Talk:Barenaked Ladies Are Men

Request for Comment: Barenaked Ladies Are Men
This is a dispute about whether or not "Barenaked Ladies Are Men" deserves an article separate from "Barenaked Ladies Are Me." JPG-GR 06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * Talk:Barenaked Ladies Are Me


 * Comments

Creating official page
As Barenaked Ladies Are Men has had its own official release, it warrants its own page. Whether or not BNL have intended Barenaked Ladies Are Me and Barenaked Ladies Are Men as a double album (then why not have it released that way in the first place?), it stands that both albums are indeed separate and the articles should reflect that. There's definitely a case for it: Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion II, for example,despite having virtually the same title and being released on the same day, whereas the two BNL albums in question are 5 months apart - adding more weight to my reasoning. For the sake of repetitiveness, I've left a link in this article to Barenaked Ladies Are Me for the background info on the recording of both albums.

BGC 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The first thing I shall say is this: The fact that you feel you have to justify this means you think that it is clearly a controvercial decision. This means, you should probably have typed what you just typed here in the Are Me article, and gotten feedback before unilaterally splitting the article (and clearly you have almost no new information to include in this article relative to the Are Me article. I am going to revert what you did, and copy your comment there for discussion, and if you would like - a vote. See that page for my reasons why I think your logic is somewhat erroneous. TheHYPO 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and I shall revert it back. Instead of being obstinate, you may want to be productive and ADD to this article, since - as there is a separate physical release - it obviously is an article that should stand on its own.  This has nothing to do with the albums anyway.  You're just a little put out because someone has had the nerve to modify "your" Barenaked Ladies pages. BGC 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I said it before. Just because you think I'm ignoring your facts, doesn't mean you should ignore the ones I present and ignore wikipedia policy. There is an open discussion on the issue at the existing article right now. I suggest you discuss and come to consensus before notable restructuring the articles, instead of doing so unilaterally and ignoring requests to discuss the matter. TheHYPO 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You will never be able to prove that a physical version of this album does not exist. It's the biggest and most convincing bit of proof that this article should exist.  Just because most of these songs came out on iTunes 5 months ago as bonus cuts to the last BNL album doesn't negate this CD release.  BGC 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have to prove that a physical album doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the item deserves an article. The toothpick I used yesterday exists, but it doesn't deserve it's own article. TheHYPO 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For what it's worth, as a Statesider who bought ...Are Me when it came out, this seems like a distinct release. The titles are similar but they're separate physical discs with separate release dates, so for us non-digital purchasers, there's no apparent connection. GassyGuy 09:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are Men - keep it? My edits?
Frankly I don't care. If you think it deserves it's own article... fine. I didn't revert it. But that doesn't change the fact that the Deluxe, Deluxe 5.1, USB and other version of Are Me already released the same 16 songs that are on this album. And there is no reason to blank the fact that this album CAN pretty solidly be considered the second half of BLAM for the many reasons I gave in the other article:
 * all songs from same session and only split up after all were recorded
 * all 29 released in several ways together
 * albums intentionally named similary
 * albums have much of the same artwork
 * the new single that coincides with 'Are Men's release is from 'Are Me'
 * this post by Steven Page, member of the band which says "It came out last week & it's the 2nd half of BLAM" or this one that says "Barenaked Ladies Are Men (the 2nd half of BLAM) comes out Feb 6th."

You can post 50 reasons why it IS a seperate album, but I've even given you the benefit of the doubt by saying "the two can be debatably be seen as two halves of one double album." in the Are Me article. I could easily cite the band's own statement and leave out the debatably if that would be better.

Here is a point by point list of every other notable edit and why it is justified in being made:
 * delete: "bonus disc on the limited edition deluxe release of Barenaked Ladies Are Me" The deluxe is a 2-disc edition. You pay for it. It's not a bonus disc - it's the second of two discs. It's also not limited because the deluxe is readily available from itunes and has no indication of being limited. It's 2007. Not everything must be a physical CD to exist.
 * delete:"four unreleased songs" - all four had been released as itunes preorder bonuses, on the band's USB stick, and on Deluxe 5.1 DVD-A edition. Again; songs needn't be on a physical stereo CD to be "released".
 * Delete: The mild recording session info; I suppose you could return this if you felt it added to the article - I thought the one link to BLAM for info on the recording and songs was better than repeating the same info here since I personally think this article is strictly describing a physical CD and not the songs or recording process (I still think all 29 songs properly belong as "Barenaked Ladies Are Me", and "Are Men" is simply a physical re-release of some of them - since the deluxe "Are Me" DVD and USB contain them all, the band obviously considers all 29 as one cohesive unit). Again; if you want to readd this snippet, go ahead - I suggest using a subheading of "recording' and moving the "details" template to the top of that heading from the tracklist heading
 * delete:"received even stronger reviews than Barenaked Ladies Are Me" - this is a clear opinion statement unless you can cite someone official saying this. Someone else might read the Are Me reviews and think they are stronger. Additionally, even if you compare, say, the all music guide reviews -there are thousands of reviewers worldwide. Saying this based on a handful is not justified. Saying that anything is stronger than anything else on wikipedia seems like a clearcut case of 'citation needed'.
 * tracklist: consolodate 16 tracks. If you want this article to be about the proper Are Men release, you should have a 16 track tracklist, and just have the one note about the minor starbucks release. Also, the fact that the songs were physically released for the first time is not accurate because they were on the USB (physical) and the deluxe 5.1 DVD (physical), both released prior to Are Men.

If you have any contentions about my points, please make them... that is, make the contentions - don't revert while sniping in the comment box. Actually talk about it here and come to some consensus. You can't argue that the Are Men article must be left unreverted until consensus exists because it's your work but then revert someone elses work before consensus is reached. Have it one way or the other. TheHYPO 09:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BNLMen.jpg
Image:BNLMen.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 00:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)