Talk:LeAnn Rimes (album)

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 articles

Country Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Leann rimes.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Leann rimes.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album name same as artist's name[edit]

What is the point of insulting the reader's intelligence by telling them that the album LeAnn Rimes and the singer LeAnn Rimes have the same name? It adds no new information and it is poor writing. I have removed the words "eponymous" and "self-titled" from hundreds of album articles. This is the same situation. It's obvious to anyone who can read that the names are the same; we don't need to tell that to anyone. Of all those removals I made, only two have been challenged, including this one. The one other challenger changed their mind after I explained. At least four editors have thanked me for making the changes, including the writer of the essay with a section entitled WP:TITULAR about how such unnecessary redundancy is bad writing. The argument that it is "standard format" doesn't make it any less awkward writing style. If a hundred articles have the very same bad writing, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed because of "standard format". And I don't need consensus for improving writing style. I can make the changes, and others can dispute what I do (which has almost never occurred), but consensus is not required because there is no dispute about policy or accuracy. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose You need a consensus for any disputed change or to offer a policy that supports it. It is very presumptious of you to assume that what is obvious to you is obvious to everyone on this global website accessible by billions, all with different mindsets, perspectives, reading abilities, etc. If you want to make a wholesale change to numerous articles, you need to establish a broad consensus for that, and not just on the talk page of one affected article(probably at the Village Pump, or the Music WikiProject). 331dot (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that stylistic changes require consensus. They can be challenged, but consensus is not required. Let's see if others have opinions here. Sundayclose (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer the policy that says stylistic changes do not require consensus. Any disputed change needs a consensus, or a policy to support it. See WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:EDITCON, WP:RCD. For that matter I don't see what is poor about that phrasing at all. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No policy is needed because this a content dispute, not a policy violation. There is no policy stating that spelling errors can be corrected, but that doesn't mean the corrections can't be made. Content disputes are settled by discussion, which is what is going on now. Again, let's wait to see if there are more opinions. If you think I've violated policy, this is not the place to discuss it; there are admin boards for policy violations. Sundayclose (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you gravely misunderstand things here. Content disputes are not exempt from policies- if they were, no policies would be needed. I didn't ask for a policy to support your ability to make a change, I asked for a policy or consensus to support the exact change you wanted made, which you have done across numerous Wikipedia articles. This may be WP:BOLD, but once disputed, you need to discuss and/or justify your change. I'm going to bring this to the attention of the Albums WikiProject to see if they have anything to add, one way or the other. Again, I don't see what is poor about the existing phrasing at all. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think I have violated policy, bring it up at admin board. I'm waiting to see if others wish to express opinions here. By the way, I do acknowledge that there is some difference between "of the same name" and "eponymous/self-titled". "Of the same name" is often seen in articles such as a film that is based on a novel of the same name. So I think discussion here is worthwhile. It may be that other editors don't think my change is necessary. I'm certainly willing to follow any consensus for this particular article. And I agree that consensus here is necessary for me to restore my change because it has been disputed. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you violated policy, only that you didn't provide one(or a consensus) to support this. Happy to hear from others. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't needed for every stylistic change, especially when it's an odd situation in which boldness might yield an good solution. E Eng 20:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that documented somewhere? 331dot (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout you show where it's documented that it needs prior consensus? Certainly WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:EDITCON, and WP:RCD -- which you linked above -- don't say so. E Eng 20:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If disputed changes don't need a consensus or policy to support them, I guess I don't know as much about Wikipedia as I thought I did in my many years here. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"LeAnn Rimes is the fourth studio album by LeAnn Rimes, released in 1999." sounds horribly clunky and redundant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying what the right answer is, but please no use of the word eponymous or goofball links such as album by the artist of the same name. E Eng 20:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having looked at it now, I actually think that the direct phrasing quoted just above is the best. Coy stuff about eponymy and "of the same name" are just WP:ELEVAR. E Eng 20:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one usage of a synonym is overly repetitive. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also agree with QuietHere just below; there are unusual cases where mention of eponymy is on-point, but in 99+% of cases it's just superfluous. Our readers generally don't have brain damage, and don't need to be told that LeeAnn Rimes and LeeAnn Rimes share the same name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen it doesn't appear there's a precedent for emphasising that self-titled albums are such. If there was notability behind the album being self-titled, such as Killswitch Engage (2009 album) which is the band's second s/t album (noted in the lead), or Weezer (Red Album) which is the band's third (noted in the body), then there's good reason to mention that, but neither those nor anything else I've looked at use "artist of the same name" or anything of the sort so it's probably not necessary after all.

However, I would also like to emphasis WP:BRD here; if there's another editor openly disagreeing with your edit, then don't claim you "don't need consensus" to make/remake the change. Have the discussion first and then make the appropriate edits based on its conclusion. It doesn't matter how small the change is, we need to resolve disagreements before making changes. Besides, you never know if it turns out consensus is against your preference after all and then your changes need to be undone anyway. QuietHere (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: Thanks for your comments. I agree entirely that consensus is needed in this discussion; in fact, I make that point above. I think I worded an earlier comment poorly that may have given the impression that I don't need consensus for the edit in question here; I do need consensus here. My point is that consensus is not necessary before making a stylistic change. The change can be challenged, but until the challenge occurs (as is the case here), prior consensus is not necessary. That's one reason I sought this discussion (and requested comments at Wikiprojects) -- to establish consensus about a challenged edit. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean. Yeah, it could've been phrased better, but you're definitely right that the IP editor didn't need consensus for the original edit, nor did you for reverting it. It would've been most appropriate for 331dot to bring it to discussion here after that rather than redoing the edit multiple times after, but it's not technically breaking 3RR so I suppose that's forgiveable as well. No big deal so long as this made it to discussion eventually and we're all on board with garnering consensus and following it subsequently. QuietHere (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to say that anyone needed a consensus prior to making an edit; I requested one after the fact to support what seemed to me to be a change to a standard(if informal) format. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]