Talk:Hollie (album)

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

Rescue tag

Album is due out in less than a month. Article needs sources; can be found at Hollie Steel. I would, but no time today. Radiopathy •talk• 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I have added a source about the release date...Mohamed Magdy (talk)

The album will be out in May, so plenty of time to add sources. There are plenty of sources that can be found at http://www.holliesteel.org.uk, her official website. Hassaan19 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I favour keeping the article, and I don't want the folks at AfD to have cause to !vote for deletion beyond WP:CRYSTAL. If I had more time, I do the refs myself. Radiopathy •talk• 17:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the reason this discussion is here is because I placed the Rescue tag on this article, and one is required to provide a rationale for doing so. This is not about "ref tagging" someone to death. Radiopathy •talk• 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

The result of the AfD appeared to be no consensus to delete. We need to improve the article by adding more sources, information, etc. Also if anyone knows the length and writers of the songs, please add them. Hassaan19 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I suggest we delete this article, or import the contents of Hollie (album) here and delete that one. The other article's content is more concise. Radiopathy •talk• 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly should not be two articles about the same thing. This is the "original" article and the significant article history is here; there doesn't seem to be anything of significance in the newer article worth merging in so I suggest removal of Hollie (album). (db-a10 may apply; it depends on how you interpret "recent".) I42 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the refs are here already and it is the first article on the topic. Radiopathy •talk• 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Hollie (album) db-a10. If/when it is deleted I suggest this page be renamed Hollie (album); Hollie should really be a dab page for this album and other articles on people named Hollie. I42 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for track listing

Could you please stop revert-warring and actually discuss this? I have protected the article for two days; this does not endorse the current version of the page, it is merely so that the edit warring stops. I will, however, point out that these links have been removed on the basis of the guidelines on external links, but please note that that "guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section", and so is not important here. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to all interested persons. I believe my citations I added to the article to support my edits of the track listing should not be deleted by another editor. After being deleted twice by this editor, Radiopathy; I added a "citation needed" to the article which Radiopathy deleted with no explanation. The citations I used to support my edits which consisted of listing the songs in the order they appear on the cd are the following:

Here is a better source which also gives the length of the individual tracks, I think this link because of that info which is lacking on the two pages which I used for my edits is preferable:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003JXZAKK/ref=dm_sp_alb?ie=UTF8&qid=1283439395&sr=8-1-fkmr1

Please check out the above links and weigh in.1archie99 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot link to an online store. Full stop. Regardless of what Milburn believes. Radiopathy •talk• 19:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I doubt that the track listing will be challenged anyway. Radiopathy •talk• 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the link I gave. The guideline you cited explicitly notes that it does not apply to this situation. If you still feel that it's not appropriate, that's fine, but citing that guideline as evidence is going to get you nowhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other objections? J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot link to an online store, even as a ref. It won't stand, regardless of what you choose to believe. Radiopathy •talk• 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had any objection against it at FAC. Yes, they do not make good external links (which is the whole point of the guideline you were citing) but what makes you so certain they should not be used as references? They sound like (fairly) good references for some kinds of information- for instance, for tracklisting. You can't just sit there and make assertions backed up by nothing and expect people to take you seriously. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, read, from WP:ELNO #5: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." You need to go back to NFCC, except that you don't understand that, either. Radiopathy •talk• 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, like I have said, please note that [t]his guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section". Try again... J Milburn (talk)

Yes, WP:ELPOINTS says what we already know, WP:EL has nothing to do with WP:RS, they're not the same topic, a citation is not an external link and a URL carried within a citation is not an external link. Lacking another source, a citation to a sales page is ok for verifiable content, so long as the reader is made aware as to where it came from. I also said something about this here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I appreciate Gwen Gale's comments, particularly the ones that she linked to, specifically, "The track list is highly verifiable. Her website has the list and can be taken as wholly reliable on this topic." I favour using Steel's site as the source, to the exclusion of any of the others. Radiopathy •talk• 12:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the official website would not normally be considered reliable, but I would have no objection to the information (which is uncontroversial) being sourced to it. Equally, I would have no objection, personally, to it being sourced to a reputable online store- if some prefer one, some prefer the other, I don't see the harm in having both. 1archie99, how do you feel about this? J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company and other business websites are very much ok as sources about themselves so long as the cited assertions are straightforward, neutral and not controversial, see Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. If there's a worry, the text can read something like "The artist's website lists/says/asserts..." Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use Amazon as the sole source as it contains one word errors in the track names for tracks 7 and 9. Amazon is the only source on the web that gives the track lengths. They match the track lengths of the mp3's that I bought from them. It was easy enough for me to fix the mp3 titles and you would think not that difficult for Amazon to do. Months after I told them this in a phone conversation they are still incorrect. I favor using both the link from the artist website that Radiopathy favors and the Amazon page with explanation that Amazon lists tracks 7 and 9 incorrectly. It does not matter to me who does the sourcing; I just want it done as completely as possible.1archie99 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I don't see why you are citing the information about self-published sources- surely, that has nothing to do with reputable online stores? J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about online stores. You were mistaken when you said "the official website would not normally be considered reliable." ibm.com is self published, her website is self published (likely by her management). These kinds of sources, if making neutral (and non-controversial) assertions about themselves, can be taken as reliable sources about themselves. The enyclopedic pith here is WP:V, verifiability of an assertion, not truth as such.

On another topic, sales pages, those can be cited so long as the reader is made aware in a straightforward way that the content comes from a sales listing. Timings listed by the New Musical Express would be taken as more reliable (less open to sloppiness and lack of fact checking) than amazon.com, but lacking anything else, amazon.com would be ok if cited as such. If there's truly a worry, the source can be put in the text itself (Amazon.com lists the timings as...) so the reader won't miss it.

As for track lengths, they're wholly verifiable, any editor with a hard or soft copy of audio/video content can glean timings so long as they cite what they've done, it's not OR. If what they find is not the same as, say, a sales or artist or any other source says they are, editors should be aware that timings may not always be quite the same across awll release formats, which is why citing the source of any timings is needed. Either way, the most reliable source is always the most hoped for source. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, I am having a hard time following all of this detail; but I think you did just agree that the artist website is not on its own sufficient to completely source the track listing.1archie99 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her website can be taken as wholly reliable for something so neutral as a track listing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, yes, in this case, I am not disputing the reliability of the official website, I made that clear. However, an official website would not normally be considered "reliable" under Wikipedia's definitions, as it is not independent of the subject. This, however, is a purely academic discussion. ~~Again, I'm having a hard time following what you're saying, (are you claiming that Amazon counts as "self-published" or not?) but~~ I think we're now all broadly in agreement here that either the official site or a commercial site would be suitable to cite for this information. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If her website made a non-neutral (or controversial) assertion, it need not be taken as reliable. However, a track listing is about as neutral and verifiable as any assertion can be, so under policy, lacking any sourced controversy, it's taken as wholly reliable.

Lacking any other source in the world, which would be highly odd for an album taken as notable on en.WP, even amazon.com would be ok for something so neutral as a track listing, within the bounds I talked about above, pending the quick arrival of something more reliable, but very happily amazon is not needed, nor would it likely be needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a site that gives both the correct titles of all the songs and the duration of each or a combination of sites that together source the track listing which should be expanded to include the durations. Let's end this discussion and somebody do that. I do not think making a note in the article that an editor checked out the timings on his/her computer sounds like good sourcing when a published source for the info exists.1archie99 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timings are verifiable, but may not be the same across all released formats. Cite sources, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the durations are stated and the source given that should be acceptable. Let's not worry about the one or two seconds that may or may not exist between the cd which is in very short supply and the mp3 downloads. A track listing without durations is unacceptable to me. I would like it to look as professional as that of Jackie Evancho's debut cd.1archie99 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put them in, if you like. Good faith, cited edits are more than welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit using the site Radiopathy suggested and the Amazon page.1archie99 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I only suggested Steel's official site; where do you get this other shit? Radiopathy •talk• 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These Eyes of Mine

Do y'all believe it would be more advisable to create a separate article for "These Eyes of Mine" or simply note that it was written by Hollie and her father? If we decide to leave a note at the bottom of the article, the information is included in the CD sleeve of her album; I just need to know the proper way to site it. Griffin4prez (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest no separate article. Info re authorship be noted within the intro. I have searched the internet and the references in the article and cannot find any such info. I find it strange that neither the artist or the label website does not mention this.1archie99 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said the authorship is noted in the sleeve included in her album. It's pretty common knowledge among regular visitors to her forum but of course such a source would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. What do you propose? Griffin4prez (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]