact, I often err on the side of favoring others' revisions.
I just plain disagree with you about the reviews/criticism, both due to theoretical reasons (I feel that detail is notable and relevant) and practical ones (people who read this article may very well be considering whether or not they want to invest a few dollars in the album, and an accurate, reasonably complete assessment of the album's critical reception helps greatly). I've even thought about creating a subarticle for that, so I can add more, but I've so far declined to do so because of the opposition I'd expect and because I'm uncertain how to implement it with the article's present format. (And also because the thought of having yet more to maintain, update and expand makes my head hurt.)
As for the "Shadow" video: well, I think that's useful info, but you must remember that this article was originally written at a time when the subarticles we now have didn't exist, so I was throwing in every detail that had any kind of significance. Now, there's somewhere else it can go, so I'd be open to summarizing that about the video a bit more, although I think your version is too radical in that regard. Everyking 14:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who put the rubbish in to start with, you have resisted practically every single attempt by other editors to change it to something better. The subarticles I regard as a huge error because they have only been created, every single one of them, because of your unwillingness to permit this article to be edited properly. The nonsense about "blonde Ashlee" and "brunette Ashlee" are amateurish, literal-minded and very wasteful of the reader's time. So she wears a wig to illustrate the symbolism, what else is she going to do, blackface? People who want to know whether to buy the album will be grateful if you pop the review links into "External links", but they'll be doubly grateful if you'll just say whether the main players gave it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. If they need more they won't rely on a Wikipedia summary of the reviews anyway, they'll use the links.

About your attempts to trim the verbal tics out of the quotes. You have repeatedly resisted attempts to trim the following monstrosity.

"I think that it's an album that's, like, very true to my emotion; I think that, you know, people like to hear when somebody's being real, and you can, like, tell, if you listen to an album, if they're being real or not..." ("

Here:

Simpson attributes the album's success to its emotional fidelity. People can tell if the singer is "being real or not" when they listen to an album, she says.

This isn't hard to do. If you would let someone do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By saying "edit the article properly", I guess you mean "delete a bunch of content without moving it anywhere". Everyking 23:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no. Does the above edit example really look like that to you? Does the suggestion of putting the review links under "External links" really sound like removing "a bunch of content" to you?

Well, people have consistently voted to keep the subarticles, so I suppose you've lost that battle. If you want to improve the article, go ahead and edit away; I will certainly "let" you. Everyking 23:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no battle here, only your repeated failure to permit anybody else to edit this article properly and your repeated misrepresentations and falsehoods with which you justify your habitual massive excisions of the work of others. It is very difficult to delete an inappropriately created article that has budded off because of bad editing in the parent. The only way to avoid these articles happening is not to squat over the pot as you have done and continue to do. Those articles are a sign of personal failure for you and nobody else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What? I wrote a lot of stuff. It got to be too much for one article, so I split it off into subarticles according to the guidelines. That's a sign of personal failure? Tony, what is it you want? Edit the article accordingly if you don't want to state your complaints. Whatever's necessary to get me to understand what you want so we can work together. Everyking 11:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. You wrote too much stuff and wouldn't let anybody edit anything because you keep claiming, falsely, that such edits amount to "deleting a bunch of content without moving it anywhere". This is a sign of your inability to edit cooperatively. There's nobody else squatting over this article and revertig edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether you agree with me or not, how on earth can you say that's a false claim? Everyking 20:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the issue is with the word "content". If you allow others to edit this article, the content will actually improve, despite the fact that some true facts will have been removed. The article's length and tone obscure a lot of the "content", in this case.
To put it another way, most people (possibly everyone else?) feel that the article needs to have a lot of content trimmed. Just because a statement is true (and neutral and sourced) doesn't mean it should be included here. Although you disagree, you have to accept the consensus. Dbenbenn 20:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree? No, I fully agree. You don't even know what my position is, apparently. I've never said something should be included just because it's true, neutral and sourced. Everyking 21:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not terribly fond of the idea that anything can be shown on a Wikipedia page just because it's relevant to the subject matter. iMeowbot~Mw 21:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Earlier today I implemented a minor suggestion by User:Tony Sidaway, as an experiment: would Everyking revert it? Yes (see line 206). Everyking, "compromise" isn't the issue here. It appears to be you versus everybody else. Why don't you try just letting other people edit the article for a few weeks, and see what happens? Dbenbenn 21:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have you gotten to the point of outright lying? I reverted nothing. Everyking 21:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not accuse Dbenbenn of lying. His statement is correct. Here is a diff showing Dbenbenn's edit. Here is a diff showing the difference between the article before his edit, and the current version. See line 206. In the course of subsequent edits, you have completely restored text that he removed and removed all of the text that he added. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're out of your mind. I clearly trimmed the quote some from what was there before. Everyking 04:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...in the course of deleting the entirety of new text added by the other editor and substantially restoring what was there before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, the process of editing means that I should try to work out compromises between what I want and what you want, not just accept what you want unconditionally.

That excuse would be acceptable if your past history of squatting over the article did not give the lie to it.


Anyway, I have a proposal to make. This:
(which grouped a review of Autobiography with one of Hilary Duff's self-titled 2004 release)
could be considered fluff. What do you say we create a separate subarticle for reviews and critical reception, and remove this possible fluff from this article? I can start the article in my own namespace and try to tailor it to get your approval before actually creating it in the main namespace. Everyking 04:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Again you want to bud off another article from this monstrosity in order to justify your inability to edit this one properly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, as far as I can tell you don't even understand what it means to "properly" edit on Wikipedia. The project was not established to be a concise paper encyclopedia in one volume. Everyking 06:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why on earth would you want a separate article full of what you acknowledge is fluff? That would be ridiculous. No-one's trying to make anything concise, just trying to make this article and the rest well-written and of interest to the general reader. The project was not established to be a repository of every known fact. Worldtraveller 09:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A detail could be excessive in the context of a general article on the album when that article is already quite lengthy, but that doesn't mean that it's not still notable and wouldn't fit fine elsewhere. Details on the Battle of Stalingrad might be excessive in a general article on World War II, but we wouldn't say the detail isn't notable just on account of that. That's why we don't try to squeeze everything into a few general articles. Certainly I don't want the encyclopedia to be a repository of every known fact, and I have a record of voting to delete articles on nonnotable subjects on VfD. Everyking 09:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Having some experience of your brand of edit warring, I'm beginning to feel that your Stalingrad reference wasn't so inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh man, you reverted me over "fidelity" vs. "sincerity", Tony? That's hilarious. Everyking 16:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought it might amuse you. Emotional fidelity is more precise and less tautological.

Teenagers

Let's have a vote on whether the following sentence should remain in the article:

She also said that people of many different ages could enjoy the album; it is, however, commonly thought that it appeals primarily to teenagers.

I think it's an example of something that should be "trimmed", as I wrote above. It sounds pretty fatuous to me. Breaking news, Simpson says people of different ages can enjoy her album! Wow! Nonetheless, I'll respect the consensus of editors here.

  1. Delete, for the reasons given above. Dbenbenn 19:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delete, because in addition to the above, the "commonly thought" part is incorrect. Geffen heavily marketed "Pieces of Me" to adult pop stations, for example. iMeowbot~Mw 19:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delete. In view of the sprawling mess we're dealing with a phrase needs to be highly justifiable to remain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep. Everyking 00:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delete the phrase. It's disappointing that per-sentence voting may be the only way to demonstrate consensus here. Rhobite 00:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delete—dubious and adds little. Good lord, it's not practical to do this for every such line. Cool Hand Luke 00:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Perhaps this one vote will be sufficient to demonstrate consensus in general? Dbenbenn 00:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Kill it with fire. silsor 06:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

If we're not going to have this sentence, there should be some explanation of the album's demographic appeal elsewhere in the article. How is a reader unfamiliar with American culture supposed to know? Everyking 00:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the demographic aim of recordings is that short of a direct statement from the label, you would have to reverse engineer it. That would be original research at best, but more likely it would end up as repeated speculation from the popular press. Pop performers routinely throw out the "all ages" statement, it's standard practice. The article perhaps could point out that the Ashlee Simpson Show had a particularly strong showing in the Nielsen 18-34 bracket, but really that belongs in the article for the show. SoundScan doesn't capture purchaser ages, only geography, so those reports wouldn't help much for this either. The target for this album was 12-34, but getting an official to say that on the record may prove difficult. iMeowbot~Mw 01:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very well. I concede the point. Let us try to think of a way to better and more objectively describe the album's demographic appeal. Everyking 01:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The most succinct way to do that would be in the genre cell of the infobox. The Rolling Stone genres are well understood, for Ashlee Simpson they list Rock/Pop, Teen Beat and Pop. Citing that ref is enough to let the reader draw a good conclusion without the article having to spell it out. iMeowbot~Mw 04:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Votes do not show consensus. They can't do any such thing unless they are unanimous. Voting to try to force Everyking to accept your POV is what this is, so let's not call it anything else. Dr Zen 05:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A re-write

I just made a lot of changes to the article. I've tried to take into account all the suggestions for trimming and re-wording I could find on the talk pages, with the intention of reflecting the consensus on where this article should be going. Hope it's a reasonable stab, but I think there is a lot more that can be done with tightening the prose. Worldtraveller 01:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I will revert it, although honoring my pledge I will wait until 24 hours since my last revert is up. Everyking 01:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Worldtraveller's edit. Everyking, I hope you understand that the 3RR doesn't imply the right to revert against community consensus.
Additionally, I think the chart positions for the singles should be removed to the single pages. Dbenbenn 01:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a move in the right direction. I do not engage in edit wars, but I will state in advance, in the hope of avoiding one, that I would make a single revert to defend against an unassisted attempt by Everyking on his own to restore the article substantially to its previous state. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't revert against a consensus. For a long time I've said that's the point at which revert warring should definitely stop, when one side has established a rough consensus. Everyking 01:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also concur with Worldtraveller's clarifications. With some more tweaking, we may even be able to get the article featured. :) Rhobite 02:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
The irony here is that I would certainly object to anything similar to the present version of the article being featured. Everyking 02:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remember that yours would only be one vote. It isn't ironic that you object to changes from your prefered version. It's inevitable. Let it go. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I object to changes that've ruined the article, yeah. I'm going to partially revert it when my time comes, but as a concession I'll at least omit the singles chart data from the end. Everyking 09:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait until I see what you do and whether your edit enjoys substantial support. If you're on your own, I'll use a single revert. Just bear that in mind, I'm not going head-to-head with you, but I will do my part to enforce a consensus against a solitary challenge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, you said above that you wouldn't revert against the consensus. I, Worldtraveller, Tony Sidaway, and Rhobite support the version you reverted. Given this consensus, will you restore the version you reverted? Dbenbenn 17:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding my name to those who would like to see the reverted version restored. iMeowbot~Mw 17:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since Everyking is ignoring consensus and restoring many paragraphs which were trimmed, I am just going to revert him. This isn't ideal, I don't enjoy reverting articles, but there's no other choice. Rhobite 17:57, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's your right if you choose to do so, but it would be much more civilized to just discuss the points in dispute with me and try to work out a compromise. Everyking 18:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe a compromise is necessary here. Since you're clearly acting against consensus, why should anyone compromise with you? I support Worldtraveller's entire version. Rhobite 18:45, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
I also find it amusing that someone who games the three revert rule as much as you, would call someone else uncivilized for reverting. Rhobite 18:48, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it time you were civilized, Everyking? Someone does a change, everybody except you agrees that it makes the article better, you wipe a huge wodge of it out and now you want everybody to sit around and discuss it with you? You have some nerve asking for civilized behavior! We've been sitting watching you wipe out nearly every significant edit on this article for weeks, some of us have been watching you do it for months. It's in the edit history. Civilized? You don't know the meaning of the word. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like Worldtraveller's version better as well. Tuf-Kat 18:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
I promised myself I wouldn't butt in, but for the sake of consensus, I prefer Worldtraveller's version too. Johnleemk | Talk 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no consensus if Everyking doesn't agree. Call it the majority. The overwhelming majority. Everyone else. But until James joins in, there's never going to be a consensus and more's the pity.Dr Zen 05:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The term for the concept you are describing is unanimity. A consensus typically differs from unanimity in allowing for some outriders who consciously abstain from or oppose a collective decision. For instance on VfD a "rough consensus" concept is used that permits a decision for deletion to be taken despite a significant minority of objections. The bar for rough consensus varies according to the admin who makes the decision, but values such as 2/3 (popularly regarded as the working minimum) and 4/5 are typical. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on consensus decision-making, Tony. It (correctly) excludes those measures as "consensus".

In diplomacy, a consensus really is "everyone agrees". That's why treaty language is so rigid. In general, it means "everyone consents". That doesn't mean all agree but it means the solution is at least acceptable to all. I know you think that the majority should steamroller the minority -- although I'm astonished to see that you suggest that a third of views can be ignored -- but it is clear that you do not have a good understanding of what a "consensus" actually is.

The "rough consensus" concept is used by deletionists so that they can ignore the view that certain articles should be kept. VfD is the most pernicious section of Wikipedia, a breeding ground for discontent. I agree that it would be unworkable if one or two holdouts prevented articles that breach the policy from being deleted, but holding article popularity contests is, I'm certain, not what was intended when it was invented.Dr Zen 01:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The exclusion that you refer to is due to a recent edit to the article on consensus decision-making (within the last month) and constitutes a factually false statement ("Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article." Consensus decision-making is about the process, not the measures used.)

Okay, but have a look at what it says about the process, Tony. Discussion, not votes, is the key. Get negatives out into the open and then work out how they can be turned around. You just don't understand the basic concept.Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

X-Forwarded-For: 207.142.131.210

Even if what you said were true, your attempt to equate consensus with unanimity is false, because the article still explicitly lists U-1 as a possible definition of a consensus decision.

I am not equating it with unanimity as such. I am equating it with accord. They're not the same. My version of a consensus doesn't involve a poll as such, unless it is a means to uncover dissent.
Of course, consensus as understood in that article, and as I understand it, requires the commitment of all involved that an accord is the aim of the process. That's not so on clitoris, where editors such as Raul and chocolateboy (and to a lesser extent you and Theresa) are not working for an accord (you and Theresa have not worked for a solution for all but only to persuade dissenters to your point of view); and I doubt it is so here, where James's commitment to a consensual solution is sketchy and some on the other side simply want to steamroller him with a majority vote.
The U-1 idea is simply an expression that a single person should not hold up progress by simply being obstructionist. However, you could only employ such a definition if those involved had a priori agreed on it! Otherwise there would be no consensus for the consensus, if you get me.Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I don't consider your claim that "rough consensus" concept is a deletionist end-run tactic, or your description of VfD as a place for "popularity contests" for articles, to be worthy of response.

If "rough consensus" is described as a 2/3 majority, it is hardly aiming for general accord, and this viewpoint is adopted, so far as I know, only by deletionists. And what else would you call VfD, where articles are contested on their "notability" and voted on in a quasi-beauty contest (I use the lawyers' version of that term)? There are guiding criteria, but these are wilfully ignored.Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rough consensus is the de facto decision-making method of VfD. "Rough consensus" works because nobody objects to the principle enough to attempt to disrupt the process.

You're very wrong on that score. Not only do people object -- fiercely sometimes -- and quite a few of them, but there have been several attempts to disrupt the process. The problem is that those who do object, far from being seen as dissenters whom a consensus should attempt to include, are rather seen as problems who must be dealt with -- and have been -- by further treating the will of the majority as though it were a "consensus".Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is what consensus is about--we settle for something other than our first choice because we can live with the results. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. But that applies to everyone, not just those who are in the majority!Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

19:42, 7 Jan 2005

Sorry, forgot to annotate that edit. It was a removal of a duplicated "she" in the phrase "which she she claimed she needed". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RfC against Everyking. Those concerned who have participated in this debate can certify it, while those who agree with my summary of the dispute may endorse it. If you've been involved in similar disputes (i.e. Autobiography promotion and publicity, La La (song)), feel free to add your own summary in the outside views section. You can endorse more than one summary, and still can certify the dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

misc. notes

There is some incongruity in the article, namely the emphasis on comparisons with Jessica Simpson. The whole gist of the album project is supposed to be about Ashlee being judged on her own merits, and the article's admission that the two record different kinds of music illustrates that the comparisons are strained, being made only because they have the same parents. The "I'm not Jessica, waaaahhhhh!" thing should obviously get good coverage in Shadow (song), and perhaps The Ashlee Simpson Show and/or Ashlee Simpson, but let's keep this article concentrated on the album. As it is even quoted in the article, "I just wanted the music to sound like me and to be an expression of myself." iMeowbot~Mw 16:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's a certain logic to that, and I acknowledge the point. However, emphasis on comparisons has been very strong in the media, in promotion, etc., so it would almost put me in the curious position of pushing a POV unsympathetic to Ashlee to disagree with you on this, that Ashlee should be represented more independently of her sister or her family. Everyking 16:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the "Promotion and publicity" section, the nature of radio adds is misrepresented. Specifically, this does not counter the assertion that publicity drove album sales -- rather, it supports it. Radio addition for new recording acts is a function of promoter effectiveness. I'm not saying that the article should use this as some sort of ammo to demonstrate that Joe is selling a package, only that the false contrast needs to be severed. iMeowbot~Mw 16:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent in writing that—I did not mean to contradict the importance of publicity, only to contradict the emphasis on the reality show. But not absolutely; it's just one counter-point, something to give the reader a sense of the broader perspective. Everyking 16:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More later, it's a big article and I'm looking at it on small pieces to keep things manageable. iMeowbot~Mw 16:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sales and chart positions

Now that Autobiography sales and chart positions has survived vfd, it's time to cut that section in this article down to a small summary. I invite Everyking to replace the duplicate material with a single paragraph of 3 or 4 sentences. For a good example of summary, look at the Critical quotations section of Shakespeare's reputation, which summarizes two centuries of criticism with a single sentence. The Steve 03:02, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Steve, you can do me a favor and help Autobiography promotion and publicity survive VfD, too. Well, the sales info is summarized. I'd be afraid to summarize it any further. Everyking 11:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not. I can summarize it even more if you'd like. Try to remember that *all* the details are in the sub-article. Only the major points need to remain. Everything else is needless duplication. The Steve 12:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


Everyking's last uncommented revert was unacceptable. I am intervening at this point for a single revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The summarizing was far too radical. I am considering doing a partial rewrite of the article, which will restore some information but will also be a genuine attempt to summarize some points and reduce the number of quotes. Would this be acceptable? I am not saying that if I did it, it would have to remain unaltered; I just want to give it a try. Everyking 15:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come, come, James. Wasn't it your idea to *move* this information to a satellite articles? You've won, your new article will not be deleted. All chart and sales information will be kept. There's no reason to keep anything but the briefest of summaries on the main page, is there? Anyway, if you can accept a summary as short or shorter than mine, and an equally short summary of the promotion and publicity, assuming it isn't deleted of course, I will happily change my vote to keep, and attempt to convince others to do the same. The Steve 17:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
OK, Steve, I can accept something in the range of what you've done. I want it a little longer, but I can live with something significantly shorter than what I'd prefer. But if Autobiography promotion and publicity gets deleted, not only will we not be able to summarize it, we'll have to expand it somewhat in order to save some of that article's detail. Everyking 18:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Why not copy the article to your sandbox and then make an edit to illustrate what you have in mind? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember you or anybody else doing that before doing your rewrites. Everyking 19:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are working against community opinion; we weren't. I suggest you reread the RfC against you from top to bottom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually I frequently use my sandbox prior to large scale rewrites. Here is a diff of my sandbox from a series of edits I did on this article in mid-December.[1].
Even more puzzling, here is a series of edits I did in a subpage of my Sandbox preparatory to a rewrite (which I abandoned because of other priorities) over the Christmas break. I note that you yourself edited the article, which belies your claim that you haven't noticed me editing my sandbox in relation to edits on this article [2].
So if you're going to make accusations like this, could you please try to get the facts right, James? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but I had to snoop through your contributions to find it; it isn't like you did it out in the open and said: What do you think of this, James? Everyking 18:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a sandbox. You're welcome to look, and even edit, but the purpose of the sandbox is for me to test my edits prior to submitting them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Late commer

Just passing by. Er... a quick comment. Isn't this article a bit overdone ? I mean over detailed ? It looks like pretty immature collection of fan details. Maybe lake of ability to distinguish between passion and general encyclopaedic aspects. I suggest this article be condensed to 20ish lines. Bye. :-) Gtabary 17:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Long live the stub! May all Wikipedia articles be similarly reduced to a stubbish state, devoid of any detail that could bore the reader. It's an album. From 2004. By Ashlee Simpson. Mixture of pop/rock. Includes POM, Shadow and La La. What else do you need to know? That's plenty! In fact, it's a bit long. We need to trim some of the fat. The ideal Wikipedia article contains information which can be fully articulated in a single word, or better yet, a single syllable; may we all strive towards that goal. Everyking 18:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a wonderful idea. Maybe you could demonstrate the technique on Autobiography (album)? --Carnildo 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The suggestion that 20 lines is appropriate is, in fact, wildly inappropriate. I have been as supportive as any of cutting the article down a bit, but there is plenty to say about this album that it should quite easily fill up 32kb, IMO. And I say this as someone who has never heard Ashlee Simpson, but can pretty much guarantee I wouldn't like her if I did. Tuf-Kat 04:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Title

Why was this article moved? Unless there is another album by that name, it should be Autobiography (album). If there is, it should be Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album). Autobiography (2004 album, Ashlee Simpson) violates the standards set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. I won't revert now, since someone may be in the middle of doing something, and I want to see what's happening, but I will move it tomorrow if no one else does it first. Tuf-Kat 04:06, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • disambig page done now—was in the middle of it while you posted! I should have checked WP Music as you pointed out, perhaps the title does need a change again, as do the titles I've suggested on the disambig page; please do feel free to alter as necessary. —Neuropedia 04:14, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  • Do we generally disambiguate among a set of articles only one of which exists? Snowspinner 04:48, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see why doing so would be a bad thing. It serves to encourage other editors to fill in the redlinks, something I'm in the process of doing now, once I've taken enough notes on them. →Reene✎ 04:53, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about moving it again, but it's under the proper title now. I'll go fix any double redirects now. →Reene✎ 06:31, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to moving the title, as attached to it as I was. We ought not be biased in favor of stuff from the present day, after all. Everyking 12:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same old

Everyking, when you said you would not revert against consensus, what exactly did you mean by that? Please explain your understanding of what the consensus is with this article. Worldtraveller 09:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert. Everyking 12:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course you didn't. You just "partially restored content". Johnleemk | Talk 13:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and a few partiallys add up to an entirely in the end. So, to put words in your mouth then, Everyking, when you said you wouldn't revert against consensus, you meant you would revert against consensus, but would divide your revert up into several steps? If that's not what you meant, please clarify. And tell us what you think the consensus is regarding this article. Worldtraveller 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)