Talk:Stone Temple Pilots (album)/Archive 1

1. A currently-cited source calls the solos "psychedelic". This does not make the album psychedelic rock, and I would revert this addition immediately.
2. If a review wrote, "Grunge band Stone Temple Pilots's new album is just great," this would not make the album grunge. The adjective was modifying the band, not the album.

Finally, there seems to be an indistinct line between what's considered "reliable" for genres, since usually genres are listed in the sidelines of an article. Personally (and this means I'm probably wrong), I don't consider retailer-listed genres as reliable (Amazon, B&N, Discogs, HMV, eBay). Any thoughts or comments? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has information on the settlement between Atlantic and Weiland/Kretz, please include it in the article. Obviously a settlement was made. I can't find anything on it, but maybe future interviews will shed some light on the thing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is relatively new, I have converted the referencing system to a system to keep the article edit window free from reference clutter. This is an incredible advantage for those of us who don't use special software. Please see Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references for a very simple explanation of exactly what is happening.

In short:

1. You may now add/edit/remove references by editing the References section
2. Every reference must have a name assigned to it. For example, <ref name="rollingstone">{{cite web |url=...}}</ref>
3. Every citation only requires the <ref name=xxxxxxxx/> segment

This is a new feature implemented in the {{reflist}} template since September 2009 (and technically was always available with the <references><references/> format). The gist is to keep all references together in a section and to free up space and time while editing.

As always, with any referencing system, be aware of orphaning references by adding/removing information, and of course, be sure that referenced information remains properly cited when inserting sentences or shuffling phrases around.

Any questions, feel free to ask me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone who's curious, around May 2009, Scott Weiland is quoted as having said, "We're working with (producer) Don Was. And if he could make records with the (Rolling) Stones and all their shenanigans ... then he can handle STP," which was reported originally on Doug Elfman's article here (Las Vegas Review-Journal). Blabbermouth reported this article and used it as the title of one of their articles. Obviously STP decided against using an outside producer, and I don't think any of this has any notability to be mentioned in the article. But the wiki article still cites the Blabbermouth article with the "Don Was as Producer" bit in the title. Hope that clears any potential questions up. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert DeLeo's interview with Billboard confirmed that Don Was was, in fact, a part of the recording process, but not in a producer capacity. I've added this information. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cross-out the items as they are completed, and sign that you did the work:

1. Add album cover – User:Sandmanfan23
2. Add track lengths - User:Jackblack21
3. Add track credits – 121.219.114.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
4. Full list of personnel section – User:Keraunoscopia
5. Complete infobox info (sourced genre(s), length) – Users
6. Reception – waiting for solid list of reviews in {{
   album ratings
   }} box before proceeding
7. Lead section

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know if this review is considered reliable? It's dated March 28. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, there's no way I can verify the review as reliable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Mojo Radio review was re-published here with a date of May 20, 2010. From what I've read at Below Empty.com, by the time the original review was written and published on March 28, no album or streaming had been available to the press, though purportedly there were press release promo discs containing snippets of songs, and three full tracks. Obviously, all of this is as unreliable as the review, but I still !vote for either site to not be mentioned in the Reception section. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stone Temple Pilots (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rollingstone":

• From Atlantic Records: Sullivan, James (2006-12-14). "Rock & Roll Founding Father Ahmet Ertegun Dies at 83". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
• From Core (album): Evans, Paul (23 December 1993). "Core Album Review". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 9 February 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This was fixed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Stone Temple Pilots (album)/GA1

Actually, Dean did write the solo, he didn't merely play an arrangement of it. The solo credit was added to the track list, and it had a citation included at the time. This citation can be found on the archived Song history section (see above on talk page), and the interview is here. (Do a keyword search for "solo" and the first result is Dean DeLeo saying, "Robert actually wrote "Between the Lines." The only thing that I wrote on that song was the solo." I don't know why the citation was removed—perhaps even I removed it by error—but if it's alright, I would like to re-add "Dean DeLeo (solo)" to the writing credits on Between the Lines's track listing info, and I would include the citation as well. Again, it is very clear this is not an arrangement. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How's it credited in the album's liner notes? Allmusic has it credited to Weiland/Deleo, not Weiland/DeLeo/DeLeo. [1] It's not unusual for a given player to "write" his solo, drum line, etc. But that's usually defined as musical arrangement, not writing. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

He's not credited in the liner notes for the solo, but that has nothing to do with anything. If liner notes had every bit of information in them, then interviews wouldn't be a necessity. It's impossible to glean every bit of information about making a record for an encyclopedia article, simply because so much isn't said or written about. Dean could have written several solos for Robert's music, and we would never know. But Dean did say he wrote the solo for that one song, and I think that's important material. However, it may not be appropriate for the track list itself, since it may not be clear exactly that "Dean DeLeo (solo)" is referring to his writing the solo. Perhaps I can include the information in a brief phrase in the Between the Lines paragraph in the Singles section? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that if the liner notes credit it to Weiland/DeLeo, then that's how it's to be credited here. I understand what you're getting at, and it's well understood that writing/collaborating can be rather gray at times. I'd say to maybe include a phrase in the "Between the Lines" paragraph like you previously stated, but not in the tracklisting itself. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Wiki guideline that tracklisting information should always be the liner notes, and that only? I had a discussion with Darwin's Bulldog a little while back, about the conflict in Fuel song credits between the liner notes and the actual copyright that is available from BMI or ASCAP databases. It seems to be the same with "Between The Lines". In ASCAP database here the writing credit is for Robert & Dean DeLeo and Scott Weiland. In Fuel's case I couldn't find any interview to back up the BMI information on the songs in question, but in this case there is something. This is more than just a little confusing to me. I assume that usually songwriting copyrights are not granted for studio work, but actual composing the song or writing the lyrics. Or am I wrong? --Sk4170 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Liner notes can't always hold stock to being the most fastidious source of information; in fact, some liner notes mention barely anything at all, for the sake of whatever creative reasons. I would consider, in this case, the STP liner notes to be a generalization meant for the mass public to get the basic idea of who wrote the song, who wrote the lyrics (and melodies), the lyrics themselves (which contain typos, I might add) and whom the band thanks for help in production and general information like that. On the other hand, the ASCAP example you provided shows that both DeLeos and Weiland credited for songs, but it shows the same pattern of crediting for the few random STP (album) tracks that I found as well. In other words, Kretz was given no credit for writing the songs on the new album. (ASCAP lists all four members as "writers" for every random song I picked from previous albums.) So to the same extent as the liner notes, I wouldn't consider the ASCAP information any more reliable than the liner notes, except that the ASCAP credits probably influence the outcome of payment due to each band member. Kretz is probably getting paid far less for his work on the new album than for previous releases (but I don't really know). If the track list were to follow the ASCAP details, every track would say "R. DeLeo, D. DeLeo" as the writers. (Weiland was already given a blanket credit for his lyrics.) I think the only thing that can be used in this case is the interview as proof that Dean "wrote" the solo (meaning Robert left it up entirely to him to create from scratch), and it sounds like we're agreed on it appearing in the text, not the track list. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The actual copyright ownership of a work is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (as stated in the BMI.com disclaimer). That is the ultimate source. In my opinion the copyrights are where everyone concerned are more interested in getting them right than what is printed on the cd cover. But all information can be disputed. Whether the tracklistings in Wiki should reflect the legal copyrights or not, I don't know. Liner notes are an easy solution, and, as you said, there can be a number of motives to print them in certain way. But how to find the truth in each case? In this case, including the info from the interview in the text looks fine to me. I would even change the tracklist accordingly, with reference included, but that's just me. --Sk4170 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is something that needs to be brought up on

WP:albums to gain a consensus on since this is proving to be a bigger deal than I originally anticipated. There are obvious contractions between who is officially credited with writing something and who is legally credited. If we follow the ASCAP details, then all the songs need to be credited as "Weiland/DeLeo/DeLeo", not just "Between the Lines". We can't pick and choose as see fit. I'm not surprised with the contractions as there's a lot of legalese with kind of thing, usually to avoid lawsuits and royalty issues and such. Darwin's Bulldog (talk

) 18:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a huge deal that's being made. I think it was already determined the information (Dean's solo) could be included in the text, and I'm just too lazy to actually do it at the moment—I've been in and out the house all weekend—but Sk4170 brought up a good point that maybe he or she should take over to WT:Albums. Otherwise, this actual discussion seems to have a clear consensus. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the point had a clear consensus originally too. Sk4170 has brought up a lot of points that would expand the discussion. If it is to be expanded, then WP:Albums would be the place to do it in. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for hijacking the discussion, which already had reached consensus. However, I felt that the ASCAP info was well worth bringing up, since the case of songwriting credits is similar to the one that came up earlier. At this point, the right place to continue the discussion is WP:Albums. --Sk4170 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No no, don't be sorry; your point was entirely valid and relevant to the discussion. It's just obviously too complex an issue to continue here. It simply needed a larger audience and a more relevant area is the Albums project page. You helped with the consensus by agreeing with Darwin and me, and we got something extra out of it, that's all. No need to be sorry at all. This is how Wikipedia is advanced :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)