![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Image:Roxx regime.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 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 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline for album notability:
In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.
This is an official Stryper album, consisting of songs from Stryper's pre-Stryper days, when they called themselves The Roxx Regime. This is not a demo. The album was released on 7 July 2007 by Stryper. [1] [2] [3] Notability is thusly established. Amsaim ( talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change the type of album while the AfD is still open. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Until we reach consensus, we shouldn't be changing the article, particularly the infobox. This is starting to look like an edit war. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Since Koavf has announced that he would continue with his reverts, trying to push forth his own personal opinion about 'The Roxx Regime Demos', I have requested a full page protection.
Here is some additional information. If you would like to comment, please do so by either starting a new thread or by writing your post below the last collapsible (Summary). Please allow the collapsibles to remain as they are for better readability. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Background information
|
---|
In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation:
There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Main issue
|
---|
Editor Koavf is ignoring various reliable and verifiable sources which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album / a compilation. He refuses to acknowledge that various reliable sources call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album. He insists that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a demo and not an album, and therefore since it is a demo the article must be deleted. Koavf is ignoring Wikipedia's guideline of Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. By simply clicking on the provided reliable verifiable sources one can easily verify that the published material on the reliable source undebatably declares 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album / a compilation, and not a demo. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
This is not a content dispute
|
---|
In a content dispute the conflicting sides all have reliable and verifiable sources to back up and prove their point. In this issue, Koavf has not provided any reliable verifiable source which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. Koavf is aggressively pushing forth his own personal opinion about the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' without backing up his claims with reliable verifiable sources. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Disruptive editing by Koavf
|
---|
Here are a couple of edits from Koavf on the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' article.
Koavf continued changing the infobox to "demo" which lead me to bring the issue to the attention of Ani and other administrators. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Misquotations by Koavf
|
---|
When confronted with the available reliable sources which call 'The Roxxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album, Koavf resorted to lying by misquoting a reliable source. After placing the article on Afd, with his nomination rationale being "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC.", I provided several reliable verifiable sources as my first reply on the Afd. Koavf's reply to this was: "Comment None of those sources establish notability, simply the existence of the demo, which was never in doubt. In point of fact, one of your sources explicitly states that it's a demo (in addition to the name of the album, of course), and notes that it's only for die-hard fans. Since it's a self-released demo, it is assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC." Anybody can see that Koavf is lying by misquoting allmusic.com. Allmusic.com clearly calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation, and not a demo. Koavf repeated his misquotation on Ani. An editor who uses such discussion tactics has removed himself from the foundation upon which reasonable discussion can take place. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Summary
|
---|
This is a very simple issue: Is the 2007 release by Stryper 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation or a demo? We all know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability-not truth. Therefore, if an editor keeps on changing the type of album from "studio" to "demo", without providing any reliable verifiable sources, and he actively ignores the available reliable sources, then he is acting in a disruptive manner. Since we have several reliable verifiable sources calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation, the article should reflect exactly that. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
FYI - SlimVirgin has declined the RPP, mainly because you don't protect pages pre-emptively -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I am honestly starting to think this is being given too much thought. If at some point down the line a recording, group of recordings or "album" were considered a demo, they can be considered a demo for categorization purposes? I don't see how that could be considered controversial in any way, it can be considered a matter of common sense. As for how it's classified in, say, the info box, that can be analyzed via the sources, compilation seems to fit best for this album, sources that just describe it as an "album" could be completely disregarded - which leaves us with compilation. Now, for NMUSIC - that is an issue, but not one that has any use being discussed here. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
type
, so choose whatever, I personally don't care. If it keeps an editor from flying off the handle, call this a compilation. Furthermore, this clearly fits the intended criteria of
Category:Demo albums: the recordings are demos and they were released as an album. If you have any other perspective on this, you are probably thinking about it way too hard. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I thought we were here to discuss the categories and infobox not sling mud at each other. Ad hominem attacks are unuseful at the best of times. Can we draw a line under the above and carry on? (Again.) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Since there are no reliable verifiable sources which define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' either an EP nor a Demo-Album or Demo, I have removed those 2 categories that were added by Koavf. Please do not ignore the ongoing consensus discussion and please refrain from adding unsourced material in the article or the infobox or navboy or category. If you want to add a category into the article, feel free to do so by backing up your addition with reliable verifiable sources. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ansaim: the consensus on this page is against you. The collapsed summary above is entirely your opinon, as far as I can tell. If you can bring forth a Guideline or Policy that states that categories should not be added unless they are explictly endorsed and verified by a source, then please do so. Even then: the album's own name could actually be used as proof that the album is correctly categoried in Category:Demo albums, since "demo" is so loosely defined on WP that almost anything could be a "demo"... Now, if we were to actually able to define "demo"... -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is not about the individual songs. It's about the album itself. The songs on the album were recorded for reference in the early 1980s, but the album 'The Roxx Regime Demos' was recorded for release in 2007. Since the article is about the album and not about individual songs, the category must be a reflection of the subject of the article. Some further interesting info: there is a redirect from Demo album to demo (music). Thus Wikipedia does not make a distinction between demo-album and demo. According to Wikipedia a demo-album is a demo. The question here now is this: is 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, a demo-album? Reliable sources answer this question with "no". Amsaim ( talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Koavf has again resorted to misquoting a reliable source. Just for the record, please carefully take note of what Koavf is doing here: while Allmusic.com write this about 'The Roxx Regime Demos':
"And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band."
Koavf misquotes allmusic.com by writing this:
Thankfully, Allmusic certainly does agree with my assessment since it calls this an album and it says that it is "comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos." Hence, it is a demo album.
Anybody who can read and understand the english language is able to see this blatant misquoation. If you have any reliable source which calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or a demo-album, please share it with us. Until this happens, calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or demo-album should be considered original research or personal opinion. Amsaim ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I see 2 issues here:
Wow, how did I miss this? I thought things had calmed down, and it looks like things completely exploded. We have plenty of sources saying, correctly, this is a compilation of demos. Thus, for the box, calling it a compilation makes sense, but since all of the tracks are demos, having both categories at the bottom of the page, where most readers don't look anyway, seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think there should be any concern that the article is going to be deleted because of it, as notability has been established. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Walter proposed the CD review at PiercingMetal.com as a reliable source, however, when you read through the entire article, you will notice that the author is writing about the songs on the compilation, referring to the songs as demos (plural). Please allow me to further elaborate on this in the collapsible below: Amsaim ( talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
CD Review by PiercingMetal.com
|
---|
PiercingMetal.com writes:
In summary, the CD review of PiercingMetal.com does not define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a demo-album. It merely writes about the indvidual demo-songs on the album, and calls the songs 'demos'. Amsaim ( talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
My discussion page looks a little lonely... I offered it in all seriousness and chose my examples quite deliberately: each of the albums I chose contains demos but may or may not be a "demo album", depending on your perspestive (or rather, on the perspective of the RSs and how one interprets what they say). Is Nebraska a "demo album", for example, given that it, also, was put together from various individual demos (many of which were not included in the final release) rather than recorded as a unit and offered as a demonstration album wholesale...? The album was put together at the last minute after the band versions were rejected, IIRC. There has been no discussion of this (or anthing, actually) over at
Talk:Nebraska (album) and this is not the place to discuss it, obviously: hence my
centeralised location --
Jubilee
♫
clipman 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not a demo album. 'Demo album' only makes sense as a description of the album itself was intended as a demonstration, which this clearly isn't - it's a compilation album containing tracks originally recorded as demos. The few reliable sources that discuss 'demo albums' do so meaning albums that are released in order to attract record company attention, [1] [2] [3] - not the case with this release.-- Michig ( talk) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) It isn't an EP either. EP's are not defined solely by length. If it was marketed as an album rather than an EP, it's an album.-- Michig ( talk) 12:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought we had reached a consensus, is there really any need to keep dragging this trivial matter on and on? Aren't there more important things? Rehevkor ✉ 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Rolling Stone link is broken as a result of a massive restucturing of that site; see Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Rolling_Stone.3F for discussion about this. The only place on the entire site the even mentions Stryper I can find is: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[8622,33643] Note the horrendous code and the square brackets that will need to be coded as %5B and %5D to avoid breaking the wiki markup, ie as http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=%5B8622,33643%5D: compare
... --
Jubilee
♫
clipman 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The status of this release (by Stryper using material written when they were called Roxx Regime) is questioned by several editors. Is it a demo album, a compilation album, both, neither or "other"? The present article was the subject of a recent AfD at which it was kept and the precise meaning of the word "demo" in WP:NALBUM has been questioned (though that particular section has been changed since the AfD). Please help us to end this debate 20:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubileeclipman ( talk • contribs)
Editor harej has moved the entry from the Rfc board posted on 29 April 2010 to this talk page, and so for better readability I have used collapsibles. Amsaim ( talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
For the following music-related issue I am asking the community to please voice its opinion.
Editor Koavf insists that this officially released album is a demo, and thus the article must be deleted. For his claim he has no proof and does not back up his personal opinion with any sources. What he does is to misquote a reliable source by leaving out the part in the album review that calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation (see here, here and here).
In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation:
There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album
What's the difference between an album and a demo? A demo does not have the legal status that an album has. A demo does not have a Label Code (LC) number. A demo is not released by a recording company. These are merely a few differences between demos and albums. Demos are not eligible for the RIAA sales count.
It can be assumed that Koavf has difficulties understanding this difference. The very moment a band goes to the studio with demo-songs, and release these same demo-songs as an official album (with LC number etc.) the demo has become an official album and has ceized to be a demo. The community has cleared agreed on this.
In 1982 Bruce Springsteen recorded several demo-songs. These demo songs were later on mastered in the studio and officially released as an album: Nebraska. Editor Koavf has no problem with this album, as he dares not to touch the Nebraska article. However in the case of Stryper's 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos', he has prodded the article for deletion, taken the article to Afd, and after the Afd resulted in Keep, he is now actively changing the type of album on the article from "studio" to "demo" ( 1, 2, and 3). I have taken Koavf to both Ani and Avi over this matter.
Could other editors please look into this issue, and voice their opinions on whether ' The Roxx Regime Demos' is an album or a demo? Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 10:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Roxx Regime Demos. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Image:Roxx regime.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 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 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline for album notability:
In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.
This is an official Stryper album, consisting of songs from Stryper's pre-Stryper days, when they called themselves The Roxx Regime. This is not a demo. The album was released on 7 July 2007 by Stryper. [1] [2] [3] Notability is thusly established. Amsaim ( talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change the type of album while the AfD is still open. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Until we reach consensus, we shouldn't be changing the article, particularly the infobox. This is starting to look like an edit war. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Since Koavf has announced that he would continue with his reverts, trying to push forth his own personal opinion about 'The Roxx Regime Demos', I have requested a full page protection.
Here is some additional information. If you would like to comment, please do so by either starting a new thread or by writing your post below the last collapsible (Summary). Please allow the collapsibles to remain as they are for better readability. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Background information
|
---|
In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation:
There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Main issue
|
---|
Editor Koavf is ignoring various reliable and verifiable sources which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album / a compilation. He refuses to acknowledge that various reliable sources call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album. He insists that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a demo and not an album, and therefore since it is a demo the article must be deleted. Koavf is ignoring Wikipedia's guideline of Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. By simply clicking on the provided reliable verifiable sources one can easily verify that the published material on the reliable source undebatably declares 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album / a compilation, and not a demo. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
This is not a content dispute
|
---|
In a content dispute the conflicting sides all have reliable and verifiable sources to back up and prove their point. In this issue, Koavf has not provided any reliable verifiable source which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. Koavf is aggressively pushing forth his own personal opinion about the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' without backing up his claims with reliable verifiable sources. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Disruptive editing by Koavf
|
---|
Here are a couple of edits from Koavf on the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' article.
Koavf continued changing the infobox to "demo" which lead me to bring the issue to the attention of Ani and other administrators. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Misquotations by Koavf
|
---|
When confronted with the available reliable sources which call 'The Roxxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album, Koavf resorted to lying by misquoting a reliable source. After placing the article on Afd, with his nomination rationale being "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC.", I provided several reliable verifiable sources as my first reply on the Afd. Koavf's reply to this was: "Comment None of those sources establish notability, simply the existence of the demo, which was never in doubt. In point of fact, one of your sources explicitly states that it's a demo (in addition to the name of the album, of course), and notes that it's only for die-hard fans. Since it's a self-released demo, it is assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC." Anybody can see that Koavf is lying by misquoting allmusic.com. Allmusic.com clearly calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation, and not a demo. Koavf repeated his misquotation on Ani. An editor who uses such discussion tactics has removed himself from the foundation upon which reasonable discussion can take place. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Summary
|
---|
This is a very simple issue: Is the 2007 release by Stryper 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation or a demo? We all know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability-not truth. Therefore, if an editor keeps on changing the type of album from "studio" to "demo", without providing any reliable verifiable sources, and he actively ignores the available reliable sources, then he is acting in a disruptive manner. Since we have several reliable verifiable sources calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation, the article should reflect exactly that. Amsaim ( talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
FYI - SlimVirgin has declined the RPP, mainly because you don't protect pages pre-emptively -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I am honestly starting to think this is being given too much thought. If at some point down the line a recording, group of recordings or "album" were considered a demo, they can be considered a demo for categorization purposes? I don't see how that could be considered controversial in any way, it can be considered a matter of common sense. As for how it's classified in, say, the info box, that can be analyzed via the sources, compilation seems to fit best for this album, sources that just describe it as an "album" could be completely disregarded - which leaves us with compilation. Now, for NMUSIC - that is an issue, but not one that has any use being discussed here. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
type
, so choose whatever, I personally don't care. If it keeps an editor from flying off the handle, call this a compilation. Furthermore, this clearly fits the intended criteria of
Category:Demo albums: the recordings are demos and they were released as an album. If you have any other perspective on this, you are probably thinking about it way too hard. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I thought we were here to discuss the categories and infobox not sling mud at each other. Ad hominem attacks are unuseful at the best of times. Can we draw a line under the above and carry on? (Again.) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Since there are no reliable verifiable sources which define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' either an EP nor a Demo-Album or Demo, I have removed those 2 categories that were added by Koavf. Please do not ignore the ongoing consensus discussion and please refrain from adding unsourced material in the article or the infobox or navboy or category. If you want to add a category into the article, feel free to do so by backing up your addition with reliable verifiable sources. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ansaim: the consensus on this page is against you. The collapsed summary above is entirely your opinon, as far as I can tell. If you can bring forth a Guideline or Policy that states that categories should not be added unless they are explictly endorsed and verified by a source, then please do so. Even then: the album's own name could actually be used as proof that the album is correctly categoried in Category:Demo albums, since "demo" is so loosely defined on WP that almost anything could be a "demo"... Now, if we were to actually able to define "demo"... -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is not about the individual songs. It's about the album itself. The songs on the album were recorded for reference in the early 1980s, but the album 'The Roxx Regime Demos' was recorded for release in 2007. Since the article is about the album and not about individual songs, the category must be a reflection of the subject of the article. Some further interesting info: there is a redirect from Demo album to demo (music). Thus Wikipedia does not make a distinction between demo-album and demo. According to Wikipedia a demo-album is a demo. The question here now is this: is 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, a demo-album? Reliable sources answer this question with "no". Amsaim ( talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Koavf has again resorted to misquoting a reliable source. Just for the record, please carefully take note of what Koavf is doing here: while Allmusic.com write this about 'The Roxx Regime Demos':
"And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band."
Koavf misquotes allmusic.com by writing this:
Thankfully, Allmusic certainly does agree with my assessment since it calls this an album and it says that it is "comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos." Hence, it is a demo album.
Anybody who can read and understand the english language is able to see this blatant misquoation. If you have any reliable source which calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or a demo-album, please share it with us. Until this happens, calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or demo-album should be considered original research or personal opinion. Amsaim ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Walter, I see 2 issues here:
Wow, how did I miss this? I thought things had calmed down, and it looks like things completely exploded. We have plenty of sources saying, correctly, this is a compilation of demos. Thus, for the box, calling it a compilation makes sense, but since all of the tracks are demos, having both categories at the bottom of the page, where most readers don't look anyway, seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think there should be any concern that the article is going to be deleted because of it, as notability has been established. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Walter proposed the CD review at PiercingMetal.com as a reliable source, however, when you read through the entire article, you will notice that the author is writing about the songs on the compilation, referring to the songs as demos (plural). Please allow me to further elaborate on this in the collapsible below: Amsaim ( talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
CD Review by PiercingMetal.com
|
---|
PiercingMetal.com writes:
In summary, the CD review of PiercingMetal.com does not define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a demo-album. It merely writes about the indvidual demo-songs on the album, and calls the songs 'demos'. Amsaim ( talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
My discussion page looks a little lonely... I offered it in all seriousness and chose my examples quite deliberately: each of the albums I chose contains demos but may or may not be a "demo album", depending on your perspestive (or rather, on the perspective of the RSs and how one interprets what they say). Is Nebraska a "demo album", for example, given that it, also, was put together from various individual demos (many of which were not included in the final release) rather than recorded as a unit and offered as a demonstration album wholesale...? The album was put together at the last minute after the band versions were rejected, IIRC. There has been no discussion of this (or anthing, actually) over at
Talk:Nebraska (album) and this is not the place to discuss it, obviously: hence my
centeralised location --
Jubilee
♫
clipman 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not a demo album. 'Demo album' only makes sense as a description of the album itself was intended as a demonstration, which this clearly isn't - it's a compilation album containing tracks originally recorded as demos. The few reliable sources that discuss 'demo albums' do so meaning albums that are released in order to attract record company attention, [1] [2] [3] - not the case with this release.-- Michig ( talk) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) It isn't an EP either. EP's are not defined solely by length. If it was marketed as an album rather than an EP, it's an album.-- Michig ( talk) 12:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought we had reached a consensus, is there really any need to keep dragging this trivial matter on and on? Aren't there more important things? Rehevkor ✉ 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Rolling Stone link is broken as a result of a massive restucturing of that site; see Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Rolling_Stone.3F for discussion about this. The only place on the entire site the even mentions Stryper I can find is: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[8622,33643] Note the horrendous code and the square brackets that will need to be coded as %5B and %5D to avoid breaking the wiki markup, ie as http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=%5B8622,33643%5D: compare
... --
Jubilee
♫
clipman 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The status of this release (by Stryper using material written when they were called Roxx Regime) is questioned by several editors. Is it a demo album, a compilation album, both, neither or "other"? The present article was the subject of a recent AfD at which it was kept and the precise meaning of the word "demo" in WP:NALBUM has been questioned (though that particular section has been changed since the AfD). Please help us to end this debate 20:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubileeclipman ( talk • contribs)
Editor harej has moved the entry from the Rfc board posted on 29 April 2010 to this talk page, and so for better readability I have used collapsibles. Amsaim ( talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
For the following music-related issue I am asking the community to please voice its opinion.
Editor Koavf insists that this officially released album is a demo, and thus the article must be deleted. For his claim he has no proof and does not back up his personal opinion with any sources. What he does is to misquote a reliable source by leaving out the part in the album review that calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation (see here, here and here).
In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation:
There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album
What's the difference between an album and a demo? A demo does not have the legal status that an album has. A demo does not have a Label Code (LC) number. A demo is not released by a recording company. These are merely a few differences between demos and albums. Demos are not eligible for the RIAA sales count.
It can be assumed that Koavf has difficulties understanding this difference. The very moment a band goes to the studio with demo-songs, and release these same demo-songs as an official album (with LC number etc.) the demo has become an official album and has ceized to be a demo. The community has cleared agreed on this.
In 1982 Bruce Springsteen recorded several demo-songs. These demo songs were later on mastered in the studio and officially released as an album: Nebraska. Editor Koavf has no problem with this album, as he dares not to touch the Nebraska article. However in the case of Stryper's 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos', he has prodded the article for deletion, taken the article to Afd, and after the Afd resulted in Keep, he is now actively changing the type of album on the article from "studio" to "demo" ( 1, 2, and 3). I have taken Koavf to both Ani and Avi over this matter.
Could other editors please look into this issue, and voice their opinions on whether ' The Roxx Regime Demos' is an album or a demo? Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 10:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Roxx Regime Demos. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)