Talk:Jars of Clay (album)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Jarsofclay stjapan.jpg[edit]

Image:Jarsofclay stjapan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jarsofclay platinum.jpg[edit]

Image:Jarsofclay platinum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Joc1.jpg[edit]

Image:Joc1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jars of Clay (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: "Self-titled"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is strong consensus to oppose using the term self-titled in the lead sentence.Winged Blades Godric 04:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be described in the lead with the redundant term "self-titled", specifically "Jars of Clay is the self-titled first full-length studio album by Christian rock group Jars of Clay"? Sundayclose (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, first thanks for your comment. Secondly, please tone down the hyperbole. I didn't try to "argue" with you on your talk page; I left a polite message asking you to consider my points. This is a good faith RfC and I hope you can view it as such. As to the issue of "self-titled", I see no possibility that a reader will not think "Jars of Clay" is the same phrase as "Jars of Clay". Anyone with a minimal understanding of English can see that. Regarding "common practice" among journalists, your Google search is misleading. If you search "self-titled album", naturally you will get lots of articles with those words in the title. That's not the same as the situation in the Wikipedia article where "Jars of Clay" is named twice in the same sentence, making "self-titled" unnecessary. I looked at a few of the articles from the Google search and didn't see "self titled" in the same sentence that names both the artist and the album title. I'm not arguing that the phrase "self-titled" is forbidden. It's quite appropriate for a short headline that doesn't use the name of the album and the artist together. But to use it in a sentence that names both the artist and the album is unnecessary and redundant wording that is bad writing and adds nothing to the sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hyperbole. You raised the issue on my talk page. It was presenting an argument in the classical sense. If you don't understand English language, you might want to find a different pass time.
Sorry you don't like using Google to prove a case. It still stands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, please don't make personalized comments about "not understanding the English language". Again, this a good-faith RfC and such personal comments toward another editor don't add to the discussion and are harmful to the collaborative process. Your hostile tone here is not appropriate. If you have a problem with me personally, please take it to my talk page. Secondly, I didn't say that "I don't like a Google search". I said that the results of the Google search are misleading. My point about that still stands. Sundayclose (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a comment about not understanding it, it was a question. Again, the Google search shows common use. No offence intended, none taken, and my point still stands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that it can be done, neutral that it should be done. There's nothing wrong with its use - it is correct in its usage - but its not required either. I've opted out of the choice on occasion, when I felt it helped the wording of a particular sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is grammatically correct, just as "Jars of Clay is the album named after Jars of Clay by Jars of Clay" is grammatical. It's grammatical, but very bad writing. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Do you have a suggestion on how this could be done here and in other articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may not have been your intent, but pinging specific editors can be considered canavassing. I would ask you not to do that again. An RfC is directed at the entire Wikipedia community. Pinging specific editors may be inherently biased. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging specific editors to have their expand on their response that they already voluntarily gave, is not considered canvassing, no. If he would have pinged me out of the blue, it would be. But I already made the choice to comment here of my own accord through the neutral notification at WP:ALBUMS, of which I'm an active member. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sergcross73. You make a good point; it just wasn't clear that there was a non-canvassing reason to ping someone. Sundayclose (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take me to an administrative discussion over this. I'm sure they'd be happy to add how this RfC was created without prior discussion to that discussion. Wikilawyering goes both ways. However, asking uninvolved editors to a discussion is considered canvassing, not what I did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A final comment, before I leave - Honestly, I feel like you're both wasting time. Going about mass-removing the word "eponymous" or "self-titled" is a silly waste of time. Its use is not incorrect, it does not go against any active policy or guideline, and claims of "its bad writing" is extremely subjective and arbitrary. Like it or not, its commonly used in the industry - this isn't just one of those weird Wikipedia quirks or something. That being said, not much is lost in its removal either. Overall, this discussion is right up there with all the genre arguments people get tangle up with. The article is in awful shape - the content-to-source ratio is terrible and the reception section is non-existent. And this appears to be a rather important musical release, if the unsourced prose is correct. And yet here we are, arguing about wording that is correct either way. I mean, turning to discussion in situations like this is the correct protocol, but the issue itself is a huge waste of time and effort. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I guess it can be done but it doesn't seem helpful, just extra words. New York Dolls (album) seems like a good precedent. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Yes, the phrase "self-titled album/single/release" is widely used in music journalism, but usually for the sake of brevity, and almost always when only the artist is named (For example: Homer Simpson's self-titled album was met with critical praise). Using it when both the artist and album are named is redundant. Looking through the pages of 12 significant self-titled albums (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) finds that none of them use the phrase, and that there doesn't seem to be any confusion about the relation between the artist and the album. "Self-titled" should be removed from the sentence, but if Walter insists that it be included, the sentence would need to be something like "Jars of Clay is the self-titled ... by the Christian rock group of the same name" to avoid redundancy. LifeofTau 05:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further to Serge's final point, Sundayclose, I do think this eponymous/self-titled issue has become something of a personal beef for you. That's fine, I can understand that (for me, it's words like "prior" and "adjacent to", when "before" and "next to" are far less fussy alternatives), but a concerted campaign against using the terms is likely to get a few editors' back up. To add to the list of examples provided by Life of Tau, I saw your changes at articles for the relevant albums by George Harrison, Ry Cooder, Blur and others, all supported by the rationale: "The most overused word on Wikipedia and, as usual, completely redundant and unnecessary." In the case of George Harrison, "his eponymous solo album" could indeed be avoided, but your changing it to "this solo album" is potentially problematic – at least to those who think that adopting "this" to refer to the subject of an article is a narrative device to avoid. Here at Jars of Clay, I think you're probably right – remove "self-titled" and there's no loss of understanding, so the term must be unnecessary. But it pays to bear in mind that when writing or expanding an article about such albums, or about one of the songs, the constant repetition of the artist's name is something one does feel the need to address – to vary the wording wherever possible, otherwise it's jarring. Of course we use "the album" frequently, anyway, but that term can easily feel overused from sentence to sentence also; not only that, but it's often necessary to clarify which album if there's just been mention of a different one. I see the sources themselves often have a problem with the handling of an artist's eponymous album, because of the potential overload of instances of Artist's Name and their album Artist's Name. (And I think authors probably struggle more when the album is not the artist's debut, which is the most logical reason for an eponymous release. As a result, these authors, and fans, will quite likely adopt and embrace a nickname or unofficial title – anything to avoid the constant repetition.) In short: we should all look to avoid including redundant words, no question; but there may well be situations where using "eponymous" or "self-titled" is correct and preferable. I'm just not sure an allowance for the latter comes through in your stance on this, that's all. JG66 (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JG66: Thanks for an insightful comment (as well as thanks to Sergecross73 for very helpful comments). You're certainly right that sometimes such words are essential, and I have avoided removing the word in such cases. But sometimes I have too hastily removed them. A few times I caught myself before I actually did it when I saw that the word was needed. I welcome any feedback and correction in such cases. My goal isn't to remove all uses of the words, only those that are redundant. You're also right that this a beef for me, but not so much personal as it is to remove the unnecessary use of the words so that they don't continue to get blindly copied from one album article to another. I think most of the uses of the word in the first sentence of an article have occurred because the editor simply saw it in another article and followed the pattern. There are a couple of other such words (completely unrelated to the current discussion) that were not only overused but inaccurate that a couple of editors and I have focused on (I won't burden everyone with the details here). Once we removed a lot of them, the inappropriate use of those words has decreased dramatically across Wikipedia. That's just the nature of some things on Wikipedia; they're done in a few articles, and over a period of time they spread indiscriminately to many other articles. It's not so much a personal beef as it is to do my small part in improving some stylistic problems. Thanks again for your comment. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, changes like this that are made across a large number of articles should be discussed at a higher level first. In this case it would be with the project and in the case of changes that would apply to more than a few projects, at the town pump. You'll get a lot less push-back if consensus is reached beforehand and can be pointed to with each edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. Thanks for the suggestion. Sundayclose (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is redundant, since the sentence already says the album and band are named the same. It even has a patronizing tone. For better flow, I'd probably even go a step further and replace the second instance of "Jars of Clay" with "the band of the same name". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe the editor's motives or pattern of editing other articles is at all relevant here. The question here is just what wording makes this article best? It's probably better for someone who thinks redundant "self-titled" phrasing is wrong everywhere to raise that more general question, elsewhere, but that need not complicate responding to this particular RfC. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side-comment, @Walter Görlitz and Sundayclose: Regarding today's changes to the parameters of the {{rfc}} template, if adding a category parameter, it is only necessary to ensure that this is inserted before the existing |rfcid= parameter (the value of which should be left alone), and Legobot will correctly add the RfC to the additional listing page. But if removing a category parameter, it is also necessary to remove the |rfcid= parameter, either in its entirety or just its the value. If this is not done, Legobot will not remove the RfC from the listing page where it is not wanted. What should not be done is to add your own value to |rfcid=, or alter it to something non-blank (even if it is a previously-used value), since we don't fully know how Legobot will handle it (I have seen undesirable effects, such as an RfC listing which named a discussion page that was not the one where discussion was taking place). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not including "self-titled" or "eponymous" is space-efficient, avoids redundancy, and, in concurrence with previous commenters, is good writing. Might I add… either way, the average Wikipedia reader wouldn't notice. In my opinion, 80% of the debate here is superfluous. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the terms "self-titled" or "eponymous" should be used. I'm not sure how the points I gave would be misinterpreted as support. In fact, 'cause I'm a nice guy, I'll restate it:
Oppose. Including "self-titled" or "eponymous" is not space-efficient, causes redundancy, and, in concurrence with previous commenters, is not good writing.
I hope I've cleared any confusion. Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Liam Gibson: You have not cleared the confusion. If you support its use, please change the wording to state that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Gee.) I oppose using the words eponymous or self-titled because of these reasons:
    • They take up space.
    • They are redundant.
    • It's not good writing.
That's exactly what I said before, but this time with simplified wording. I still don't see why both of my previous statements were "confusing". Liam Gibson (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never been active in the music project. I think the extent of my editing in the subject of music was updating some info on a goth rock band a few years ago. That being said, when I look for other encyclopedic/cataloguing sources which describe self titled albums, they almost always say "self-titled" (I haven't seen "eponymous" even once). So I really don't understand the arguments here. Especially the argument that it saves space. This is an article, not an infobox. Support. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MjolnirPants: Please look again. Even in the top five results from Walter Görlitz' link (it's actually true of the entire first page),
whenever the phrase "self-titled" is used, the artist is named, but the album itself is not. This is because they are using "self-titled" in place of having to name the album, since the name can be determined with just that phrase and by naming the artist. In this and any other album article, both the album and artist are always named, making the addition of a phrase that is used in place of the album title completely unnecessary. Being widely used in journalism doesn't mean it makes sense in the context of a Wikipedia article. LifeofTau 09:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I was summoned by the bot, but I think the difference is so minor that I can't really summon up an opinion one way or the other. If I were involved in this disagreement, I'd try to go for a walk and enjoy the fresh air—the article will be just fine either way :) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the term "self-titled" or "eponymous" should not be used when an album title is the same as the performer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jars_of_Clay_(album)&oldid=1211217030"