Talk:The Roxx Regime Demos

Fair use rationale for Image:Roxx regime.jpg

Image:Roxx regime.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 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 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is clearly established

Wikipedia's guideline for album notability:

In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

This is an official Stryper album, consisting of songs from Stryper's pre-Stryper days, when they called themselves The Roxx Regime. This is not a demo. The album was released on 7 July 2007 by Stryper. Notability is thusly established. Amsaim (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes made to type of album (studio or demo)

Please do not change the type of album while the AfD is still open. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay Do you also want to leave in Category:Demo albums, as it was here before the AfD as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the type be either "demo" or "compilation" as per Template:Infobox Album#Type? It certainly was recorded in a studio, but it wasn't released as a studio album. Even the lead sentence states compilation. So where is the consensus that it's a studio album? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

None There isn't one. Nor is there one to call it a compilation (which it plainly isn't.) Amsaim wants to take this directly to AN/I and AN/V (three times in total) without ever responding on this talk or posting to mine. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the nature of consensus. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So the entire set of demos was recorded in a single session and wasn't released individually on cassette at concerts? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos and no consensus about whether they're demos or a compilation is reached there, although I tend to favour the idea that they're a compilation as per the discussion there. There is never even the suggestion that they should be considered a studio album. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This should be categorized as a compilation album. It's a compilation of demos, but a compilation nonetheless. The allmusic link lists it as a compilation. Allmusic is a WP:RS. Seems pretty straightforward to me. That link is even used to cite it being called a compilation in the body of the article. Clearly, the infobox should match, and be changed to compilation. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we reach consensus, we shouldn't be changing the article, particularly the infobox. This is starting to look like an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought with admin intervention, it had been determined that compilation was the correct listing. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Was there an admin? I tend to agree with listing the album as a compilation, but I think it's best to leave it for a few days to determine what a few interested sides have to say, not just those of use who are on Wikipedia too much :) . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Since Koavf has announced that he would continue with his reverts, trying to push forth his own personal opinion about 'The Roxx Regime Demos', I have requested a full page protection.

Here is some additional information. If you would like to comment, please do so by either starting a new thread or by writing your post below the last collapsible (Summary). Please allow the collapsibles to remain as they are for better readability. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Background information

In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation: Allmusic.com writes: The 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band MTV.com lists it as an album. MSN.com lists 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a compilation. vht.com lists 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. PiercingMetal.com calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. RollingStones.com had an article on 'The Roxx Regime Demos' and listed it amongst Stryper's album discography. Unfortunately, rollingstones.com has changed their website and thus that link is no longer available for unregistered users. There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Main issue

Editor Koavf is ignoring various reliable and verifiable sources which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album / a compilation. He refuses to acknowledge that various reliable sources call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album. He insists that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a demo and not an album, and therefore since it is a demo the article must be deleted. Koavf is ignoring Wikipedia's guideline of Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. By simply clicking on the provided reliable verifiable sources one can easily verify that the published material on the reliable source undebatably declares 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album / a compilation, and not a demo. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute

In a content dispute the conflicting sides all have reliable and verifiable sources to back up and prove their point. In this issue, Koavf has not provided any reliable verifiable source which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. Koavf is aggressively pushing forth his own personal opinion about the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' without backing up his claims with reliable verifiable sources. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Koavf

Here are a couple of edits from Koavf on the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' article. 1st Disruptive edit - 23 March 2010, Koavf places a CSD#A7 tag on the article. 2nd Disruptive edit - 23 March 2010, Koavf places a Prod-template on the article. In both cases there were two (1, 2) reliable verifiable sources present on the article which clearly prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a compilation/an album and not a demo. Koavf has since then actively ignored these two reliable verifiable sources. On March 26 2010 I removed the prod-template, added an additional reliable verifiable source (Rollingstones.com article on Stryper's discography) which prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is an album and not a demo, and referred to the talk page in my edit summary. In addition to this, I started a new topic on the article's talk page on 26 March 2010. By ignoring these available reliable verifiable sources, Koavf started his disruptive edits. 3rd Disruptive edit - 20 April 2010, Koavf takes the article to Afd, again ignoring the available now 3 reliable verifiable sources. 4th Disruptive edit - 21:43 CET, 25 April 2010 - While the Afd was still actively going on, Koavf changed the type of album in the infobox from "studio" to "demo" 1 minute after a fourth editor gave his 'Keep' recommendation on the Afd. In this edit, Koavf did not provide any source to support his edit. WP:BURDEN tells us this: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." As long as Koavf is not able to provide a reliable verifiable source which calls Stryper's 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, he is merely presenting either his own original research or trying to push his own personal opinion. Koavf continued changing the infobox to "demo" which lead me to bring the issue to the attention of Ani and other administrators. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Misquotations by Koavf

When confronted with the available reliable sources which call 'The Roxxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album, Koavf resorted to lying by misquoting a reliable source. After placing the article on Afd, with his nomination rationale being "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC.", I provided several reliable verifiable sources as my first reply on the Afd. Koavf's reply to this was: "Comment None of those sources establish notability, simply the existence of the demo, which was never in doubt. In point of fact, one of your sources explicitly states that it's a demo (in addition to the name of the album, of course), and notes that it's only for die-hard fans. Since it's a self-released demo, it is assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC." Anybody can see that Koavf is lying by misquoting allmusic.com. Allmusic.com clearly calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation, and not a demo. Koavf repeated his misquotation on Ani. An editor who uses such discussion tactics has removed himself from the foundation upon which reasonable discussion can take place. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary

This is a very simple issue: Is the 2007 release by Stryper 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation or a demo? We all know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability-not truth. Therefore, if an editor keeps on changing the type of album from "studio" to "demo", without providing any reliable verifiable sources, and he actively ignores the available reliable sources, then he is acting in a disruptive manner. Since we have several reliable verifiable sources calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation, the article should reflect exactly that. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in a further witch hunt and muck slinging over what is in essence a trivial matter and qualifies as one of the lamest edit wars ever and actually engage Koavf directly? Rehevkor ✉ 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and insisting that everything Koavf does is disruptive goes against Wikipedia's guideline of assuming good faith. Rehevkor ✉ 19:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything? That previous comment appears to be an ad hominem attack and that too goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Let's focus on the topic here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Amsaim invited comment, and I just did that :P Neither party is totally innocent here, I'd like like to hear Amsaim justify his actions. Rehevkor ✉ 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's stay on-topic. Is this a demo album, a compilation album, or a studio album? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It could technically be all or none. "Studio album" in the traditional sense is the least likely - they were recorded and released as demos, albeit in pretty packaging. Demo? Of course, it's in the title, all the songs are apparently demos, that could classify it as a "demo album", it does what it says on the tin. Compilation? As I mentioned on the RfC this is probably the closest that applies, even as a compromise; compilation of demos I suppose. In my view, it can be both a compilation and a demo, and can be categorized as such. The main issue is seems was brought up in the AfD, is notability inherited? Apparently yes, which for some reason people seem to mean the album is not a demo in any way, so, DRAMA ensues. Does a demo being officially released album magically stop the material being demo material, a demo album? Ho hum. Rehevkor ✉ 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with WP:NALBUMS! WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be flatly contradicted or at least the spirit of it is. Is notability always ensured if the artists is notable? Or unlikely if the album is a "demo"? No idea, but IMO all of these should be considered on their own merits not on those of other entities or people. Time to seriously review WP:MUSIC then... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it includes demos that ended up on three different albums, which makes me believe it is a compilation. But our opinions on it don't really matter, since a major reliable source, Allmusic, lists "Type: Compilation" on the album's page. That's why I don't understand the confusion. Just go with the source. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI - SlimVirgin has declined the RPP, mainly because you don't protect pages pre-emptively --Jubilee♫clipman 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the debate on the category

• The Roxx Regime Demos is a compilation album that consists entirely of demos. That is, it isn't a "demo album" i.e. an album put together as a rough draft of an intended album (qv Nebraska (album) which "demo album" was actually released as an "official album", whatever that means...). Thus, the album, per se, is not a "demo" though all the tracks were "demos". This is not unheard of where it is felt that the material is of high quality and/or historically important. Much of the Beatles Anthology series, for example, comprises of demos but those albums are in fact compilations (scroll down). However, that's only my take on this: I note that those Beatles albums are actually catted as both demo and compilation. It all depends on how you define "demo", I guess. Either way, the two terms, "compilation album" and "demo album", are probably not mutually exclusive --Jubilee♫clipman 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point. I recall that Phil Keaggy gave demos for an album to his new label. They decided to release the demos as a finished product. At the time, the production values on the guitar and vocals were high enough, although the drum machine is annoying. It is listed as a studio album as well. It seems that the criteria is whether it was released by the band alone or a label. The problem here is that the band created its own label to release The Roxx Regime Demos. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then again, Anthology 1–3 were released by Apple Records... (as was almost everything Beatle-related from 1968 onwards for that matter) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

...which sort of proves your point, now I think about it... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to compare the calibre of the two bands, or to Phil Keaggy, it seems that a compilation of demos is a compilation album as far as the infobox is concerned and should carry both categories as far the cats are concerned. Can someone give a reason to the contrary? Possibly some example articles? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible example album is Concrete. The article itself is a bad example, no sources. But it was recorded apparently as a studio album, but they weren't happy with it and disowned it. It was later released as a demo album by Roadrunner (to fulfill contractual obligations). Previous to that, it was not released in any way, leaked or otherwise. It could be considered both a studio album and a demo album. Rehevkor ✉ 23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the opposite to what happened with Nebraska! Interesting... Also suggests strongly that this isn't black and white. However, the lead to Category:Demo albums states: "Albums that were recorded as demos." Neither Concrete nor The Roxx Regime Demos were recorded as demos: the former was recorded as a studio album (apparently), the latter was put together as an official release from demos. Thinking about it, the Beatles albums don't belong in that category, either, according to that lead --Jubilee♫clipman 23:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't the "category" we're talking about. It definitely qualifies to have the demo category applied. The question is what the infobox should contain.

Actually, The Roxx Regime Demos were recorded as demos. They were simply gathered together and released as an album. Think back to the 80s. Bands would record songs for cassettes and release them at gigs to help cover the cost of studio time, but the main reason for the recordings would be to distribute to record companies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion would help with understanding what a demo is. Simply put it is a recording to demonstrate a song, this can be anything from a gtr & vocal to show the rest of the band to a fully arranged full-blown recording. For instance, Can't Get You Out Of My Head is the orignal songwriter demo with new vocals by Minogue, nobody would think to call the released version a demo, which in many respects it is. Much the same was happening with all the recently successful Swedish songwriters, they laid down the backing tracks in Sweden for Back Street Boys, Spears et al to put their vocal tracks over the demo. If nobody liked the song enough to record and release it would have remained a demo! This proves to me that "demo" and "low-(er) quality" are not always synonymous. I actually can't think it can be a demo is it is officially released by the artist/record company, but would be "recordings that were intended as demos." With computer recording the difference between studio and home recording is marginal. Sorry if I am preaching to the choir, but only 2 cents worth! --Richhoncho (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am honestly starting to think this is being given too much thought. If at some point down the line a recording, group of recordings or "album" were considered a demo, they can be considered a demo for categorization purposes? I don't see how that could be considered controversial in any way, it can be considered a matter of common sense. As for how it's classified in, say, the info box, that can be analyzed via the sources, compilation seems to fit best for this album, sources that just describe it as an "album" could be completely disregarded - which leaves us with compilation. Now, for NMUSIC - that is an issue, but not one that has any use being discussed here. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents I'm honestly disgusted and put out by the actions of one of my fellow editors on what amounts to a completely trivial matter. This is probably the dumbest and lamest interaction I have ever had on the Internet (and that is saying a lot), but I will say my piece on this matter in spite of my better judgement: the infobox can only contain one entry for type, so choose whatever, I personally don't care. If it keeps an editor from flying off the handle, call this a compilation. Furthermore, this clearly fits the intended criteria of Category:Demo albums: the recordings are demos and they were released as an album. If you have any other perspective on this, you are probably thinking about it way too hard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also It's short enough to be an EP. Can't wait to see how this turns out. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand how one person can be such an idiot! You can see that there have been days of discussion. Days! And you have you ban lifted and without discussion, without consensus you, the great Koavf unilaterally decide that this is an EP! I am so angry. Absolutely outraged! Stop being so arrogant. Seek consensus before you change things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)