Talk:Box Frenzy

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

notability

it has not been established that there is significant content about the subject that have been published in reliable third party sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or more accurately, the editor making this claim has no interest in the topic, and prefers to redirect it. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google News Archive search. I seem to have turned up five sources, all from notable, mainstream news sources. They are all pay-per-view, so you will have to drop your own quarters in the till. Gamweb (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debut album?

The cited article said this was the debut album in the U.S. suggesting there were prior albums released in the UK? "Box Frenzy, the band's first US release,..." but the article here states this was their debut everywhere?

Also, should more be added from the cited article's review: "(Box Frenzy) goes for both of 1987's top trends, hip-hop and sampling. This time around, the Poppies are basically a British answer to the Beastie Boys — their rapping is laughably awkward, but they do get the self-promotion part down just fine. The sampling is funny, too, with everyone from LL Cool J to Nat "King" Cole making unauthorized guest appearances. The approach on Poppiecock seems more up their alley, but Box Frenzy is still a good time." I see the bits about the sampling but not any of the rest of it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was just EP's and Singles before this. -------User:DanTD (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will take a look again. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the source, it looks to me like "Poppiecock" was released as a five song EP and then extended into a ten song album of the same name that was released the same year (1986). The Box Covers, an EP, was also released before this album, although it came out the same year as Box Frenxy (1987). So it might be better to say, as the article cited does, that this album was the first U.S. release by the band? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same article notes that the album "There Is No Love Between Us Anymore": "compiles eight pre-irritation-era songs, including the great Buzzcocks-inspired title track (a 1987 single also on Box Frenzy)" which might be worth including? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the article on "There Is No Love Between Us Anymore," and it almost seems like it would be better suited for redirecting into this article -------User:DanTD (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samples source

The source removed by RedPenofDoom has its submissions reviewed. Is there a question about the accuracy of the samples identified or is it an issue of whether detailing these samples is worth including? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you talking about this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Controversial or disputed statements have a higher standard of verifiability and sourcing, but sampling information based on a site that reviews submissions would seem to pass muster with me. After all we often include content based on primary sources, a lower standard that allows content from sources that are not independent and don't have submissions reviewed. Whether the content is worth including is a different question. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just because "someone" looks at content before it goes from random contributor to "live" does not make it a reliable source. the majority of the people who apparently look at the content from this site are pseudonymous people whose qualifications are completely unknown and unknowable. pending some other reliable source that vouches for the credibility and accuracy of the site, it is prima facia a non-reliable source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't see where you're coming from, but unless that source is an obvious blatant fraud, there shouldn't be any reason to doubt it. If you read the article and it says it has samples from Nat King Cole, and you go there and find those very samples, it's a safe bet they're telling the truth. And if they have that proof, and you blow it off anyhow, and worse, falsely accuse the people who add them of OR when it clearly isn't, you're doing a disservice to Wikipedia. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:RS it goes the other way. unless there is particular reason to believe that the source has a reputation for fact checking and reliability and an appropriate editorial oversight, it shouldnt be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you keep making things more difficult than they have to be. I don't use lyrics sites as sources, because of the lack of reliability. I've actually found people who posted lyrics to songs that turned out to be for the wrong songs. Nevertheless, some thing are just too blatantly obvious. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have "a problem" at all. if people just wanted the "easy" stuff that anyone can find with whatever comes up on their google search, why bother with coming to an encyclopedia? wikipedia's requirement of reliable sources has served and will continue to serve the encyclopedia and our readers well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, one could also argue that if you can look up this information on other websites, there's no point in having any Wikipedia pages at all. With your record of redirecting and deleting everything nobody can add those references. I know as well as the next person that a redirect is better than a total deletion, but you have to realize why nobody is AGF-ing any of your edits. -------User:DanTD (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you just want to write what you want to write, you certainly can - on some other website. if you want to write on wikipedia, you will need to follow wikipiedia's policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then nobody would write anything, and that seems like what you want. -------User:DanTD (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly not true. There are LOTS of people who want to write encyclopedia articles and are perfectly willing to write within wikipeida's policies that have been designed and agreed upon by the community as the best way to create encyclopedic content. the choice is yours whether you want to join them~and continue writing here, or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But your record shows you'd rather disregard any content that doesn't serve your interest, and accuse people of writing non-encyclopedic content and using original research when they don't. -------User:DanTD (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]