Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

International data

I think we need better international chart and sales data outside of the U.S. For individual songs too, but primarily for the album. Currently there's only the peak U.K. chart position for Pieces of Me (#4). If anyone knows how to find this, or can give me advice on where to look, I'd appreciate it. Possibly it hasn't charted anywhere else, but I doubt it. I'm going to do some more hunting, I'll mention here if I find anything. I'm going to start trying to keep a better record of my work on the article here. Everyking 23:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is that the royal "we"? You don't allow anyone else to have any input into this page. You've reverted every change that I can see. You're guarding Autobiography more carefully than Cerberus guarded Hades. But even Orpheus couldn't sneak NPOV into this article. Dr Zen 00:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear your input. I've just added a bunch of Canadian chart data, I'm quite pleased with it. Everyking 00:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are singlehandedly redefining the word "editor".Dr Zen 02:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, I swore to be nice from now on, and I have to keep that pledge. So I'll just remind you that the only times I've reverted are when information has been removed or "summarized" in a way that I feel causes information to be removed. Now, I think that's understandable, and doesn't make me any sort of dictator. Here on Wikipedia we don't generally go around removing information unless it's clearly non-notable or false, or at least unverifiable. Besides, all I've ever really asked is that we discuss major changes here on talk before implementing them. I want people to edit the article. I just want people to be constructive about it, to improve it, not do what I consider to be reducing its scope and quality. Everyking 02:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tsk. What you consider to be reducing its scope and quality? It's almost as though you didn't believe in consensus. But how could anyone accuse an editor who has reverted every single change to an article as not a fan of consensus? I believe the "informational" value of your Canadian chart data can equally be conveyed in a single sentence. Want to bet whether you'd "allow" it to stand? Shall we have an experiment? Dr Zen 02:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can think of no way the chart data could be conveyed in one sentence. It needs to retain all the information currently present—the position of the album on the chart in each week—and I don't really think it's possible to reduce it much further. Perhaps a few extraneous words could be snipped here and there, but then there's the risk of disrupting the flow. It needs to be written neatly and clearly. If you really can think of a way to reduce it without losing any of the info, post it here on talk and we'll see if we agree on it. Everyking 02:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, man, I believe in being bold. See what you think. I believe I captured the essence of it. Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also got rid of the meaningless quote. You said she was stunned at getting to number one. A blow-by-blow account of how she received the news adds absolutely nothing. I expect you'll now explain how this has diminished the "quality" of the article. Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See? You simply are not willing to allow anyone else to edit this page. I'm going to wait until you're asleep before I give it any more attention. Dr Zen 03:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, I don't think it'd be any good for either one of us to be in a revert war, Zen. Obviously we can't just delete a bunch of detail like that. I suspect this is something personal against me, and if it is, you should know that I don't have a problem with you and I don't want to fight over this. Don't worry about me going to sleep, I already took a little nap, and I can stay up all night if need be. I've got the day off tomorrow anyway. So why don't we just drop this whole thing? Everyking 03:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you drop it for a while and allow others to work on it? Very good idea. It's nothing personal, man, just the desire to make a good article even in the face of such huge odds. Dr Zen 03:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, if I keep talking to you when you're so rude my temper's going to get the better of me, and then you'll be able to use any nasty comment of mine against me. So I just won't respond to anything that includes an insult from now on. Instead, I ask the reader to compare Zen's version:

"In the U.S., Autobiography was 2004's biggest debut by a female artist. [1] It was number one in sales on the Billboard 200 chart for the week of its release, selling about 398,000 copies. [2]. It stayed at number one for three weeks in two spells before dropping down the charts as, inevitably, all albums, no matter how good, must."

With mine:

"In the U.S., Autobiography was 2004's biggest debut by a female artist. [3] It was number one in sales on the Billboard 200 chart for the week of its release, selling about 398,000 copies. [4] It dropped to number two in its second week on the chart, displaced by Now That's What I Call Music! 16, a compilation of popular songs (including, ironically, Jessica's cover of "Take My Breath Away"), and sold about 269,000 copies. [5] Sales increased in the album's third week, however, with about 286,000 copies sold, returning it to number one. [6] It remained at number one in its fourth week, with about 263,000 copies sold, [7] but dropped back to number two in its fifth week, selling about 164,000 copies, having been again displaced by the Now That's What I Call Music! compilation. In its sixth week, it dropped further to number six, with about 134,000 copies sold, and in its seventh week it fell to number eight, with about 113,000 copies sold. The album returned to number six in its eighth week, despite selling only about 89,000 copies, fewer than in the preceding week. In its ninth week, it remained at number six and sold about 75,000 copies; it fell to number nine in its tenth week, although it still sold about 75,000 copies. The album fell much further on the chart in its 11th week, slipping to number 19, but in its 12th week it moved up to number 16. From that point it fell steadily: back to number 19 (week 13), then to numbers 22 (week 14), 27 (week 15), and 34 (week 16), before briefly dropping out of the top 50, to number 51, in its 17th week (in mid-November 2004). Subsequently, however, the album rose again again on the chart: slightly in week 18, to number 50, and then more substantially back up to number 34 in week 19. It fell to number 42 in its 20th week."

Which seems more informative? Compare another of Zen's paragraphs:

"In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 on the Jam Music charts in late July [8], and peaked at 11."

With mine:

"In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 in late July [9], rising to number 36 in its second week [10] and then to number 30 in its third week. [11] In its fourth week, it rose greatly, to number 11 (its peak), [12] but fell to number 14 in its fifth week, [13] where it remained in its sixth week. [14] In its seventh week, it fell slightly to number 15, [15] and then slightly more in the next two weeks: first to number 16 (week eight) [16], and then to number 17 (week nine). [17] It remained at number 17 in its tenth week, [18] before falling to number 24 in its 11th week [19] and then to number 29 in its 12th week. [20] It rose again in its 13th week, however, to number 23, [21] and rose further still in its 14th week, to number 20. [22] It then fell to number 30 in its 15th week [23], to number 33 in its 16th week [24], to number 41 in its 17th week, [25] and to number 46 in its 18th week. [26] In week 19 it fell slightly more to number 47, before rising to number 38 in week 20. [27]"

Besides that, Zen completely removed this paragraph, which was sourced from a transcript of a TV interview:

"In an interview with MuchMusic, Simpson described first learning that the album had debuted at number one: "I was in the car. I just finished a show, and my dad called me, and he was like, "Guess what, baby?" I was like, "What?" He was like, "Your album went number one!" So I was freaking out. It was awesome!" [28] Her father, Joe Simpson, is also her manager."

There, now anyone can judge which version is more informative. Everyking 03:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been rude to you and I'm not sensitive about nasty comments, so have at it, big boy. Anyone with eyes can see that both versions are equally "informative".

It's of absolutely no informational value whatsoever that Simpson said she was "freaking out" when she got to number one. It's not even a memorable statement. If she matched "Eureka!" or "One small step...", I'd wholeheartedly agree on its inclusion. If she had even made a comment that was illuminating, you'd have a case. But no. It's exactly what you'd expect, and so, no "information" is conveyed. Simpson has doubtless been interviewed thousands of times, and her views on every small part of her life are not jampacked with information. I don't suppose that will stop you from including them though, and reverting any edits made to what you include. Dr Zen 03:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you have individual singles articles, you do not need indepth discussion of them here.Dr Zen 04:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, but it's not in depth. Those are summarized versions of what's in the individual articles; see Wikipedia:Summary style. Everyking 04:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert warrior

You have now reverted this article more than three times. I am going to request that you are blocked under the policy. Pretending in the editing summary that you are making minor edits is particularly bad behaviour. I am willing to give you one last chance to work with me on this article but if you continue to revert it to your preferred version I'm going to consider putting in an RfC on your behaviour. Dr Zen 04:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't reverted three times, only two, and I was nice enough to remove the ET review from the table to free up a little space. That's about the best I can do. And I let you have your way with the intro for the time being. You won't be laying down ultimatums to me, but at the same time I won't let myself be provoked here. Calm, productive editing; I won't let things degenerate into name-calling, at least not on my end. Everyking 04:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Making minor edits to hide a revert does not stop it from being a revert. I have asked for attention to your vandalism and I am preparing an RfC on your revert-warring. No one has called you names. You are not doing calm, productive editing though. You are not allowing editing to take place. Dr Zen 05:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, all you're doing is deleting half the article. Everyking 05:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm editing it. I'm maintaining the information content. However, you are reverting every single change I make. Dr Zen 05:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. When I look at your edit, I see half of the article deleted. I don't know how you can pose as a victim when all you are doing is deleting massive amounts of content. Nobody yet has tried to remove anywhere near that much in all the battles this article has gone through. Everyking 05:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And, if I may point this out, if you weren't removing information, what do you think I'm objecting to about your edits? Everyking 05:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's impossible to edit this article properly without condensing some of the bumph. For instance, it simply is not "informative" that an album was at number 326 in its 18th week on the Canadian charts. It doesn't say a thing about the album. I'm allowing that its debut position and peak might say something very small about it, but that's a stretch. I am hoping that an admin will come and give you the block you deserve so that I can work on this article without your reverting my every edit. It's a terrible waste of my time and effort that you do that. Dr Zen 05:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is informative. I think most people would agree on that. People come to Wikipedia to find information like that. Why is it that dialogue from your side is always peppered with insults and threats? I'm not going to revert your every edit, I just ask that your edits be constructive, or that at the very least you discuss deleting info before you actually do it. Everyking 05:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Really, let's shift the focus of this to constructive discussion. Before, on peer review, you made a good suggestion about the Pink/Avril comparison. And I implemented your suggestion. That was a good, constructive point that helped us improve the article. Why don't we carry on more discussion on points like that? Everyking 06:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)