Talk:All Day (Girl Talk album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Are we going to identify all the samples again? let's do this! Leav (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We're at 224 out of 373 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
235 / 372 Leav (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
How come the ending times weren't included for the samples? They were for Feed The Animals (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have a redirect page for "All Day" that points both here and at the 45 minute Aesop Rock mix ( (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

But, they don't have the same name... maybe a link on the top of the page along the lines of "For the 'Aesop Rock' album 'All Day: Nike+ Original Run' click here." ? Leav (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research issue[edit]

Hey all. There has been some talk on this board about original research. When the artist Girl Talk released his album, fans created a track list of song content, and this went to the Wikipedia article. Two issues arose - one was whether it was a violation of prohibitions on original research to include the track list of songs in this album since no reliable source had confirmed the veracity of the track list, and the other issue was whether a list is helpful for improving the article just as good content. Since that time good sources have published the track list[1] and times and I propose that this end the discussion about original research. The issue about whether the track list should be in the article is unresolved, but sources such as NPR are reporting that people come to Wikipedia to use the track list to learn about the creation of the album.[2]

  1. ^ Tyler Gray (7 Dec 2010). "Infographic: Girl Talk's Latest Mashup Masterpiece Deconstructed". Fast Company (magazine). Retrieved 9 December 2010. 
  2. ^ "Girl Talk: Cataloging Samples 'All Day'". NPR. 4 Dec 2010. Retrieved 9 December 2010. 

Original Research[edit]

Track 3 - "That's right"

  • 1:22 E-40 Trademark Grunt noise -- could this be the E-40 that is listed in the samples not yet identified list at the bottom of the page? I figured asking this here is better then messing up the page... Wadofglue (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope all the track listings won't be removed by some overzealous wikipedian as original research... what can we do to prevent this? Leav (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They didn't for any of the previous albums, I don't see why they would for this one. Greg Birdsall (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
After we're done we should get Gregg Gillis to link to a static version of the wikipedia page, state that all the samples are listed correctly on it, and then we could use wikipedia as a reference to itself. (hopefully the universe won't implode :) Leav (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding all the samples I can recognise off of the list on Whosampled, how about linking to their when I'm finished for proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. Who's the idiot who put up the template anyways? Gregg Gillis will most likely release a psychical copy of the album with all of the sampled stated. This was done with his last album. Putting up the original research template just distracts the attempts to name the samples on the album (or mix). ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This might reflect some misunderstanding of the subtleties of the No Original Research policy, but I would argue that, except in those cases where a sample is hard to identify (and then references are certainly appropriate), the record itself is the source; the samples listed on the article at this point are almost all unambiguously identifiable. Khromegnome (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It's unambiguously WP:OR. All that is provided is a list of samples, orders and timing are not sourced anywhere and so is original research. Q T C 16:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Illegal Art published a sample list with all of the samples listed, which I added as a general reference. dissolvetalk 07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
On reading some more of the policy, I agree with you. The relevant point is that even if information is completely obvious ('Paris is in France') and doesn't require a source to be explicitly cited, a source must still exist! The information in the track list was, as many point out, useful, but wikipedia can't and shouldn't try and do everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Admin attention would be good".Thank you. StrPby (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the talk on the admin board and the ORN is talking about it here. I would say to not talk about this on the admin board, talk about it on this page in the RfC section if you want to talk about this album, and go to the OR noticeboard to talk about this as a policy issue site-wide. Blue Rasberry 19:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Track List[edit]

I apologise for this, but the track listing is pure original research, leaving Wikipedia as a primary source. This is highly problematic and, so, I have had to remove it. I dislike doing such things but it is a well established policy with an important reason behind it. Wikipedia is not somewhere to conduct OR and construct such listings, but, from talk page content, I think you already knew that. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that other sites are providing times for samples, and there really is minimal "harm" if people get the wrong information, I'd err on allowing it. It isn't controversial in any sense if the times are wrong and either way, it's not like people are using this as a 100% reliable source. It should note that the times are based on x and y source, but it's not like we're talking about sensitive/libelous information here. I'm generally pretty hard on OR, but this is common sense. IAR/whatever, the risk of being wrong has no real consequence.--Terrillja talk 14:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry that is not an acceptable reason for keeping it. There is a problem with setting a single article precedent; in that it establishes a base for more OR in other articles. OR is one of only three core policies; it is there to ensure the wiki remains a reliable resource. As such it is a solid bright line and needs to be adequately discussed. it's not like people are using this as a 100% reliable source is a worrying argument! People do use WP as a reliable source; and we have to step up to ensure that we meet that expectation as much as possible. WP:HARMLESS relates to deletion rationale, but the spirit of that advice applies. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason (for anything), so it isn't setting a precedent. Anyone who tried to use that as an argument will be shot down in record time. It's an album. Not like we are talking about evolution or some other controversial subject where people may actually use WP as a source.--Terrillja talk 14:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't involved.. I was explaining why OR exists as a core policy and why exclusions are not allowed. You're argument is a classic application of WP:HARMLESS, which is why it is invalid. OR is a core policy; think of it as a most sacred rule. Verifiability is a main site policy. This violates both of those. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well you are arguing that it sets a precedent. I'm saying thet there is no such thing as a precedent here because of otherstuffexists. And I can do without the preaching on sacred rules. It isn't my first day on the block.--Terrillja talk 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay cautioning the use of such an argument in discussions. However, the way the Wiki works is on application of policy through precedents. Where such matters become controversial then a discussion is undertaken to iron out the details (i.e. the creation of guidelines). By allowing OR into individual articles that begins to undermine the core content policy, and could be used at other articles to say "look, there is a precedent for OR and unverified material that is NOHARM and non-contentious to be allowed". It is fundamental that everything added to this article should be able to be verified in a reliable source - for the purposes of being relaxed I for one would accept Whosampled, but a) not many other editors will and b) there is no Whosampled reference for this article anyway, so it is still completely OR. WP:HARMLESS is, however, definitely an invalid argument against WP:OR. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
??? There is no whosampled entry for this album? I posted a link to a specific All Day sample and the original sample and [1] shows a number of songs from all day. If you're going to argue that there is no reference, you should check your facts first.--Terrillja talk 14:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh I see, that is clearer. I assumed Whosampled was dealing with it as "All Day" not as sections. The rest of my point stands; unverified information should be cut. Plus this is not our sort of remit. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I should also point out that if you're talking about precedent, every previous Girl Talk album is in the same format, and has been for quite some time. Worm 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but the fact that no one has found that out yet is... not a great argument. I'm verging towards cutting it all and providing the links to Whosampled in the next few days. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, I absolutely agree it shouldn't be on here on the basis of WP:NOR and links to Whosampled is a good idea, I just thought I'd point out that the "precedent" arguement wasn't the best...Worm 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I am torn between appreciating your zealous following of wikipedia's rules and my feeling that they do not apply in this case, and removing the OR would have a net negative effect. I'm thinking WP:IGNORE applies here perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leav (talkcontribs) 13:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you really say so? WP:IAR is all about ignoring rules to improve the encyclopedia. Well, in that case, we're looking at ignoring a very important rule (policy) to show possibly incorrect information. I agree it's interesting for fans, who can look at it whilst listening and learn more about the songs sampled, but from an encyclopedic point of view, without being able to verify the information it could be seen to positively harm the legitimacy of the project. Just because you like it doesn't mean it is improving the encyclopedia Worm 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Girl Talk noted this on his twitter. He disapproves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So, as unfortunate as it is to let this stand as the tracklist (especially given that as far as i've experienced, most people visit this wiki page EXCLUSIVELY for the information regarding the samples Gregg uses), i would be eternally grateful if somebody took care of this immediately as a reputable source is available on the topic; i'm tired of having to manually revert to a previous version in order to get the information i'm searching for. -> i forget my username, sorry. deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there is a currently a good external link on the page to, which has a visualisation of the tracks. Also, you can check here for a wikipedia style list. Once a reliable source is available, I'm certain it will be used. Worm 09:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC on original research in the article[edit]

All Day is an album which is a mashup of other songs. Wikipedia currently holds a breakdown of these songs by track time period, something there are currently no verifiable sources for and might constitute original research. Multiple media reports have cited Wikipedia as including the information. Is it acceptable to ignore all rules and keep the information in?

Originally created by Strange Passerby 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) - updated to be more neutral by Worm 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC); updated again Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See prior discussions at WP:AN#All Day (album) full of original research and WP:ORN#Girl Talk albums.


  1. Given that there is a verifiable source for each of the samples contained within the album (this page) and that the time stamps are a helpful and subjectively minor addition, I'd say that they're worth keeping. flatluigi(talk/contrib) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Another form of OR which is acceptable on Wikipedia is taking a photograph of a famous person and then uploading it as a user-created photo of a famous person, and this is analogous. Just as there is no need to source the obvious when no one disagrees with it, there is no need to have a source for a track list when no one disputes the content. The information is useful, it is warranted in the article, it is desired, it is of excellent quality, and it is verifiable by OR as correct in the same way that if I took a picture of the president, uploaded it, and said it was the president, then I would expect people to not blast me for not having a source confirming it. Wikipedia is made to distribute excellent information; the rules are in place to assure quality of information. If the information's integrity and usefulness are not questioned then leave it. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Blue Rasberry 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    1. OR which is acceptable on Wikipedia is taking a photograph of a famous person and then uploading it as a user-created photo - this is not OR. A celebrity is instantly recognisable in the image, his/her image is common knowledge trivially verified by almost anyone within seconds. This is a poor example. :) The rest of your argument is simply WP:NOHARM, which is a generally invalid argument. --Errant (chat!) 20:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
My example may or may not be poor but I do not recognize your presentation of a rationale for you saying so. The songs are "instantly recognizable", common knowledge, and trivially verified by almost anyone (within the cultural context of the target audience of the music, just as celebrity photos are only to their culture) within seconds. You are correct in that "no harm" is an invalid argument alone, but also many people in opposition of posting the data are using a "harm" argument for saying what happens if we neglect the strictest reading of WP:OR. If the "harm" arguments are going to be used, then a "no harm" argument needs to counter it.
Here is the original image policy. I argue that this applies to data which literally and without commentary describes any media, and thus it applies to the data in question for this article. I assert that adding a track list is not putting forth an unpublished idea or argument because it is merely describing content in indisputable terms. Blue Rasberry 22:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Just curious, have you listened to the All Day? I can see your argument if the songs were "instantly recognizable" and trivially verified by anyone in the culture. I listen to a lot of music. I've heard well over 3/4 of the songs and would recognise them, so I would (quite arrogantly) put myself in the culture. I can spot some of the songs, trivially, and with a little work I could find the time they start and end. But I don't see how "0:15 - 0:15 Jay-Z - "99 Problems"" is identified trivially, that's less than a second. I'd argue the same for any that last under 5 seconds. And most importantly is my phrase just a couple of sentences ago "with a little work". A little work is research, and since I'm doing it, it's original research.Worm 10:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It is OR, and it is among the types of OR which are acceptable. But I am proposing another way to do this which might be easier to resolve. Would you join me below here? Blue Rasberry 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. As the editor that linked to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules on the discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard, I think I should comment on this RFC. As a contrarian to the (unfortunately, IMHO) now dominant culture of deletionism found here, I made the comment in the spirit of eventualism, and Fast Company has published an infographic of many of the samples that make up the album. dissolvetalk 06:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes. I don't understand why you people are trying to break this article. It IS the definitive source for this information; I just searched out WIkipedia *specifically* to find the tracklist and timings for All Day, and initially thought someone had vandalized the page by deleting it. I mean, I guess that I realize now, someone DID vandalize the page; that it was an editor that did so, and that this person seems to have done it in an Orwellian fit of bureaucratic policy enforcement, means little to the reader that's just searching for information and not finding it. (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


  1. Definitely not in my opinion. NOR is a core policy and media coverage of this page being used as a fansite be damned, that's what we should be avoiding. "[The rules] do not apply in this case" is absolutely the wrong way to see this and is setting a very bad precedent to say we can ignore core policy once the media says a page exists exactly for doing so. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. My position is already clear. I do sympathise with the invocation of IAR. However, in this case it is highly inappropriate because it is being used to bypass one of the core and founding principles of Wikipedia (actually, two, both NOR and V). The main argument for application of IAR seems to be that it does no harm in this case. Perhaps true, but I do not find it persuasive. NOR has been established and upheld for a very long time and it is not beneficial to the Wiki to try and ignore them "just this once". --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. I'm another no. I do not feel that ignore all rules applies in this case, as the possibly incorrect original research does not improve the credibility of the encyclopedia, thereby harming it. We have policies for a very good reason and in this case, we should be following them. Recommend it is moved to a fan site. Worm 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) -- Having just listened to Oh No, I'm going to change my opinion to HELL NO!. IF you know all the songs listed well (and that's a big if) it is possibly you'll be able to identify half of them without difficulty. But samples that last two seconds? Against the back drop of 2-3 other songs? There is no way this is obvious without research, and is therefor breaking a fundamental policy. Worm 09:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. Applying IAR here seems like a misunderstanding and misapplication of IAR. We can't simple include OR because others are reporting our OR. If my local TV station calls me the Queen of England after I proclaim myself the queen, that's ridiculous. I think the IAR here should be used to ignore WP:V in a literal sense, in that we are unsure that our own article is true or verifiable, so we shouldn't suddenly make OR verifiable by using likely incorrect media reports. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  5. I also agree that NOR is important and a reliable source should have to validate (and publish) the claims. While the information may be verifiable, it seems to be synthesis because one would have to know what they other songs are (as the songs likely don't explicitly call out the songs being mashed and the article doesn't appear to source the compoment songs to the album liner). Additionally, listing each component of each song seems to be trivial and give undue weight; the article is about the album and only the short lede addresses it as a topic. —Ost (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  6. Regardless of whether the article in question contains OR, WP:IAR absoultely has its uses, however WP:NOR is not one of them. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  7. IAR allows disregarding rules if it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia. Allowing OR, or any other core policy violation, is never an improvement.  Sandstein  09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  8. No. It is original research. Some Wikipedian with a stopwatch, I guess, and how much confidence can we have in him or his watch? For all I know he was like "Well, that was about a half minute, I'll put it down as 0:28" or whatever. True, a a writer for reliable-source publication could do the same, but they have a reputation to uphold and he presumably has an editor standing over him who is going to either check his data or at least be all like "I expect accuracy in all your reporting, and if you ever screw up and it comes out, I'll have your head". That incentive doesn't apply to our Wikipedian. Even if the data is accurate this time, the principle applies. As to WP:IAR, IAR is fine and useful in some cases, but this is a minor case. IAR should be invoked as rarely as possible, mostly on important issues. Rather than invoking IAR, go over to WP:NOR and lobby for an exception for discrete data which can be measured by a typical editor (but good luck with that - I'd be against it). Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  9. It is not acceptable to use Ignore All Rules (can we please stop linking that page?) as justification for this action. While it is not explicit within Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, simple statements of fact on primary sources are allowed. This is tacit within the quoted text "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." [Emphasis mine.] If the material is easily and transparently verified, then the primary source's facts make be re-iterated, e.g. "This is a picture of Roman Polanski." I'm finding it difficult to determine from the discussion above if there is dispute on the quoted facts themselves. Because tenable debate on any fact then renders it analytic, and thus no longer allowed. - brenneman 03:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  10. I have used these pages in the past to construct Girl Talk-related projects. And yet, I agree this is excessive original research. The same pages could have been produced by a fan wiki hosted elsewhere. In fact, here are the start times of the samples used in All Day. Philosophistry (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


  • Comment – I would expect the result of this RFC to apply across all articles and not just this one, so if a clear consensus is reached that this is not permissible, the other albums referenced in the No original research noticeboard post should be appropriately edited as well. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, I believe the statement of the RFC is supposed to be Neutral, and this is about as slanted as you can get. Can you rephrase it a bit before other people start responding to the original phrasing? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis very true... Worm 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, seems only fair to change it. Suggest: Is it applicable to invoke WP:Ignore all rules to include Original Research of track listings in this article.? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd go even further, and actually explain the situation.
All Day is an album which is a mashup of other songs. Wikipedia currently holds a breakdown of these songs by track time period, something there are currently no verifiable sources for. As multiple media reports have cited Wikipedia as including the information, and it is not harming anyone, can we ignore all rules and keep the information in?
How's that? Worm 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thumbs up from me --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Still not neutral. How about All Day is an album which is a mashup of other songs. Wikipedia currently holds a breakdown of these songs by track time period, something there are currently no verifiable sources for. Is it acceptable in this case to ignore all rules and keep the information in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No problems from me, was trying to put the basic arguments from both sides in, but happy with your version SoV Worm 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Adjusted per Sarek's wording. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Psst! The quality that (good) sources have is reliability. It is Wikipedia content that is, or is not, verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. The article indicates that a full list of samples was published on the artists' web site, making it fairly clear what songs are being "mashed up." I guess I am not getting where concerns of OR are coming from, could that be clarified please? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That list does not include timings of the samples within the album - which IP's and editors have been adding to the article. There is some sort of list as but it is not complete (and is not a reliable source). People seem to be conducting OR (see top of the page) on this and the other album pages to add the timings here directly. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • (BTW, even were WhoSampled complete I think at this point I would prefer to see an external link than a list here on the article) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What I would like to know in this case -- & other cases where X is included as part of Y -- is whether these samplings are identifiable to a reasonably informed listener. In other words, if I listened to the first track "Oh No", would I be expected to recognize the two songs I do know (i.e. "Jane Says" & the Doors' "Waiting for the Sun")? If so, wouldn't stating these samplings be analogous to the consensus that plot summaries of novels, short stories, etc., are not original research? -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point and an interesting way of looking at it. I guess the original research comes in saying accurately when the tracks change, which can happen over a few seconds due to the mixing. Also, we never go into quite so much detail in plot summaries, for example each chapter in a book is not summarised, but rather the book as a whole. Worm 11:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I think that is true. Also it is my understanding that it is not "immediately obvious" which songs are where. I could potentially buy the idea of listing the samples in each segment, were there a reliable source for it. But there does not appear to be --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there an issue with using this sample listing published by the label that published the album as a reliable source? --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say perhaps, as a general reference, bearing in mind it's a primary source too. But it's not sufficient to cite that for the claims that a particular song is sampled in a particular track unless explicitly listed as such in a reliable source. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 15:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
My point is that description is not original research. To say that in a given symphonic work the violins are given unusual prominence is a description (as long as this is easily verifiable by any listener); to say that the violins give that work a melancholic sense is (arguably) original research -- or a statement needing a citation. Looking at this article more carefully, on one hand I can't help wonder just how recognizable some of the songs that were sampled are, while on the other I don't see how a less detailed listing of sources for each track would be considered original research (e.g., "Songs sampled to create 'Oh No' (5:39 long) include Black Sabbath's 'War Pigs', Ludacris' 'Move Bitch', Dorrough's 'Ice Cream Paint Job', and The Brothers Johnson's 'Strawberry Letter 23'". (I selected the songs that were the longest, & thus plausibly the most identifiable; someone more familiar with this album would quite likely make a different selection & present the information differently than a list.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually llywrch, both of those statements would be OR and need reliable sourcing; the first statement is still an opinion about the piece and requires knowledge/comparison with other similar works; i.e. it is definitely something needing a source! In terms of the remainder of your comment, that is the underlying problem of OR, a number of people might pick (or identify) different samples. There is definitely a reasonable element of work to identify a reasonable number and very much a lot of work to figure it out in any comprehensive way with timings. For the benefit of those who have not listened; it is not easy to pick apart the songs and figure out which is which. As an example; the first section consists of Black Sabbath's "War Pigs" with various rap songs sampled over the top. After that we get even shorter segments of many different songs together. In all I picked out perhaps 3 songs I new from the first two sections, I doubt anyone else would pick the same three. There is no concievable way this could be considered reasonable knowledge --Errant (chat!) 13:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What I was trying to illustrate in my example was an observation which any reasonable person might make; unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a suitable musicological example. (The example I originally wanted to use was an architectural one, as follows. It would not be original research to say a building has a doorway & three windows on the northern side if anyone can either visit the building or look at a photo & see that. But it would be original research to speculate why the windows were located in the exterior wall where they were.) But even if you accept my distinction between "description" & "original research", the fact you listened to the first track & felt that you could only pick out "perhaps 3 songs I new from the first two sections", leads me to believe that listing the sources of the sampled tracks in this case can not be considered a description by an uninvolved party. -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Where are the aforementioned "multiple media reports"? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh, what's the word? Ah yes... pedantry. What I find ironic (amusing, relevant) is that the Fast Company infographic that now stands in as a piss-poor substitute for the track listings and start/end times cites as sources and, which themselves cite the now-expurgated Wikipedia article in question. So... circular reference! Oh what a tangled web we weave. Notatinklefan (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A thought from a random outsider[edit]

I would argue that WP:OR is, effectively, WP:V's backstop, or enforcer. WP:OR excludes content that is unverifiable because it was speculated, interpolated, guessed, or estimated by the editor. WP:OR is a means to an end, which is ensuring that content on wikipedia is verifiable.
Can this content be verified by another wikipedian? That is, could somebody else listen to the album and note down track times, or whatever else is contested, and derive the same result? Or could another wikipedian gain the information in some other way from any other source that is not a copy of this page? If so, then I would be happy that WP:V is satisfied. If that is not possible, delete it. bobrayner (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with your interpretation of OR. I too think that the real question here is whether the times of the tracks are WP:OR or not. WP:IAR is a canard. It would become impossible to write articles on a whole host of articles if OR was enforced with the degree of severity which appears to be advocated here. The real question is whether a non-expert listener could compile the times without any difficulty? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Having listened to parts of the track now... you would need to be able to identify the songs (so that is non-trivial in many cases) plus would need to jump back and forth sometimes to get the times right. The way to think of OR is this; are you doing your own research or relying on your own expert knowledge to find something? Or are you relying on the research of others. This is very much OR and I do not think it is severe to suggest that; the plot of a book is "common knowledge" in that it is immediately accessible to anyone who has read the book. The timings and names of the samples in this track is not immediately accessible to everyone who has listened to it. OR is still OR even if multiple Wikipedia users are verifying it - the reason we rely on third party reliable sources is because there is no way to guarantee whether any specific subset of Wiki users are reliable. --Errant (chat!) 17:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Another random comment We had a dispute along these lines about 18 months ago--Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica). It was never resolved to anyone's satisfaction, it just kind of petered out. Reading this RfC, however, it appears that the issue of what an untrained, knowledgeable observer can attest to has never been satisfactorily resolved. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is an interesting question of WP:NOR and WP:V, but what about WP:CALC, which allows "calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Maybe Calc doesn't permit this per se yet, but it could. Essentially editors are just identifying a song and recording the timestamps. That may be a bit OR, but it seems pretty routine to me, especially if it's corroborated in other sources (albeit with slightly lower reliability than we'd like). Ocaasi (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Still another comment I totally understand the purpose of OR, but I seriously think we need to reexamine it, or perhaps add a section called WP:DONTGETYOURSHORTSINAKNOTOVERTHEBLOODYOBVIOUS. There are instances where a primary source (such as a town census) is probably more accurate than any secondary source, but it's a fight to use the more accurate one because some people seem to interpret OR as meaning we can't use primary sources at all. As to this; I'm not convinced that someone with a decent CD or MP3 player couldn't watch the track times and figure out where one track ends and another begins. That's like calling it OR to figure out the length of the gap between the last track and the hidden track on Probot is (because they show up as one track that's 12:08), which seems like overkill. This particular recording wasn't exactly early Napalm Death, if you know what I mean; it wasn't hard to figure out, and anyone who listens to music could have done so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've just downloaded this thing and listened to some of it. This is comparable to when a user adds a plot synopsis to an article on a film. Yes, it is original research, no, it's not a problem. Most of samples are very obvious, if there are specific samples whose timing is debated that is something that can be adressed on a case-by-case basis. By the way, this guy was on All Things Considered yesterday and mentioned how much he personally enjoyed watching all this being added to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Uh, surely if specific samples could be addressed on a case-by-case basis that is the very definition of Original Research amongst Wikipedians! I don't think this is comparable to a plot synposis; in that case the process of reading the book or watching a film in the normal way leaves you with knowledge of the story - which could be condensed trivially into a plot. Whereas listenign to this track in the normal way, I suggest, would leave you with some knowledge of the samples used. To expand this to the timings is, I reckon, a non-trivial exercise. It is also worth pointing out that the guidance on plot summaries stresses two things - a) that it is a specific special case and b) that it is to be balanced against critical reception (which is the focus on the Wiki article); in specific The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. So even in the case of a legitimate argument for this coming under the same rules it is still major overkill. I'd suggest that we should leave the issues of verification of track timings to the third party database (WhoSampled). To hammer my point home I ask this; how long do you think it would take to verify the information currently in the article? Having listened to the tracks I suggest strongly that it is a non-trivial exercise of several hours work. (and as I final point; while it is nice to hear the artists thoughts, it's entirely irrelevant to whether it is acceptable to keep this or not :)) --Errant (chat!) 22:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So are you arguing against including the tracks used in order, the timings, or both?--Terrillja talk 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Both, pretty much. --Errant (chat!) 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed from Cent per WP:NOTCENT[edit]

This is a discussion regarding one article. If there is a serious attempt to make a change to OR policy, please start a proposal discussion on the talkpage of Wikipedia:No original research with a clear rationale of how (and why) you would want to change the wording. If the proposal starts to take shape there with input from OR regulars, then list it on Cent again. Any discussion here would, anyway, need to be conducted on OR before attempting to make such a radical change to a core policy. SilkTork *YES! 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OR removed[edit]

I have returned the article to the last edit before the OR was added. The article should be built up only using information from reliable sources. If anyone is unclear on this, please read WP:OR. If still unclear, please contact me and I will try to explain why we have such a policy, and why IAR does not apply. SilkTork *YES! 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps a little pre-emptive. It might have been worth trying a little longer to bring some of the editors above on-side. On the other hand, this is what we tried a week ago and it just got reverted - hopefully there is no enough people behind the policy to help enforce it - I am removing the OR from the other albums too in light of clear consensus over policy interpretation. --Errant (chat!) 12:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It has not been a week since the RfC was requested and I also think this is preemptive. I would not want a decision made to change things until at least Dec 9 and especially not without a stated reason. I reverted the page to the status quo, which does include the track listing and times. SilkTork, if you want to explain this then please comment more on this page. I do not see this as an obvious call, and I would love for you to respond to my and whatever other rationales are here. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

OR is policy. You would need to change the policy first. I have again put the article back. I am quite happy to explain matters to people who don't quite understand why we don't ignore core policies. If you wish to change policy then please start a discussion on the appropriate page, and when there has been consensus to agree the policy change, the change can be implemented. That a RfC has been called is not a justification for breaking policy. Even if there were a consensus on this page that would still not permit policy to be evaded, as local consensus (as has been decided by various discussions) does not trump the wider community consensus as shown on policy pages. SilkTork *YES! 09:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment There has been an argument above that it is not original research, it can be inferred from the primary source and it is as obvious to the listener as a plot synopsis to a reader or an original image to a viewer. Now, while I disagree with that point of view, and I see the RFC is also disagreeing with it, I don't see that just short-circuiting the discussion process particularly helps anyone. Worm 10:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
What was on the article was clearly Original Research so had to be removed. I haven't stopped discussion on this talkpage - what I have done is restore the article to within policy. The discussion can continue here; though any decision will have to be supported by another discussion on Wikipedia talk:No original research so that people who are familiar with that policy can look closely at the proposal. If the intention of the discussion is about clarifying or amending policy, the discussion would more usefully take place at the OR talkpage, or a question asked at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Making timings of a piece of music clearly violates: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." I don't think anyone in this discussion is sensibly saying that making timings is not an investigation of the component parts of a whole, which is OR - what some people are arguing is that we either turn a blind eye to policy in this case because it's harmless, or that we amend the policy to allow analysis to take place because it's useful. People are free to continue that conversation, but until the policy is amended, then this article should comply with it. At the moment this is a local discussion about ignoring policy on this article. If people are serious about proposing an amendment to policy, please hold that discussion in the appropriate place, and if it picks up, then advertise it through Cent. SilkTork *YES! 12:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Timing is an investigation of the parts of the whole, and it is OR, but it is the kind of acceptable OR applied when doing WP:PLOTONLY or identifying the subject matter of WP:OI. I do not see this position as proposing a change to OR policies so as best I can tell, your answer does not respond to my position even though it may be a good response to someone else's position. I would like to put this talk on hold if you would let me try to sidestep these problems by proposing a compromise in the section below. Blue Rasberry 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No. Plot summary is a specific clarification of the NOR rule. Specifically to point out that plot verification is a trivial exercise of any reader and is not interpretive (which therefore makes it not original research). Plot summaries are not, and never were, "acceptable OR", no OR is acceptable here on Wikipedia. --Errant (chat!) 19:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Strip time, leave tracks[edit]

We have been discussing whether a track list can go in this article. The one presented was user created to match the order of the play list of the album. We have a source for list of tracks, but this source shows them alphabetically and not chronologically and also does not include timings.

How would everyone feel about keeping the track list, keeping the playlist order, and stripping the timings? The track list is indisputably sourced. The playlist order is OR because the source presents songs alphabetically, but I would argue that ordering the songs is analogous to the kind of acceptable OR described in WP:PLOTONLY. I argue that including the timings is permissible OR for being analogous to identifying the subject matter of WP:OI, but since this point is contentious, and since retaining the track list in chronological order is almost as useful as retaining the same with the timings, then omitting the timings while keeping the rest might be the easiest compromise. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Adding in whosampled as a ref will reinforce that as well.--Terrillja talk 19:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is an encyclopaedic value or interest in listing all the samples. It's not really what we are here for; usually it wouldn't worry me, but it is a huge list of zero value to readers (see WP:NOTDIR and WP:UNDUE for pointers). A link to that and to whosampled is ample. Instead; focus on critical commentary and review. --Errant (chat!) 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't unusual to have a decently sized section of an album article or song article to talk about the tempo, key, etc. Given the mashup nature of this album, there isn't a "good" way to write it in prose, it really has to be in a list form. The mashing/mixing/sequence are the tempo/beat of this album and are instrumental to this album being what it is. --Terrillja talk 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Generally speaking such information is included in tandem with the relevant commentary. As we have no commentary then it is difficult to accept an unwieldy list of no real value. It doesn't help explain the music at all. The size of the list is what concerns me; there is simply no value to the user --Errant (chat!) 21:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The information does have real value. It does explain the music. The track list is supposed to be on Wikipedia.[1] I wonder if perhaps you do not understand the novelty of the subject of the article. I propose that it is interesting primarily for containing a large number of recognizable tracks, and persons coming to this Wikipedia article will specifically be seeking this list of tracks wikified to connect to the other artists' songs. Have I sourced this sufficiently? If not, what kind of source would you be expecting to buy into this? Blue Rasberry 02:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm new here, but i noticed that Greg Gillis, AKA Girl Talk was complaining in his twitter (@therealgirltalk) about the tracklist not being in the article anymore, just saying...

As a newcomer to the discussion, I think it's important to include the sample list (which is verifiable as not OR), because with mashups, the list of samples is important and relevant information for anybody looking for information about the album. I say strip the time but leave the samples. --Hojimachongtalk 03:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Also new to Wikipedia procedure. In case its useful to anyone, I've posted a copy of the Wikipedia tracklist I've been working with (current as of Dec. 4) to [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue with the time list is that no one has identified a reliable source who published such a list, so since this link seems to not be attributed to some kind of industry professional, it counts as original research and cannot be used. This is assuming that noting track times is non-trivial; elsewhere on this talk page I argue that it is trivial but others say it is not. Right now I am just suggesting the removal of the timings so that hopefully I can get consensus to put the track list back up. If either of you new people need help then ask me questions on my talk page. If you can get Gillis to publish a time list or give his endorsement to it, then that also would make it reliable data. He praised Wikipedia for having his list, notified twitter when it got removed, and is directing people here now. I think I will write him... Blue Rasberry 05:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did think this was fine, and that the timing was the only problem until I heard the song, as I mentioned above. The problem is that some of the tracks are not easily identifiable, especially ones that last a very short period of time, eg Jay-Z - "99 Problems" which lasts less than a second. I listened to that second about 20 times and I couldn't be certain. My point is that the published list doesn't break it down by track, let alone order, and you're still putting too much research into the order. I'm afraid it still doesn't work. Worm 09:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a jerk over this; but as can been seen in the higher up discussions establish Wiki editors coming to this page are agreeing that this is inappropriate. Let me set it out clearly so there is no ambiguity.

  • The samples list is of little objective value. Articles generally have the necessary content to describe a piece of work, a list of sampled songs of this length is indiscriminate and of little value (we are not a "directory").
  • The timings on the songs so far have no reliable source. There are sources but these are self published or fan-contributed sources. As such their reliability is hard to judge and, due to the nature of the content, we can never hope to keep up to date with them.
  • But even more problematic is that direct research work is definitely being done on this article, that is the Elephant in the room at this stage.
  • The list of samples organised by track is OR. And in alphabetical order has little value and is too indiscriminate.
  • Regarding the argument above of for the content "supposed to be here"; that is irrelevant unfortunately. We are our own keeper :)
  • Regarding I propose that it is interesting primarily for containing a large number of recognizable tracks; if this is the case, find a source and make not of that in the article.
  • persons coming to this Wikipedia article will specifically be seeking this list of tracks wikified to connect to the other artists' songs; "Wikipedia is not a Directory" covers this.

We look for critical reception and review of the piece rather than OR. I'd encourage everyone here to take their research to one of the other community sites where such content is more appropriate - and link to it from here. --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a pretty glaring violation of WP:ELNO to link to open/community controlled fansites.--Terrillja talk 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly a more easily allowable option than OR in the article. Whosampled, I think, is not a fansite and there is technically nothing disallowing community driven sites under the right circumstances. EL's should give value to the article, often linking to material that cannot make it onto the wiki (for whatever reason) and the rules mostly revolve around the avoidance of advertising. It might need discussion, but I expect we could get consensus to include it. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The day a new Girl Talk album hits, people start entering the samples in Wikipedia right away."
  2. ^

Propose to close original research discussion[edit]

I call for consensus to close the original research discussion with the understanding that a track list would not constitute original research as the track list and timings are well-sourced. Is there any opposition? Blue Rasberry 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please return the track listing with times? Explain it to yourselves however you like, it was a valuable resource, it got Wikipedia press, and I just came back here to look for it to find it gone. The website is actively looking for money right now, why are you pointlessly deleting information that is useful to people? This is without a doubt overzealous editing and is only serving to annoy casual users who come looking for it. -MOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 Yes. I have restored the track list for now as it was removed for WP:OR concerns, and I have tried to meet those concerns. Could I ask other editors to comment on my action? Blue Rasberry 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little beyond how you can consider the below discussion as "a track list would not constitute original research as the track list and timings are well-sourced." when it is, uh, definitely not the case. Removed, do not add original research to Wikipedia, we do not want it, sorry --Errant (chat!) 20:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your opposition. Does it have a rationale? Please critique the source and source content. Blue Rasberry 20:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Which source - am I missing a new one? --Errant (chat!) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Fastcompany. I have not checked every part of it, but it certainly has hundreds of track listings with start times. It at least sources a most of what was posted. Blue Rasberry 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
A cursory check shows it does not match up entirely with what we have. It also only has start times. If you want to transcribe that information into the article, that seems reasonable & I would support doing so. But it does not support all that original content. --Errant (chat!) 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a go at transcribing the information, to Talk:All Day (album)/FastCompany, if this is a reliable source, then I think it's a great compromise. The source does show the length of the sample, but it's pretty impossibly to accurately messure it. I've also removed the "featuring" or "with" as they're not on the source, and it's quite likely that they're not on All Day, depending on the part Gillis used. I'd appreciate someone checking over my work before putting it in the article, and also I'd like to see that we have consensus to add it. It's going to be a target for WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT adding in the information I'm removing, but hey ho, I'll certainly be watching the article. Worm 09:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Per below and above, the Fastcompany source is in effect a circular reference and not reliable. Also, oppose closing this discussion with the notion that there's consensus for the stuff to stay as "well-sourced", because it isn't and there clearly is no consensus (3 support/8 oppose) in the RFC above. I'd suggest if this drags out more and we can't reach an agreeable solution then ArbCom would be the way to go. Would make for a change from their usual user behaviour cases. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Arbcom? They deal with users mostly, definitely never article content :) I hardly expect they would accept this as a case! There is at least MEDCABAL and MEDCOM first. But I don't think even that is needed --Errant (chat!) 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Jclemens – now an arbitrator-elect – pointed out above that a similar MEDCAB case has taken place in the past and gotten nowhere. I'd probably suggest bypassing MEDCAB and going to MEDCOM if need be, but I'd argue that protecting Wikipedia's core policies like OR is hardly outside of ArbCom's purview if it comes down to that. That's just speculative talk right now though. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • In my opinion, consensus has been reached from the comments above. If an uninvolved admin was passing, I would have no problem with this being closed, I don't see a need for ArbCom. Identifying samples is not trivial and therefore does not fall under WP:PLOTONLY. At the moment, there are no reliable sources that give a sample listing by track or by timing, the full alphabetical sample list is not helpful to this article. Although the argument of WP:HARMLESS is understandable, it does not outweigh WP:NOR. Then again, I'm involved...Worm 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I agree that consensus has been reached and have no problem with a closing – but only in agreement that there is no basis for the OR to be restored. The section starter's proposal is to close the discussion in favour of restoring the information, for which I am arguing there is no consensus. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Solution Not possible - circular ref[edit]

Per the Fastcompany source, I have transcribed all the information to Talk:All Day (album)/FastCompany. Assuming that Fastcompany is an acceptable source, I believe that this should be a good compromise, it retains the order and includes a start time for each of the sub-tracks, whilst not falling under WP:OR. My only worry is that it falls under WP:COPYVIO, and I'd appreciate some thoughts on that. I'll drop a note on the appropriate board so someone with experience can chime in. Worm 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is way overkill for the article, but I have no policy based objection. --Errant (chat!) 10:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, rather goes against WP:PLOTONLY, but that can be fixed if we can find more information about the album in general. Worm 10:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the Fastcompany graphics cite and, which both in turn cite Wikipedia on this. This is not a reliable source and is in effect exactly the same thing we had on the page before it was removed. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 10:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I must have missed that. Having said that, I compared the Wikipedia list as I was going through it, and I'd say there was about a 30% difference between the two. I was thinking I was impressed that we had 70% correct, but if it was a circular ref with some chinese whispers, then that would be an issue. Ah well, was worth a try. Worm 11:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Have just double checked, Alldaysamples and do indeed both take their information from wikipedia, this is a circular ref Worm 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose to close circular ref argument[edit]

User:Strange Passerby has proposed to leave the track list off on the following bases:

  • "no consensus (3 support/8 oppose) in the RFC above"
I counter that the RfC assumed there was no reliable source, and therefore track list was OR, so this consensus is not for present situation since a reliable source appeared on December 7.
  • "Fastcompany graphics cite and, which both in turn cite Wikipedia on this", so WP:CIRCULAR
I counter that although these sites do cite Wikipedia, the data that they posted on their site is, as User:Worm That Turned says, very different and could never have come from Wikipedia. See the difference between what was on Wikipedia and what is on Fastcompany. Citing Wikipedia as a reference does not necessarily make a circular reference; it just means that Wikipedia was one of many tools that they used in their research, and obviously was not the primary source for generating their data.
  • "there is no basis for the OR to be restored"
I counter that user Passerby has put forward no rationale for calling the Fastcompany track timings OR and call for this user or any other to do so.
  • "I'd probably suggest bypassing MEDCAB and going to MEDCOM if need be, but I'd argue that protecting Wikipedia's core policies like OR is hardly outside of ArbCom's purview if it comes down to that."
I counter that this is uncalled for considering that the discussion has never faltered, everyone is happy here, and that the Fastcompany source has not been fairly considered since it appeared on Dec 7.

I propose to add Worm's track listing to the article mainspace as it complies with WP:V and as the content is something that people go to Wikipedia to find. I am adding this information now. If anyone opposes this insertion, then please state a rationale for doing so. So far as I know, all rationales preventing the insertion of this information are answered. Blue Rasberry 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour is being disruptive to make your point now. You have no consensus for the (re)addition of this information, and as long as more than one user (at this moment, three–Worm, myself, and the user who first brought this up) agrees that this is a circular reference, you shouldn't be using it. Adding this information is in complete defiance of all that has taken place in this discussion. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 17:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your opposition. Does it have a rationale? If so, please elaborate. Blue Rasberry 17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It's quite a reasonable opposition. The pages uses a source that uses wikipedia as a source. That is the very definition of a circular reference. I agree it is different to our current version, but do consider that the article version has been changed regularly since the album came out. If Gillis publishes something in a reliable form, then we can use it, for now, it must stay out. Worm 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia.

This is very clear to me. The source presents material that originated from Wikipedia. Whether or not they verified and edited it, it STATES Wikipedia is a source. There's no two ways about it, it can't be used. Worm 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


What is the sample of someone singing the word “run” really slowly, shortly after the “Creep” samples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanhogan (talkcontribs) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this? (2:46 in if the link doesn't work correctly) --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's from "Creep." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Samples unlisted in the sample list[edit]

There are a few songs that aren't on the official sample list that people are adding to the page. Under the interest of having a source of all samples, I'd say we should leave them off but leave a record in here of what they are and at what times (for ease of re-addition if the sample list changes again) --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But only if listening to the song and indicated sample shows that they are plausibly the same, of course --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 05:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd say we leave them off for now, until perhaps Girl Talk updates the sample list at Illegal Art's website again. Though perhaps maybe one of the songs from the "unidentified samples" section samples King Floyd or De La Soul. Holiday56 (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Girl Talk has updated his sample list to include "Me Myself and I", but not King Floyd. Unfortunately, the entire sample page has been removed due to WP:OR. Holiday56 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Track 6 - On and On

Kraftwerk sample[edit]

"It's More Fun to Compute" is listed as a sample in the credits, and it says here it's sampled at 1:31 in "Triple Double", but I can't hear it. Can anyone point out what's sampled? Holiday56 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's at 1:31, it's probably the drum roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sample End Times[edit]

I've started to add sample end times used by (Travis, the creator of AllDaySamples, has given me the OK; for reference, his data file is here.) I've also added a statement about this source in the text at the beginning of the Track Listing section. If there is a more appropriate way to cite this source, please let me know (and/or update it yourself). Thanks! — Benrahn (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed my reference to AllDaySamples with this change. It would be great if some more experienced Wikipedians could weigh in on how best to handle this. Thanks! — Benrahn (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


The "unidentified" section seems a bit too self-reflexive. Perhaps they have been identified by people, just not Wikipedia editors. I suggest it just becomes "additional samples" and state they are listed by the artist, and make no claim about their relative identifiability in the tracks. -- (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sample Listing Removal - What it is and what it shall never be[edit]

I would encourage those who have put time and energy into this matter consider the fact that with a system as organic as wikipedia, it's ultimately futile to try to force people to operate within rules that are not a community priority. I like wikipedia because it is a single source of bandages for my meandering curiosity. All that you have done by removing the track listing, is effectually added a step to my process of getting the information that I want as I now have to go into the article archive to get the information rather than it being (portrayed in the manner that I prefer to digest it) in the body of the article. Wikipedia's community has a nack for presenting information exactly how I like to see it. I don't see why I should bother to go look elsewhere for it. So, don't take this personally, as it is meant merely as a manifestation of the way things are in reality, but: Thank you for wasting my time (by making me go through extra steps.) -a wikipedia consumer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircraftcarryur (talkcontribs) 04:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Which probably means they'll delete the revisions before too long to keep them from surfacing again. Original research is against Wikipedia policy, regardless of how helpful it might be. You're not going to win this. SpoomTalk 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Revdel is not used for that purpose. --Errant (chat!) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This whole debacle made me mad at first. Now it just makes me sad. I'm just saying. --Notatinklefan (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ultimately the removal of the sample list information makes this article less useful. I understand the importance of Verifiability and avoiding OR, but the samples are trivially verifiable from a source (the album) that is freely available. I - like many, many others - came here immediately after the album was released to see what others had figured out about the samples, and my enjoyment of the album has been greatly enriched by it. I think all sides are acting in good faith, but ultimately removing the information accomplishes nothing and makes Wikipedia worse. Hokiejp (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • And allowing original research doesn't? Doesn't fly with me, sorry. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 16:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Why is this the battle you want to fight? Please, I just want to know what tracks went where. Fight this battle somewhere else; removing this useful information feels indistinguishable from vandalism to me and to others who just came here looking for information. And if you still insist, I just need to know, why is THIS, of all places, the place where the guideline needs to be enforced so strictly? (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Found it at last. If anyone's come to the talk page looking for the listing, I was able to find it here. Someone really should mirror this somewhere. (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Some of it's "trivial", but much of it isn't. See the discussion elsewhere on this page about a particular drum roll that only shows up for a second.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Salvaging the tracklists[edit]

Being a firm believer in fixing things rather than waiting for others to fix them — and acting with the understanding that even deleted contributions are covered under CC-BY-SA — I decided to set up a quick PmWiki at with the most recent versions of each of the tracklists from the five albums' edit histories; I hope someone finds this useful.

I ran some regexes to convert from MediaWiki to PmWiki format, and to make sure the song/artist links point properly back to Wikipedia. But if anyone sees anything I screwed up, y'know, it's a wiki. There's an edit button.

All Day Feed the Animals Night Ripper Unstoppable Secret Diary

Joeycastillo (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You rock!
I propose that we include these links in the external link section for each article. Removing these track lists it the worst kind of game, imho. --Travis Thurston+ 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Be aware of what you're linking to. We do not allow WP:OR and that is that, it's not gaming the system to remove it but it is gaming the system to try to find ways of re-including the OR as you appear to want to. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 08:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I see no issue with keeping a link to OR on the talk page. OR is on article space. Worm 14:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in shoehorning this information back into the article. My only point is that this information, while incompatible with Wikipedia policy on OR, represents the contributions of hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedians over a period of years, and is valuable. My primary interest is in seeing that it is not destroyed. A secondary interest is in seeing that people who are seeking the information can find it; but that much is above my pay grade. I've noted other articles that link to fan wikis in their "External Links" section, but I'm not going within 1000 feet of articlespace on this one. Joeycastillo (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There is NOTHING wrong with an EL having OR. The whole POINT of ELs is that they contain useful info that can't be fit into the article. This qualifies under that criteria about as well as anything can. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I disagree that the wikipedia policy on OR excludes those listings from the article, I realise some folk disagree. Unfortunately we've now bypassed the question of verifiability or accuracy and - if I'm reading this correctly - there's now an argument that we can't link to external sources which contain an element of OR even from a talkpage. Does somebody actually believe that? Such a stance would preclude millions of sources used by wikipedia articles; that's what we use external sources for. bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, an external link isn't the same as a source. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Far be it for me to point out what external links should not be, but number 2 says "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.", which is a reasonable argument against. Also goes against 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" - Anyway, I'd be much happier with an EL to say,, which not only allows you to listen to the music, but also visualize the the track list. Worm 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

AUGH, but uses the expurgated Wikipedia article as its source. :-P Notatinklefan (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we upload the whole album?[edit]

I'm no copyright expert, but this album is licensed using this license, which should give us permission to actually upload at least part of the album as a media file. I could be wrong, though. G man yo (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright law and Wikipedia policy allow uploads of parts of any song no matter what the copyright is. See the policy here. If you or anyone else wanted to edit and upload a clip up to 30 seconds long, then that is an option.
The page already links to the official download site in the links, where anyone can get the full song. However, I believe that one could upload the entire album to Wikipedia Commons by the policy here. Can someone else comment on this? Blue Rasberry 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not 100% on that... I know we could if it was under CC-BY-SA, but because it's CC-BY-NC I don't think it's allowed on commons. Not my strongest area of expertise, but it appears to be too restrictive a license. Worm 09:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There is also the issue that the song is originally clips used under fair use, so that becomes a wider problem - given that we use more restrictive fair use rules than the actual law. --Errant (chat!) 09:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
So can we do it or not? Could we do a request for comment? Should we just try it and see what happens? G man yo (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Best to ask an admin specialising in copyright before doing so. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons can't take media files that are licensed for non-commercial use only. :/ Per copyright policy, we can only import content that is compatible with CC-By-SA; CC-By-NC is not. Our copyright FAQ includes a table showing some compatible licenses here. As commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses explain, they can't take content that isn't licensed for commercial reuse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I had not even read the details on the album, but having done so I have to say that Errant has raised a good point. If this album is mashes of other songs, then it could be a derivative work, in which case we would need consent of the copyright holders of the original anyway. I'm not familiar with the music at all, though, so I don't know if any of the clips they sample are "substantial." Sometimes it takes a judge to determine that. :) Either way, we can still use clips under WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's substantial alright. If we can't use derivative works that pretty much eliminates uploading the whole album as an option; it's made entirely out of other material. G man yo (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Original Research[edit]

The Wikipedia pages of the albums made by the artist Girl Talk have been lauded as an example of the power of crowd-sourcing as users have together determined (and posted) the names and track times of the samples he has used for his albums. However, this violates the original research tenet of wikipedia, as the "sample lists" created by users are research based on the album.However, it is fair to say that the artist has shown no signs of posting the sample list himself. As such, this content is not available to be cited. This information does not appear to be available otherwise.Given this, does WP:IGNORE apply, as taking down this information renders it not available for the public at all? Walker9010 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a confusing issue because as noted elsewhere on this talk page, various media outlets announced that the album's tracklist was on Wikipedia and that Wikipedia was a place where people could organize to do original research. Wikipedia is not, in fact, a place where people can publish original research. Let me reply to some of your points -
  • "As such, this content is not available to be cited." - There is nothing to cite. Wikipedia is not and has never been a source intended or reasonably usable for factual citation. Wikipedia is a place where people come to read summaries and therein find sources to cite. I do not think anyone in the community disputes this.
  • "This information does not appear to be available otherwise." - Again, this means that there is nothing anyone can cite for Wikipedia, and without a source to cite information cannot appear on Wikipedia.
  • "taking down this information renders it not available for the public at all?" - wikis are excellent media for organizing this sort of original research, but the wiki called Wikipedia explicitly excludes hosting this kind of research
  • "it is fair to say that the artist has shown no signs of posting the sample list himself" - Gillis stated on his Twitter that he was interested in doing this someday, but that is irrelevant. The artist does not have to publish his list to get it on here - any reliable source can publish a track list and have it considered for inclusion in this article. What this means is that a professional or known entity in the field publishes the track list. This is a very low standard of inclusion into Wikipedia, and if this low standard is not met for proposed content, then that content does not belong.
If you feel strongly about contributing to the state of music research in the world, write to and collaborate with a known music professional who has established skills in this sort of musicology, and have them meticulously review the tracks and publish a corrected version of the tracklist. If a reputable person or organization would put their credibility on the line by publishing their research, then that meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirement. Doing uncited research within an article page does not. Blue Rasberry 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a pretty good summation from BlueRasberry. It would be nice to have such information on the page, but crowd sourcing is not verifiable. It's probably correct but Wikipedia does not (and should not) accept "probably correct". There are numerous other places that the information can appear with less difficulty, indeed we point to mashupbreakdown in the external links, which shows it very well. Worm 09:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No, IAR is not about grandly ignoring rules. It is one of the most misunderstood WP policies. IAR is about cutting through beurocratic creep when working on the wiki, not about ignoring key foundations of the wiki when it suits you. Wikipedia cannot accept OR contributions, period, because it utterly undermines any sense of authority the Wiki might have. Even then, there is the problem that it doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic to record that long stream of information. There are other sites out there much better suited for the sort of collaboration you enjoy, please use them. --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Apologies if you disagree with my stating of the issue. In accordance with usage of RFC, my intent was to state both sides as clearly as possible while opening the formal comment window in order to allow everyone a chance to comment. Walker9010 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • There was already a reasonably extensive RFC about this, which resulted in a negative. That included a long discussion on IAR and how it is not applicable. As was pointed out at the time; the issue of OR is key, and if you want a specific exception to it article level consensus is insufficient - you will need community level discussion, for example at WT:OR --Errant (chat!) 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Not to mention that closed RFC is barely a month old. I move to close this new RFC as nothing has changed in that month and obviously we can't possibly keep having RFCs on the subject until the pro-inclusion view gets its way. As was pointed out earlier, take it to WT:OR. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Move to close as premature[edit]

I move that this RFC be closed as premature as the last RFC closed barely a month ago and no new information has come out nor has community consensus shifted drastically in that time to warrant a new RFC on inclusion of the disputed content. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Album reviews[edit]

I see that my review removals were added back again. My rationale for removing 10 of the 20 reviews is because Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Critical reception states, "Include no more than ten reviews in table form". The page currently has twice that amount. Also, something else worth pointing out is that the reviews should be put in their own table as per the decision regarding reviews in infoboxes. So, what reviews should be removed from the article? After that, I would want to make a table for the reviews, but someone else can if they would want to do so. Thank you. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)