Talk:Ghost Love Score
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
[edit] YTMND
Why does the YTMND stuff keep getting edited out? 80.41.197.81 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is not notable enough to be pointed out here. -- ReyBrujo 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not notable enough? It's starting to become a fad in YTMND already! KnucklesEchidna 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are fads in the forums I go that aren't included in Wikipedia. To become notable, it must overcome the forum itself, like All your base are belong to us. I don't think this "fad" has that same level for now. -- ReyBrujo 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I guess. But YTMND is rather notable and widespread in itself, and I wouldn't even have heard of this song were it not for the Epic Maneuver fad, which, may I say, this music, or the clip, at least, is particularly suited to. -Agent_Koopa 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's notable enough. I agree with Agent Koopa in that YTMND is certainly notable; it's a practically unique site on the internet and isn't just a forum (it may include one, but that's beside the point). The NES version of the bit at 5'35" was also featured on MSNBC as part of the "NES Zidane" clip shown ytmndmsnbc.ytmnd.com, which surely makes it slightly notable, even if you don't regard YTMND itself to be notable? 80.41.195.42 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody denies YTMND is notable. However, just as GeoCities, that the site is notable doesn't imply the works inside it are notable enough to be covered. If you want, you can add the "Ghost Love Score" notability in the site in YTMND page. If the song is notable to be included there, nobody will delete it. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- LOL @ 'Epic'--68.193.14.168 14:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody denies YTMND is notable. However, just as GeoCities, that the site is notable doesn't imply the works inside it are notable enough to be covered. If you want, you can add the "Ghost Love Score" notability in the site in YTMND page. If the song is notable to be included there, nobody will delete it. -- ReyBrujo 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are fads in the forums I go that aren't included in Wikipedia. To become notable, it must overcome the forum itself, like All your base are belong to us. I don't think this "fad" has that same level for now. -- ReyBrujo 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not notable enough? It's starting to become a fad in YTMND already! KnucklesEchidna 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Two reasons: first, as stated above, while YTMND may be notable, individual YTMNDs almost invariably are not, certainly form the standpoint of inclusion in articles not directly related to YTMND. Second, many YTMNDs include images or soundtracks which violate the originator's copyright; that is YTMND's problem not ours of course but per WP:EL we do not link to offsite copyright violations. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is notable enough. When I read something, I like to know every detail about it. Stop preventing a flow of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.10.131.91 (talk • contribs) .
- I always thought wikis were sources of information. If a subject is notable enough to fill half a discussion page, it's notable enough to be published on wikipedia. The song really has become an internet meme, not overly popular, but still well-known. So please, stop editing it out. --80.136.216.9 13:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Single YTMNDs are not notable, but what about when every "epic" YTMND uses it? Just search YTMND for "epic" and you'll see. Also, why do you even need a citation for stating that Ghost Love Score is one of Nightwish's most epic works? It's a fact, and anybody who's a fan of Nightwish (raises hand) knows that. Darkyoshi 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am a fan of Nightwish, I know it is one of their most epic works, and I love listening to it with my player. But a casual user coming to this page will wonder who determined that song is epic. When editing an article, one must stay neutral, not biased. And cite reliable sources, otherwise it is an opinion, a original research. -- ReyBrujo 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not determined "epic". Any YTMND that has the word "epic" in it's title uses this song.Blahziin_Rav
- I put it back in. It's not that there aren't arguments against the information, but it really is notable enough. Most people here still want to see that information. A lot of people I know only know the song from the YTMNDs, so stop editing it out. It's notable enough. If it's notable enough to raise such a discussion it's worth a single phrase is an otherwise short article.--217.232.68.191 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I took it out. There is no way to reference that. It is a point of view of a community, which does not fit our encyclopedia because a) it cannot be verifiable, b) there are no third party reliable sources confirming that, and c) add this "trivia" to the YTMND article. -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No way to reference that? Never challenge. TheRaven7 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I repeat, third party references. Using first party information is only allowed when third party ones are conflicting or haven't yet picked information from first sources (in example, in a war or attack, an article could use blogs as references until reliable third party references are found). In YTMND case, this "epic" has been around for "years", yet there are no reference about it. Not even YTMND itself has an "article" or "report" stating that this theme is notable. As for that part about many knowing about this song because of YTMND, well, many know YTMND because of Wikipedia, yet there isn't a note at YTMND stating that. See burden of evidence as well. -- ReyBrujo 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Well, here's a scenario for you: let's say Jane Reporter writes an article about YTMND's epic fad being notable. By your logic, anyone can cite that article... EXCEPT for Jane Reporter and the paper she writes for, because then it becomes "original research" on Jane Reporter's part, and for it to be third party she would have to cite somebody else. Is this seriously what you believe is logical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRaven7 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- Basically, yes. Let me correct your example: let's say Jane Reporter writes an article about YTMND's epic fad being notable. By your logic, anyone can cite that article... EXCEPT for Jane Reporter and Wikipedia she writes for, because then it becomes "original research" on Jane Reporter's part, and for it to be third party she would have to cite somebody else. Remember: a newspaper is not Wikipedia, and they don't use our own policies of determining when information is valid and when it is not. If Jane is a Wikipedia editor, writes an article, and then quotes it, then yes, it is original research. The only way to accept a primary source is if the source is a most qualified one, in example, the writer of a academic book. YTMND is not a qualified source. -- ReyBrujo 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. But she was a great source for any other Wikipedia editor, just not for herself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRaven7 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- I can imagine. But Wikipedia wants information that can be verified, not truth. Note, in example, this: the author of a song wrote in the article why he composed the song, what he was thinking, how he developed it, where he recorded it, etc. A very interesting piece of information for sure, but it was rejected as original research because no reliable source had published that data before, based in research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. Even if obvious, we can't say "this is because it is" unless it is recognized knowledge (in example, that the sky is blue, the sea water is salty, the sun is hot, etc). In cases where a good portion of the readers may not know it, a reference must be given. A last example: suppose the term XXYU5 is the term that appears in the most web pages, to reference that we need to quote someone stating XXYU5 appears in the most pages. We can't just point to a Google search, because search results vary with time, while an written interview does not. -- ReyBrujo 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. But she was a great source for any other Wikipedia editor, just not for herself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRaven7 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- Basically, yes. Let me correct your example: let's say Jane Reporter writes an article about YTMND's epic fad being notable. By your logic, anyone can cite that article... EXCEPT for Jane Reporter and Wikipedia she writes for, because then it becomes "original research" on Jane Reporter's part, and for it to be third party she would have to cite somebody else. Remember: a newspaper is not Wikipedia, and they don't use our own policies of determining when information is valid and when it is not. If Jane is a Wikipedia editor, writes an article, and then quotes it, then yes, it is original research. The only way to accept a primary source is if the source is a most qualified one, in example, the writer of a academic book. YTMND is not a qualified source. -- ReyBrujo 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Well, here's a scenario for you: let's say Jane Reporter writes an article about YTMND's epic fad being notable. By your logic, anyone can cite that article... EXCEPT for Jane Reporter and the paper she writes for, because then it becomes "original research" on Jane Reporter's part, and for it to be third party she would have to cite somebody else. Is this seriously what you believe is logical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRaven7 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- I repeat, third party references. Using first party information is only allowed when third party ones are conflicting or haven't yet picked information from first sources (in example, in a war or attack, an article could use blogs as references until reliable third party references are found). In YTMND case, this "epic" has been around for "years", yet there are no reference about it. Not even YTMND itself has an "article" or "report" stating that this theme is notable. As for that part about many knowing about this song because of YTMND, well, many know YTMND because of Wikipedia, yet there isn't a note at YTMND stating that. See burden of evidence as well. -- ReyBrujo 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No way to reference that? Never challenge. TheRaven7 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I took it out. There is no way to reference that. It is a point of view of a community, which does not fit our encyclopedia because a) it cannot be verifiable, b) there are no third party reliable sources confirming that, and c) add this "trivia" to the YTMND article. -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It really should be cited that that this has become a ytmnd phenomenon. I tried the other day but someone took it down. This is valuable information for anyone looking ino the band or just for some useless trivia. This can easily be cited and proved with numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.216.29.70 (talk • contribs).
- Why don't you add that information to the YTMND article instead? -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Because it would make more sense to put it here. It is commonly found in many YTMND sites. For example, lets say I realized that many people used a Bob Marley song to audtion for american idol, I wouldn't put it on the American idol page, but I would put it under trivia on the song page for Bob Marley. --Gettin money 14:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Trivia are discouraged because, most times, they bring information that is not needed. While it may be important for YTMND users to know this song is used in that site, it is not for those who are not; therefore the information, if anything, must be included there, where the information will be important for most readers. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it would make more sense to put it here. It is commonly found in many YTMND sites. For example, lets say I realized that many people used a Bob Marley song to audtion for american idol, I wouldn't put it on the American idol page, but I would put it under trivia on the song page for Bob Marley. --Gettin money 14:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- OK but it is still a fact that it exists, and can be intersting for any reader, not just a YTMND reader. Its simply an intersting fact that is attributed to the song.Leave it in!--Gettin money 08:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lemme put it this way, A hypothetical situation, ask anyone on Nightwish about this, and as anyone about YTMND about it, which would get the responce most relevent to your trivia? Then that's the page it belongs on 68.107.147.41 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Nightwish" public does not care about this. However, "YTMND" ones care. So, it belongs there. -- ReyBrujo 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Lemme put it this way, A hypothetical situation, ask anyone on Nightwish about this, and as anyone about YTMND about it, which would get the responce most relevent to your trivia? Then that's the page it belongs on 68.107.147.41 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK but it is still a fact that it exists, and can be intersting for any reader, not just a YTMND reader. Its simply an intersting fact that is attributed to the song.Leave it in!--Gettin money 08:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Explanation
EDIT: The article does not properly explain what the song is about. Are you happy now? :) Darkyoshi 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Remember that talk pages are to talk about the article, not the topic. So, next time, instead of asking for yourself ("I do not understand what's going on in the song"), ask for the article ("The article does not explain what is going on in the song"). The former question gives the possibility for others to give opinions, which is not exactly what we want. We want facts. -- ReyBrujo 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
