Talk:Maxinquaye - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gentlecollapse6 (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 15 December 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:38, 15 December 2016 by Gentlecollapse6 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Maxinquaye is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 21, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
April 30, 2016	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hip-hop Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rave (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave

cover

Is "Hell Is Round The Corner" a cover of Portishead's "Glory Box"???

No, it either samples it or uses the same sample as "Glory Box" 203.217.72.38 12:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They both sample "ike's rap" by isaac hayes.--Zsnow 22:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

- "Ike's Rap III" is the proper Isaac Hayes track sampled in both tracks. Khal 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pumpkin ... Led Zeppelin - "I'm gonna Crawl"

Pumpkin uses a Smashing Pumpkins sample, yes. But how about the use throughtout the song of Led Zeppelin's "I'm Gonna Crawl"? (on 'In through the out door') No one ever mentions that. Or am I wrong? JeroenVanB 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tricky - Maxinquaye.jpg

Image:Tricky - Maxinquaye.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Public Enemy member

I notice that Public Enemy members (Carlton Ridenhour etc) are mentioned in the Personnel, presumably because of the cover of Black Steel on the album. The tracklisting section already mentions that Black Steel is a cover and links to the page for the original song if anyone wants to know who wrote it so I don't think there's any need to list all the composers of Black Steel again here in this Maxinquaye article. Also, reading just the Personnel section of this article would give the false impression that Pulic Enemy were somehow directly involved in the production of Maxinquaye which could be misleading. For those reasons I'm removing Chuck D et al from the Personnel section of this article.

62.189.108.220 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FTV

FTV is credited in the album's notes as contributing to "Black Steel". FTV would seem to be the band French TV, which sometimes goes by those initials and seems to have worked elsewhere with Tricky--but I can't find confirmation online that they're the FTV mentioned in the notes. Nareek (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Where does the word "Maxinquaye" come from; what does it mean? Equinox (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The general belief is that it's a sort of portmanteau of Tricky's mother's name: Maxine Quaye :) — sparklism 08:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

back and forth

user:Dan56 You've again reverted a whole host of revisions (review quotes I found to be far more descriptive of the record) as well as the correction of your explicit misquoting of a source because...the lead was partial? (I simply included a retrospective critical quotation which seems to echo the overwhelming positive critical consensus already alluded to in the sentence before and put the album itself in a larger historical context..if you're suggesting that makes it partial, I'd like to disagree completely) and because one quotation was contextualized incorrectly? If these two things were an issue, I don't see why it wouldn't have been far simpler to manually fix them rather than ditch all my edits.

I didn't "ditch" the reviewers you added. Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: the lead, my revisions don't remove or add any information, so you'll have to justify your reversions on the basis of the stylistic superiority of your version. As far as I'm concerned, my writing is simply better—better reflects the kind of encyclopedic and expositional language expected out of a good Misplaced Pages article. Phrases like "who sang on most of the songs with him" are so imprecise ("most of the songs" sounds VERY encyclopedic) and flaccid in their prose (i.e. sings? she also raps, and whispers, and croaks...why not include those words too?) Withholding the date of the album's release until the second paragraph is just mind numbing—not only is that not the standard approach for Misplaced Pages articles on works of art, it also involves you attempting some sort of narrative chronology into an exposition that is muddled by it (i.e. we don't need to be told when and how he recorded the album before we learn information as basic as when it was released). And "a term Tricky himself disliked" is simply superfluous to include in the lead. "That was being dubbed" versus "dubbed"...."all-time lists of the greatest albums" versus "all-time lists"...."key album" versus "pivotal release"....do you have any justification for maintaining the lead this way? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I addressed similar complaints you made here, so I'm not indulging you any more, although I will mention the definition of "sings" renders that complaint utterly ridiculous (not to mention based on nothing currently cited in the article). Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Try again. The Christgau quote is still misquoted to your preference and without brackets or any further indication when it simply doesn't need to be picked apart and reconstructed in the absurd way you've done, and your paraphrase makes claims that are nowhere in the review (he doesn't anywhere suggest that Tricky represents the culmination of black British dance music. On the contrary, he sets him directly apart from it (especially as the British rave scene was still very much prominent at the time)), and whether your emphasis on this convoluted suggestion is even relevant to an excerpt of a critical review is a pertinent question—you seem to be trying to include historical context that fits your interest in both Christgau and discussions of genre—a quote focusing on his relationship to trip hop after you already mention his distaste of the label, another on Brit dance music that references several groups, etc, when the sources contain far more relevant descriptions of the music and work as a whole.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"From Soul II Soul to Massive Attack to Tricky is a straight line leading straight down to a bad place you should take a chance and visit ... He saw through the willed optimism of black-Brit dance music a long time ago." Also, you were the one who first mentioned "his distate of the label" (). I merely expounded on it since it's come up in several reviews (WP:WEIGHT). Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're conflating the "straight line" "from Soul II Soul to Massive Attack to Tricky" with "black-Brit dance music" as such rather than a particular trajectory to come out of it. It seems to me, from both the written and historical context, that Christgau is setting this particular tangent as splitting away from "the willed optimism of black-Brit dance music". There's nothing in the text to suggest that Massive Attack or Soul II Soul are being portrayed as representatives of this optimistic black-Brit dance music in general, or that Tricky is being cast as its culmination—a word which suggests finality. From a basic historical perspective, this review was written while black-Brit dance music was at its critically acclaimed and still-developing peak via rave culture and jungle etc, and Christgau was peripherally aware of this in other writings—I think the proper interpretation is one of him setting Tricky against concurrent optimistic black music rather than as its logical end. (This relationship was dramatized later in the decade by Tricky's feud with jungle star Goldie, another acclaimed black Brit producer.) "Culmination" is certainly the wrong word, or at least not one justified by the text.

Fine. I've revised it to "deviation from the more optimistic Black British dance music " Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Re "trip hop": no, my sentence was "though Tricky would later attempt to distance himself from the label" which implies a subsequent career trajectory (i.e. his later attempts to make abrasive works that could not be categorized as part of the term), while your "a term Tricky himself disliked" simply suggests an artist's superfluous distaste over a word, hardly as substantial or informative. Again, your simple changing of syntax has semiotic effects you don't seem to want to acknowledge.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"A TERM TRICKY LOATHES" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Invoking dictionary definitions doesn't change the fact that your choice of syntax implies, quolloquially, something far more rigid than what she actually does, and furthermore, you've failed to show me why "vocals" isn't the more proper and technical term, especially when the album credits themselves, as well as the majority of the sources, use it to describe her role. Plus, "most of the songs" still sounds terrible, and you repeat it for an image caption. There are several other problems with the lead (why isn't the information in the second and third sentences combined into a more succinct one sentence, for example the one I already tried to include? Ie "The album was produced by Tricky at his home studio in London with the assistance of co-producer Mark Saunders, and features the vocals of his then-girlfriend Martina Topley-Bird."? Why did you remove this edit? I'd like an actual answer rather than vague dismissals.

*colloquially* Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad autocorrect—but you can't honestly be saying that because the dictionary defines singing so vaguely, that something like "rapping" stills fall under the heading of "singing," despite the fact that in common logic they are obviously distinct.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should rethink your perspective on things, seriously. And what "rapping"? According to Neil Strauss, she "sings and singsongs" () Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't indulge anything, you answered the bare minimum with cheap excuses that justified what frankly still reads like an elementary summary. If we could get some outside editors to help settle these issues impartially, that would seem to me the best way to go.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No objection to that. Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you've removed my revision of your overlong biographical information, which itself repeated the same basic and relevant information in addition to including information about his mother (after whom the album is named). Why? Is knowledge of The Wild Bunch and its history really so pertinent to this record so much as knowing generally that Tricky was involved in Bristol's music scene and collaborated with Massive Attack?GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Billboard article by Dominic Pride from 1995 on the album found it to be relevant information for context, and I agreed--it gives background to what he does as a musician on record (producer, rapper) as well as his subsequent use of experimental music and slow tempos (lo-NRG, as Christgau called it). I don't see how his mother committing suicide is tied to the story, but it would make more sense to bring it up in the paragraph where the title is being discussed since that's the only relevance here, the title. Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like reason to include a biography, especially since Tricky had already been engaging in this kind of experimentalism with Massive Attack for two albums before Maxinquaye and this wasn't the first major album he was a significant part of, just a solo debut—a sentence or two rather than the paragraph you wrote seems more than enough.

Again, not a biography (perhaps you should look up that word as well smh). Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The significance of his mother's influence has been discussed at length by journalists as a context for hearing the album: see Stylus in 2003:

"it's tempting to read the whole of Maxinquaye in terms of "issues" – add this fear of closeness together with the widely publicized fact that Tricky's mother died when he was four, and that the album is named after her (her name was Maxine Quay), and you have yourself a juicy Freudian reading of the record. And it does work on that level – Tricky even taunts us with that angle directly.'"

and Tricky himself in The Wire: "

And I said my mum committed suicide, he goes, ahh that’s it. My first lyric ever on a song was “your eyes resemble mine, you’ll see as no others can” . I didn’t have any kids then – Maisie wasn’t born – so what am I talking about? Who am I talking about? My mother. My mother, I found out when I was making a documentary, used to write poetry but in her time she couldn’t have done anything with that, there wasn’t any opportunity. It’s almost like she killed herself to give me the opportunity, my lyrics. I can never understand why I write as a female, I think I’ve got my mum’s talent, I’m her vehicle. So I need a woman to sing that.

This quote also seems to introduce a genuinely pertinent piece of information on something Tricky did for the first time on this album—use female vocals so prominently—so I think a bit on this relationship would be illuminating and relevant.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already added info on his mother's suicide, and all that was not exactly the information you had added before, but I'll add it now. Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the lead still reads languid-not-professional and the Christgau extraction still appears as an unruly botching—any chance you, as an administrator, could draw some of that third party user attention I suggested to sort these impasses out? Unsure of the most efficient ways to do so.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maxinquaye/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: My name is not dave (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good day, I shall be reviewing this article. not (talk/contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is not in a desirable format. What one should expect first in the lead is the main facts of the album -- this takes heed for two factors, album name and artist, but it should follow onto release date, record label, producer and then location of production/recording. Instead, the date of the album's release is on the second paragraph and not in a summatory format. Move the most important facts to the front of the lead, then follow on from there.

According to who (should those items be in the front rather than in the second paragraph)? Dan56 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I know people don't like such a rationale, but it just doesn't seem right to me. If you look at any of my album or single articles (which are listed on my user page), that is always how I've done it. The lead, as a summary, should prioritise facts first. Many other albums seem to follow such a format as well. not (talk/contribs) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What isn't a fact that's mentioned in the lead? The first sentence should not describe "everything notable about the subject", just a concise description for a nonspecialist reader. "Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." (WP:BEGIN). The rest of this article's lead as is summarizes the article in chronological order and the order in which it appears in the rest of the article, which is logical and consistent. Introducing the release date and record label in the first sentence or first few sentences is anachronistic. Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to have a who-what-where-why-when-how lead (not that it needs to be in that order or include all of those points if not necessary), and if there are any detail that is worth mentioning in the lead, then leave that to the last -- when there is an expectation that information should be chronological (i.e. timelines, events etc.) then it can be kept in a chronological format. However, I simply don't believe that readers will take into account the general flow of the article and reflect that upon the flow of the lead. I don't think that the MoS rule you have quoted is very applicable to albums, where the main information is title, artist, date etc etc. not (talk/contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how this format you're partial to became so popular on Misplaced Pages articles, but it's still very OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-like, and I don't see any reason outside of that to force it here. Why should it be the release year that's force up front and not the recording year, when it could be argued that's more relevant to establishing the time period of a creative work's creation? Your idea of what's the main info for album articles is subjective IMO. The first sentence is supposed to define the article topic, and the date of its release doesn't define it in any way. The album's been reissued several times in different years. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be desirable if the UK Albums Chart would be mentioned and wikilinked where it says "it charted at number three in the United Kingdom", perhaps replacing 'United Kingdom' with the UK Albums Chart.

Desired by who?? WP:MOS emphasizes internal consistency of style; all chart names are referred to by country demonym (i.e. French, Irish, British, etc.) Dan56 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Desired by myself :) Apologies, this is my first attempt at a GA review, and even if it wasn't the first, my style of criticism is very subjective. In this case, my rationale here is what UK chart? We can only assume that is the weekly UK albums chart, but it is better to be mentioned in the lead than it is to be assumed. I would emphasise my perhaps here: and as a compromise nevertheless, the United Kingdom mention can stay alongside a mention of a UK Albums Chart. not (talk/contribs) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The name "UK Albums Chart" is meaningless in and of itself. It's not even the actual name of the chart (which is now the "Official Albums Chart", and I'm not sure what it was called in 1995), and it would be repetitive if alongside "United Kingdom", IMO. Dan56 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Taking a second look at the sentence, would it be most beneficial to write it as "it charted at number three in the United Kingdom's album chart"? not (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Background section

The content of the section seems to concern Tricky more than the album itself. It doesn't link much to Maxinquaye, even the mention of the song "Aftermath" is not linked to the fact that a) it was reissued as a single before the album's release and b) it appears as a song on the album. Not to say that the content currently doesn't support the album, but link it back to the main subject -- the album.

I connected it somewhat, although background on an artist's start in music overlapping in an article on his first record seems like appropriate summary style. Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Point taken, but it does seem a bit isolated. Nonetheless, I think your edits to the section have ensured it fits in well. not (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As above, some of the content in the "Recording and production" section seems to fit the "Background" section, notably the choice of the album's name.

The (brief) discussion of the title is connected in that section to the music and Tricky's use of female vocalists. There's no reason to interpret this as "background" when it would sever the readability and flow of the prose in that paragraph. Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a small mention of the name's relation to his mother could be mentioned at the end of the lead. But that's your pick. not (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I considered it once, but two sources are cited as saying different things, so there would be a POV-issue: "Tricky explained Maxinquaye's title in an interview with Simon Reynolds: 'Quaye, that's this race of people in Africa, and 'Maxin,' that's my mum's name, Maxine, and I've just taken the E off'. In another source, he was reported as saying Quaye had also been his mother's surname." Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

Reference no.5 doesn't back the text that it is applied to. However, reference 4 does -- and in fact, reference no.5 seems somewhat redundant, as ref 4 is good enough for all the text on that paragraph going up "'Yeah, this is Tricky's house, jump in through the window.'".

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Recording and production section

A minor rewording of "The producer Saunders contributed guitar himself" on the second paragraph could help - either omitting "the producer" or shuffling "the producer" to place it after "Saunders" to make "Saunders, as producer, contributed guitar himself".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

No major referencing problems

Release and reception section

There are no major problems with this section.

Citation check

No major problems

Track listing section

Include total length for convenience?

"Not necessary in most cases (as that information will usually be covered by an infobox), but useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)." (Template:Track listing) Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

No major problems

Personnel section

No major problems

Citation check

No major problems

Charts section

Are there any other charts where Maxinquaye charted -- year-end charts, other countries etc?

No year-end charts I know of. I would assume it'd have to have sold way more in 1995 to have ended up on one. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

No major problems

Overall...

This article is looking promising! It seems to be a matter of taste when it comes to the lead, I think we've gone past the stage of convincing each other, so better hold it there. So, it passes. Pleasure to go over the article with you. If this wants to go to FA, then I think there needs to be more content on the article. not (talk/contribs) 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent revision to the lead

I cant believe you're making such a big deal out of this, @My name is not dave: () Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

1) Repetition is not inescapable if you stick to my revision. You're revision forces more repetition (Tricky is named three times in the span of two sentences, both of which you've extended and make more awkward, longer, for no substantial reason), and you never justified forcing a mention of the release date and record label in the first sentence when we were discussing this in the above good article review, so like WTF? The sentence structure you used is more awkward, and now you have the mention of the recording year following the release date?? If that isn't awkward or anachronistic, I don't know what to say to you. It makes NO sense to write that way, to mention it, just because of your opinion on the relevancy of the release year and record label?? WP:LEAD says to define the article topic in the first sentence. Other relevant information is to be spread out in the lead, with some logic to style I hope smh... Dan56 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

2) Additionally, like I said in my edit summary reverting you (which you didn't address), "trip hop" was a term used back then, to describe what's since been called by other names (Robert Christgau, "Consumer Guide: Burial: Untrue", MSN Music: 2008), so my phrasing is appropriate: "what was being called 'trip hop'", and you removed "a term Tricky himself disliked", when the appropriateness of the term is given significant enough discussion in the Reception section. Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

3) There was nothing wrong (grammatically or any other way) with the previous revision, which was how you passed it in GA! You basically chopped it up and condensed the lead into two paragraphs made up of two overlong sentences each; if you read it, the first sentence in the second paragraph in your revision sounds extremely running off at the mouth. I cant believe you're making a deal out of this. Like come on! You passed the article with my revision (as is) of the lead. If you had a problem with it, you shouldn't have passed it to begin with :/ Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I passed it because I thought this was just a dispute between you and me -- thus just a matter of taste and also because I never thought nothing was going to come out of that discussion regarding the lead, but then I discovered GentleCollapse16's comment on your lead version in this talk page. That was when I changed my position on this subject, because I realised that somebody else had voiced a preferral of my way, strengthening the position of having such a lead.

Apologies for completely missing that part out -- and fair point indeed. That part of the lead can easily be fitted onto my edition.

There is nothing wrong gramatically, but it just seems to jump to something completely different after the first sentence. I believe the reader is out for two key things in the lead, album name, artist and release date. The rest is effective junk, and can be placed afterwards. The issue with the second paragraph and can be easily resolved by cutting off the sentence after "record chart" and then starting another sentence with ' recieved'.

We can't go on like this. I don't want to recieve my first slap on the wrist and you don't want it to be your eighth! We need more opinions. not (talk/contribs) 19:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Dan56 this is ridiculous now. You have two users, who you can at the very least acknowledge are not just trolls or vandals arguing for POV but editors making basic arguments for ostensible coherence, telling you that your version reads like shit. Are you going to keep riding this one out until you assume everyone forgets? And for the (obvious) record, I second the changes just made by user:my name is not dave. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@GentleCollapse16: Would you be happy to take this to WP:DRN? not (talk/contribs) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@My name is not dave:, GentleCollapse16 has been trolling articles I've edited or heavily contributed to. His objections are pretentious and (let me try putting this in a vocabulary in line with his tastes...) obtrusive (lol). "Ostensible coherence" and "your version reads like shit" pretty much sum up his argument. And for the record, why would either of us get blocked? No revisions are being made, and we're discussing. Or at least I am, because you haven't made much of an attempt to explain or justify each of your changes, while I explained every little thing you did to the lead and why it's not an improvement. Both of you are drawing focus away from the actual changes by making this about something else. And what? You think it strengthens what position when you hardly established it from the beginning. That user never even brought up the release date and record label the way you did, and some user. "I see the lead still reads languid-not-professional"... far as I'm concerned, my writing is simply better"... like who does he think he is?lol. Did you even bother reading my responses to him regarding his objections, or did you just see an opportunity to have another editor supporting your preference? I'm not talking or responding to either one of you unless you have something to say about the specific content of the lead your objecting to. Otherwise, open an RfC Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

To counter "That user never even brought up the release date and record label the way you did": a line from my first paragraph on this page reads: "Withholding the date of the album's release until the second paragraph is just mind numbing—not only is that not the standard approach for Misplaced Pages articles on works of art, it also involves you attempting some sort of narrative chronology into an exposition that is muddled by it (i.e. we don't need to be told when and how he recorded the album before we learn information as basic as when it was released)." Not only did you not discuss this at any length, you dismissed it entirely. Here was your thoughtful objective response:

I don't see a problem with how it was before, which made more sense chronologically and with the order of what is discussed in the article's body.

Regarding "trolling", if I remember correctly, I was me who began trying to significantly improve this page first, with Revision as of 19:47, 15 August 2015—like so many of our encounters here, I got to the page first to attempt some positive contributions, and you showed up and went on a reverting spree, getting rid of what didn't fit your taste, refusing to hear anything different, waving your WP guidelines around like a police badge. Trying to paint me as some sort of asshole ("like who does he think he is?lol") doesn't stop the fact that you're the biggest troll here right now. Currently, two users are asking you to concede to an incredibly simple Misplaced Pages precedent—first paragraph is kept tight, with basic info such as release date and label.And you continue to resist, for reasons beyond any sense. On top of that, I still can't see how you can be arguing for sentences like "He recorded the album in 1994 with his then-girlfriend, vocalist Martina Topley-Bird, who sang on most of the songs with him." So yes, I stand by my "still reads languid-not-professional" and "your version reads like shit" because, as someone with an interest in keeping Misplaced Pages a helpful and convenient resource, I think it does. It's badly written man, accept that and help us make it better.

@My name is not dave:, I'd be happy to take this to WP:DRN. And while we're at it, at the moment, me and Dan56 are also currently having a similar dispute over at the talk page for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Feel free to help out and join in on the fun, if you're so inclined. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: another issue I brought up earlier this year was User:Dan56's horrible (and citational-incorrect/editorializing) mangling of the Robert Christgau review excerpt included in the Critical Reception section. There is a pathetically hyperbolic phrase there ("spectacular aural displays") that Dan56 completely made up, and he also reorganizes the structure of two sentences to express something new, and without making his changes clear with punctuation (the colon is nowhere in the original review, and there are no brackets used). I made several good faith attempts to fix that, and they were immediately reverted each time. Check that out too. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no standard or precedent whereby the release date and record label should be mentioned in the first sentence. If there is, please cite it, @GentleCollapse16:. Dan56 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard: "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example." It's incontrovertibly the way the great majority of music releases, especially those that have received acknowledge for being "Good" or "Featured" articles, have been structured. Want a citation? Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Featured articles#music and tell me what the general consent or custom seems to be.

But know what? Fuck your rulebook and WP guidelines. How about this: in the absence of a WP guideline to either side, BASIC INFO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH MAKES MORE SENSE. IT IS THE MOST CONDUCIVE TO EXPRESSING THE ALBUM'S BASIC INFORMATION IN AN ACCESSIBLE AND UNCLUTTERED MANNER THAT WILL BEST CATER TO WIKIPEDIA READERS. Get that? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no absence of a WP guideline. WP:LEAD makes it clear to only define the article's topic in the first sentence, which it currently does. Citing other stuff is meaningless. I was the major contributor to this article, so I chose to style it this way for the reasons I mentioned before. There's nothing inherently wrong about my choice to arrange it based on the order of the actual body. You just don't particularly like it and prefer how you've seen most other articles written, which isn't good enough reason to change it. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"You just don't particularly like it." Yes, because as I and someone else have argued, it leaves the lead feeling vague and unclear. Again, in the absence of a particular rule either way (what is it to define something for you? Is date not relevant for you in that? "An album by x released in y" is somehow improper and filled with extra information now?), I can't see much more to your argument than what you've accused me/us of: "I was the major contributor" (translation: this page is mine all mine because I put the work in, lemme style it just how I want). "There is nothing inherently wrong" again I couldn't care less if it's INHERENTLY wrong, because it's circumstancially problematic enough to have flagged two separate editors' attention.

In short, your argument against our edits is "it's not explicitly in the rules and you just want it your way" and then your justification for keeping it your way is "well the rules don't explicitly say it's wrong and I want it my way, fuck convention and simplicity." Why the epic stubbornness? Do you really disagree so fervently that the way it's conventionally done is SO bad you need to dismiss it entirely? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"feeling vague and unclear"? Did you ask the lead yourself how it's feeling? lol. Let me ask how it would feel if we revised it to "...released in 1995 by 4th & Broadway. It was recorded in 1994..."... CLUMSY. Dan56 (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a rule, that I've cited before, that keeps going over both of your stubborn heads, or just over your stubborn noggin. WP:BEGIN: "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." (Here's my favorite part lol) "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Kapish?! Dan56 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not very specific towards an album. not (talk/contribs) 13:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Try not to overload": Is anyone proposing an overlong, horribly cluttered sentence like "Maxinquaye is the debut album by English musician and producer Tricky, released in 1995 by 4th & Bway, which has been acclaimed as one the best records of the 1990s and one of the defining releases of the trip hop genre"? Not even close. Including the date of the album—hey, why not include it before "debut" as in "Maxinquaye is the 1995 debut album by English producer Tricky, released on 4th and Broadway. Recorded in 1994 with the assistance of co-producer x, it..." I think I tried that too, and you reverted it as well. That way we've fixed your "CLUMSY" concern. That was easy!

But you can't seriously be talking about "clumsy" when you continually reinstate phrases like "who sang on most of the songs with him" and "a term Tricky himself disliked" and "Tricky produced the album mostly himself" dear me. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@My name is not dave:, why do you expect it to be specific towards an album? The guideline refers to any article, so what do you mean?? Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC on lead

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.

Closing as obsolete - the article has been promoted to Misplaced Pages:Featured article with a lead that isn't quite either of the two linked, and, at least at first glance, seems fine. I'm hoping the disputing parties are all happy with it as is; if not a separate RfC should be opened. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Should the lead be in the style of GentleCollapse's/My name is not dave's edition, or should it be in Dan56's edition? Alternatively, editors can propose their own versions of a lead. Dan56 and GentleCollapse16: Please do not hijack this RfC. Maintain your civility and comment if it helps moving towards a solution, not just ego-boosting, or I will take both of you to ANI (in fact, I feel tempted already -- this seems to be a long term issue). not (talk/contribs) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dan56 Well duh lol. This was the revision that was discussed and accepted in the good-article review by the above nominator, so why the problem now?? Dan56 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Given that this article is now a Featured Article candidate, I'd suggest that the most sensible course of action would be to close this RfC. The article will be subject to plenty of detailed scrutiny over there, and any grammatical/prose issues should be picked up. Having an open RfC could be seen to affect article stability and adversely affect it's chances at FAC, and in any case it doesn't seem like people are interested in participating here that much. Thanks. — sparklism 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't feel like the brunt of additional lead info has really improved it, plus there's the aesthetic question: is there any album more ill-served by quaint verbal summaries than this one? Seems inappropriate.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't feel like any of your changes had really improved it either. And an "aesthetic question"? The article is well served by the current lead. Lets not fanboy over what the article is about lol. Dan56 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

Lol User:Dan56 my friend, the completely unnecessary biographical section in the lead of this album article is literally longer than the biography in the lead of Tricky's actual biographical page—otherwise , the lead is getting increasingly ridiculous, visually unpleasant, and far too overloaded with clumsily attempts to summarize complex ideas ("The songs explore themes of dysfunctional sexual relationships, fear of intimacy, recreational drug use, and cultural decline" is another sentence that makes me want to vomit—'here teacher, these are the morals of the story!').

You continue to add unnecessarily comprehensive information—it seems you've literally slopped every piece of writing one could find on Maxinquaye into one grotesque behemoth of an article. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be Google or aCritical Companion to Maxinquaye—it's a summation of reputable sources that provides information about a subject. Inevitably, this page has stopped being about the album and has instead become about your desire to obsessively frame it as your own personal research project (do you have a life outside the furious wikipedia policing you've showcased on this page alone? Have you had time to actually listen to this fucking album in between mangling critical quotes to fit a 'meaningful' narrative?). For a piece of art so subtle, ambiguous, mysterious etc. you've really done a wonderful job of making it look as captivating as a CSPAN broadcast.

Get outside for a walk sometime. Open a window. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thing: Misplaced Pages is defined by its ostensibly egalitarian mode of editing—it's a wiki and everyone is supposed to be able to contribute and take part in a balanced way. At least 5 separate editors have taken issue with your work on this page over the last few months, and every single one has been shut down by you as you continue to nurture the article as your baby. Don't you see something wrong with that? Or do the possibilities of authoritarian information and content maintenance get you all tingly inside? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style and neutral point of view?

This article is full of cherry-picked quotes and fan-page meanderings from the artist and those close to him. Aren't Misplaced Pages articles supposed to be neutral and factual? Aren't only the words of the interviewer used as reference material in an interview? Isn't information about performances supposed to be referenced to reviews after the event, rather than to announcements before the event? Also, this is an article about a specific album. There is already an article about Tricky (musician); shouldn't the biographical material, and information about his general music style, be there instead of here?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

All opinions are attributed just as that, and facts are facts; what are you questioning the truthfulness of exactly? What "performances" or "announcements"? And also, parts of Tricky's bio and the genre associated with him, are inextricably linked or in some way relevant to the album, as founded in sources covering the album. Like I said here, you removed material, including quotes, that gave insight into the recording and replaced it with choppier prose, some of which changed the meaning of what the sources support. Since when is quoting an "involved party" unfit or inappropriate, like you suggested here? The whole of this article, more or less, has been accepted by reviewers at its FAR, so these objections are also unexpected for that reason. Dan56 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Anne Delong, I'm not going to take sides here but if it is true that album articles should not contain quotes from the performer(s), then pretty much every music-related FA and GA will have to be reviewed, because virtually all of them contain quotations from the artist, similar to this article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dan56 left a message on my talk page HERE related to this subject, which others may wish to read. In it he points out that when I made this edit I changed the meaning of the sentence. I found the original sentence confusing, which is why I changed it, and on re-reading I agree; will someone please change it to something factual and specific.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No where is it said that Maxinquaye was sold "mostly to young people in the UK", which is what your revision made it mean. I don't know what you're on about. Dan56 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a policy or guideline about quotations; we only have essays, such as: WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:LONGQUOTE, Misplaced Pages:Quotations and neutrality and Misplaced Pages:Quotations/2. They all caution against the overuse of quotations, and suggest paraphrasing whenever possible. That doesn't mean no quotations, but they shouldn't be sprinkled throughout the article. Also, just because a well-know person says something, doesn't mean it's notable enough to be in the encyclopedia at all, let alone as a quote; only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them notability. For example, if a famous artist says "I was sitting in a red chair when I got the idea to paint 'Pickled Herring on Rye'", should that be quoted in his article? Not unless (1) art critics write about how the colour of the chair affected the development of the painting and there's no accurate way to paraphrase the words, or (2) independent authors discuss the quotation itself for its literary value. Musicians' publicists usually prefer quotes to paraphrasing, because they are often more colourful and help the musicians attract followers, but that is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them notability"... I don't agree with your opinion. The journalist chose what to use from the interview they had with Saunders or Tricky, from god knows how many other words and statements the interviewee gave the journalist, so that editorial discretion gives what they ultimately published in the article its notability. I mean, I'm not citing a transcript of the friggin interview lol. As for overusing quotations, those essays you cited touch on using quotes impertinently. So far, it's only your opinion that some of the quotes are irrelevant or not useful. Dan56 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... I had only seen the word "impertinent" used to mean "impolite", but I see that it can also mean "irrelevant", so I presume that's what you mean. The essays I linked mention several reasons for limiting the number of quotes, not just relevance. I do agree though, that so far no one has spoken up to agree with me, so it's just my opinion, and those who wrote the essays.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Pertinence" is used in WP:QUOTEFARM: "...a quotation is used without pertinence..." And which of those essays say "only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them notability"? Not that I don't think Richard Buskin doesn't do that in his article/interview... because like I said before, the source is not a transcript of an interview. It's an article in which a journalist quotes and discusses what the subjects have said. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll use a quote I deleted as an example: It was from an interview in the Guardian. It appears to be a direct transcript of the interview. As is pointed out in Misplaced Pages:Interviews#Reliability, even highly respectable magazines with responsible editors don't fact-check the words of the interviewee - they just print them verbatim. That means that the interviewee is the source, not the journalist, and she's a primary source. According to WP:Verifiability one should "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources" and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources says the same thing. About the other quote from this article in Sound on Sound: The entire section from which the quote was taken. called "Tricky's Home studio" (and most of the rest of the article, but that's beside the point) is a recounting an event, by one of the participants in the event, in his own words. There's no contribution or discussion from the journalist. However, Dan56, I think you are right about what I said above - it should have been "only if reliable independent sources discuss the quoted words does it give them verifiability" not notability, and I apologize that.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That story about Topley Bird sitting by the wall of Tricky's house has been mentioned in other sources, another interview and another not an interview (, ). And I read the guidelines on primary sources, and there's nothing about not being able to use them, just that secondary sources are preferred; this article makes sporadic references to primary source material like interviewees who's information isn't verified elsewhere, and when it does make reference to them, they're attributed/quoted, which isn't inappropriate. I think you were rash in your judgment here; you removed a quote from Tricky when he's barely quoted throughout this article, same with Saunders, although you left material coming from his quoted words in Buskin's article yet are now claiming such material cant be used altogether (). I still don't understand what your ultimate point about all this is. Dan56 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a number of changes, not all for the same reason. I see that you have undone most of them. In general, I felt I was improving the article by: (1) summarizing some biographical material, since this article is about an album (and the GA reviewer agreed with me about that) (2) paraphrasing some material that had been presented as quotes, since "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style", and (3) in particular, summarizing (not removing) the material in the quote from Saunders because I believed it to be promotional: he was being interviewed for a magazine, so he described the recording process in as exciting a fashion as he could - to promote record sales. I replaced it with plain factual text. As to your comment that I didn't remove all information from that source: I just removed that part that was opinion, and paraphrased the rest. Even though the interview is a weak source, as you pointed out primary sources can be used with caution, and I had no reason to believe that the mixing of the album didn't happen as described. I notice that the quote was added after the GA review.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"To promote record sales"? Seriously?? By comparing the sampling process to building a car from junkyard parts?? I mean, no one really knows anyone's intentions for what they say, now do they, but that's a ridiculous assumption with all due respect. And as far as what's opinion, I cited some opinions from those involved in the record because they give insight that was best articulated by their own words. And it was attributed as opinion, quoted properly... there's nothing wrong with doing that. There were other problems with your revisions; you left prose riddled with awkward run-ons and grammatical mistakes, and even removed a line where Simon Reynolds interpreted the album title as "Zion" (why? when the Rastafarian aspects to the record's themes is evident in what's later cited). As far as the Background section going into some bio, it's just two paragraphs, and it's Tricky's first album; most sources that extensively cover this album's story go into similar background, which is where the info is culled from... the section reflecting the sources on the topic, according to their prominence, which suggested to me was enough to give at least that much info that was biographical. In short, it's his first album, and readers should be given some info as to his artistic beginnings and not the impression he came out of nowhere. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why you think that it's improbable that celebrities try to be as interesting as possible during interviews in order to further their careers. To me it's obvious. You'll notice that Elvis Presley, a featured article, is maybe 5% or less quotes, and most of them are quite short and to the point. And, of course, if you found grammatical errors the thing to do is correct them - that's non-controversial. I likely would have gone over the sentences for that sort of thing when I was finished, but I stopped editing right away when you left a message on my talk page.

Frankly, Dan56, I see no point in discussing this further. Looking back at the article history and the history of this talk page, I can see that you have deep feelings about this article and will likely keep arguing long after I run out of energy. So, summarizing my position, encyclopedia articles, unlike magazine articles and artist profiles, should be contain only verifiable facts written in plain factual language, with no attempt to display the importance of the subject or make the article more exciting through the inclusion of rhetoric, musings of closely connected people, proliferation of quotations, etc. I can see that you'll likely restore the quote from Tricky, but I hope you will keep my comments in mind as you continue to edit the article. I thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I have to get back to my usual "beat" now before someone deletes the abandoned drafts I've been trying to save.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Celebrities"? Lol. Saunders, like this record tbh, are relatively obscure. He'd have to be delusional to think the quote he gave would help this album sell any more copies than the little it's been able to sell so far. Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

cover

Pumpkin ... Led Zeppelin - "I'm gonna Crawl"

Fair use rationale for Image:Tricky - Maxinquaye.jpg

Inclusion of Public Enemy member

FTV

Etymology

back and forth

GA Review

Lead

Background section

Citation check

Recording and production section

Citation check

Release and reception section

Citation check

Track listing section

Citation check

Personnel section

Citation check

Charts section

Citation check

Overall...

Recent revision to the lead

RfC on lead

Encyclopedic style and neutral point of view?

Categories