Talk:Pussy Cats (The Walkmen album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Please keep the article under its current title which is the most commonly used one.--Lairor 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing part of the first sentence but NOT the title to make it sound better. -Mariokarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.136.77 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note here and here for "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen being the official album title and see here and here for proper album title capitalizations.--Lairor 08:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the capitalizations of the track names? Capitalization of artist/album/track names are normalized on Wikipedia, see WP:NC#Album titles and band names. Are you saying you consider the official title to be "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen but want the article to be at "Pussy Cats (The Walkmen album)"? If so, that is highly unusual. --PEJL 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my reference for using normalized capitalization for track names in my edit summary was wrong, it should be WP:ALBUM#Capitalization, not WP:ALBUM#Track listing. --PEJL 12:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the official name of the album is "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen. That's not what I consider to be the official name, that's what it is. However, reviews of the album have almost universally referred to the album as just Pussy Cats possibly mimicking the Nilsson original. Therefore, despite "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen being the official name, Pussy Cats is the most commonly used one which is an official Wikipedia naming convention.
As regards, Metacritic it is confusingly listed on WP:ALBUM#Review site as both being an acceptable one and a unacceptable one. However, the entry stating it is acceptable is much more detailed and has been there for over two years. On the flipside, Metacritic was just added to the unnacceptable list a month ago by you. In searching through the talk pages I find bits and pieces talking about Review reform but nothing that shows a consensus to overturn the previously acceptable status of Metacritic.
Finally, I'll address song title capitalization. While I support standardization I don't believe it should hold precedence over the artist's intentions. WP:NC#Album titles and band names states that those capitalization rules must be used "unless it is unique". Using that in tandem with WP:Ignore all rules, I justify my use of capitalization on the song titles because that's what all official sources indicate.--Lairor
I said "if you consider" intentionally, because what is the official title of an album isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Most albums contain both the artist name and the album name in some combination on for example the front cover. The album never explicitly says which is which ("This is the official title of the album: ..."), we just assume that the artist name is not included in the album name in most cases, because it is written in a way that makes this likely (on a separate line, for example). Other cases are less obvious. There are lots of examples of "Artist Album", "Artist: Album", "Artist's Album" and "Album by Artist" and the like that are in a grey area. I contend that "Album starring Artist" is also in that grey area.
As for Metacritic, yes, I made the change to add Metacritic to the list of non-professional reviews, because it frequently incorrectly included among the reviews, and the consensus is that it should not be included. I agree that the "Review sites" section is confusing (and I've been intending to clean it up) that is why I added the "Non-professional" section. I think you are misinterpreting the listing of Metacritic in the "Review sites" section. Its intent is to say that reviews from other review sources can be obtained from Metacritic, not that Metacritic itself should be listed among the reviews (as Metacritic itself doesn't make reviews, it just summarizes them). If you don't trust my word on this you can always ask to get clarification at WT:ALBUM.
As for song title capitalization, I'm well aware of the "unless it is unique" clause. See a lengthy discussion about it here (about a band name rather than track names, but same principle). I note there that as far as I can tell, the "unique" clause was intended for classical music only, that it is currently generally disregarded, and that current consensus is to normalize capitalization. I've solicited feedback to verify or debunk that interpretation here, but have received no response. I implore you to read through the past discussion about this, to avoid bringing up the same arguments again.
I hope I've explained this clearly. I will revert your latest change, as it is quite clear to me that it goes very much against consensus. If you wish to discuss Metacritic or capitalization further, I ask you to bring this to WT:ALBUM, as these are issues which affect album articles in general, not just this one. The issue about what constitutes an official album name has not previously discussed there AFAIK, so it could benefit from some discussion at WT:ALBUM as well. --PEJL 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You've explained yourself very clearly but I question whether you actually explored the links I provided. You haven't given me any proof of this vaunted "consensus" that disagrees with me. Either way, I usually value correct information over consensus. When the websites of the band and their record label both present album titles and song titles a certain way I don't "consider" that to be official, it is official. Nonetheless you seem to be pretty obstinate about this, so incorrect or not, I'm not going to revert your changes another time. Happy hunting.--Lairor 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not explore the links because they are largely irrelevant. The name of the album is what it was released as, usually written on the album itself. A website (official or otherwise) can refer to the album as something else after it has been released, but that doesn't change the name of the released album. (If it did, the name of a physical album could change over time, which would be quite confusing.) I have explored the links now however. I note specifically that AW II is referred to as AUTOMATIC WRITING II, and Bows + Arrows is referred to as Bows And Arrows. --PEJL 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WalkmenPussyCats.jpg

Image:WalkmenPussyCats.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WalkmenPussyCats.jpg

Image:WalkmenPussyCats.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)