Talk:You Were Never Alone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concept Record Reveal and Track Meanings[edit]

I added the Concept Record Reveal and Track Meanings section and noticed that it was later removed as "unecessary". I've not edited many pages on Wikipedia so I thought I would ask for feedback since I'm not used the conventions and procedures. I'd like some more information on why this section was removed. I agree that it isn't strictly necessary but you could probably make the same argument for most of the information in the article. It is, however, very relevant and seems like it could be useful information for someone interested enough to find this article. I added it specifically because I myself wanted a reference to review while listening to the songs without having to go back and scan through the reference podcast episodes every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett.martensen (talkcontribs) 18:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a lot of stuff and most of it is unnecessary. It was removed because it add no encyclopedic information to the album. The source is a podcast and you could just link that as an external source. The problem is it's a primary source and we don't really need to know what the writers were thinking when they wrote it. If have often found that if it needs to be explained, it's probably not that clear in the first place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources[edit]

Just wondering if there are enough secondary sources listed at this point to be able to remove the Primary Sources message template? If not, then what would be required? There are plenty of articles about this album from secondary sources but it doesn't seem proper to cite them when information isn't being taken from them directly. I could add a "Reviews" or "Critical Reception" section that could quote from the many reviews, but it seems like the purpose of that would be just to get in more cited articles and not to add to the usefulness of the article. Most of the information in the article now has secondary sources cited so I feel like the message can just be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett.martensen (talkcontribs) 19:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]