Talk:Virtual Self (EP)

Requested move 24 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved Virtual self ← Virtual Self → Virtual Self (EP) (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 07:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Virtual Self → Virtual Self (EP) – Virtual Self is an alternate name of Porter Robinson, and it should redirect to the artist instead.  Lazz _R  20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Indeed, there should be an EP label for this page in case the actual 'Virtual Self' name will be notable enough to have its own artist page sometime later. Adjust the spelling for the redirected EP page please, it spells 'Vitual Self (EP)' rather than 'Virtual Self (EP)'.  aNode   (discuss)  02:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I hadn't noticed that typo (I have now corrected it).  Lazz _R  12:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support either way requires (EP). As to whether should redirect to artist, not sure that virtual self wouldn't be a better target. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, virtual self should be the target. I did not know there was a disambiguation page.  Lazz _R  12:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose - Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Unless there are separate articles for the person and the pseudonym, the EP article should keep the name "Virtual Self", as it is the only article with this name.  A hatnote at Porter Robinson indicating the name of the EP will properly direct people to the album article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment; While it may technically be the only article with this exact title, it's worth noting the entries in the disambiguation page.  Lazz _R  18:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quick fail
yeah, I disagree with this review. I'm using interviews where Robinson talks about his inspiration for Virtual Self... in sections talking about his inspirations for Virtual Self. Otherwise there's not much to talk about his inspirations. If there are interviews where Robinson states his inspirations it doesn't make sense to resort to secondary source interpretations only. I made the sections "Background" and "Concept and inspiration" almost entirely of interviews and his process on building Virtual Self, while Composition and songs is mostly about what secondary sources said about the EP. There's still over 20 non-interview sources being used in the article. The Forbes article is an interview and I'm strictly using Robinson's words, so it's a valid use. I don't see what's the problem with the usage of interviews then. I mean, most "Production"-like sections need to be coming from interviews, no? It seems harsh that I would need to remove or rewrite entire sections in this case. At least, I would like to ask for more opinions about this case. Skyshifter  talk  11:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought we might disagree on this point at least a little bit; after all, I don't think anyone would submit an article as a GAN unless they believed it was ready. That being said, I'm afraid I can't retract my review, and all of the reasons I provided for the fail still apply. I want to note that your opinion that it "doesn't make sense to resort to secondary source interpretations only" is fundamentally misaligned with Wikipedia policy. Editors are cautioned against using primary sources to verify any non-trivial information, and the primary sources policy highly discourages using them for any substantial section of an article. When I'm personally writing articles, I seriously question every single use of a primary source, trying to substitute them with secondary sources if I can, and using them only to the most minimal extent if I can't. I also want to bring up two points that I didn't mention in my review in the interest of keeping things focused:
 * Articles cannot give undue weight to information which doesn't appear in reliable sources at all. Again, articles should always turn to secondary sources when determining the proportion that a particular viewpoint is emphasized. My interpretation of this policy is that if something does not appear in any reliable sources, it should not appear in Wikipedia. I understand that that's a pretty extreme conclusion, and I have compromised with another editor once when we disagreed on that point, but entire sections built entirely from primary sources is something I can't compromise on.
 * To add in more information taken exclusively from interviews is to bring an article closer to fancruft. Wikipedia is not the Porter Robinson Fandom wiki, and follows a different set of standards. While I'm sure Robinson has said a lot of interesting things about how he wrote Virtual Self, most of that content does not meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * I understand if you still disagree with me in some way, and so welcome if you want to advertise this discussion for a third opinion. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The biggest thing here is that we're talking about a concept/composition section. (for other articles, it may be called development, production, etc.) All the time I spent on Wikipedia (including in Portuguese Wikipedia when translating articles from here), interviews were perfectly accepted in these kinds of sections, and they are quite common when referencing this kind of section. So, while primary sources shouldn't be used to base an entire article, I think it is fine to completely base sections such as concept, production or development in interviews, and I've seen quite a few of those, including in articles I've promoted myself. When you say "When I'm personally writing articles, I seriously question every single use of a primary source, trying to substitute them with secondary sources if I can, and using them only to the most minimal extent if I can't", I also do that for other sections, but I fail to see the problem in sections such as Development, where you usually need to enter the mind of the creator of the work to understand how it was developed (and in turn, usually needing to use interviews).
 * An article I promoted some time ago is Iteration (album), which has three entire sections based only on interviews or primary sources. To a lesser extent I could mention Era Extraña (Background and production, except the very last line). Using other topics as examples, this was not promoted by me, but Undertale is not far from FAC and its Development section is entirely based on interviews, with the exception of the last few paragraphs of "Music". I could also mention another article I promoted, Bomba Patch, which is mostly based on three articles that are a mix of interview and independently written content. To mention another Porter Robinson thing even, Flicker (song)'s Composition section is entirely based on interviews or primary sources apart from two sentences.
 * I can see that maybe adjusting or removing a bit of the content could be done, but I completely disagree that I'd need to rewrite or remove entire blocks of content (or as you mentioned, half of the prose). In that case, I would like to ask for more opinions regarding the article's usage of primary sources. Skyshifter   talk  00:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to differentiate our approach to sourcing depending on which part of the article is in question. The quality standards for a development section are the exact same as for a critical reception or a thematic analysis section. You've given a few other articles as examples of interviews being used, and while I'm not going to analyze and respond to each one of them, I will say that I very rarely use other articles as models for interpretation of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the editors working on those articles, but Wikipedia — by its nature — is not reliable; it's always possible that some oversight could have led to content that is not up to standard, even in featured articles. While I don't defer to editorial decisions made on other articles, I will defer to consensus, and so want to ask if you know of any previous discussions or guidelines that I might have missed which support your arguments. And like I said earlier, I have no objections to you inviting another editor to provide another opinion in this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that yes, context matters; otherwise, "Plot" sections wouldn't exist, for example: usually, they are entirely sourced to the work itself. I've seen some recent FAs that had "development"-like sections that were at very least ~80% sourced to interviews; that's why I think your view on primary sources is too harsh, especially regarding these types of sections. I thought a higher usage of interviews in these types of sections were widely accepted as fine. Anyway, I believe we won't reach a consensus on this. I'm not sure on how to ask for other opinions, however. Is WP:3O the most appropriate? Should I just ask on WikiProject Music? Skyshifter   talk  01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Plot sections are explicitly exempted from the usual need for reliable inline citations in guidelines like MOS:PLOTSOURCE, as they're considered (generally) uncontroversial summaries of the works they're describing. I've never seen any guidelines calling out development or production sections, but, again, I would be happy to be proven wrong if you know something I don't. Anyways, I think that line of argument is getting a bit off-topic, and it might be more productive to focus specifically on this article and my review. 3O would work, but you could also request a reassessment of my review at WT:GAN. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted at WT:GAN. Skyshifter   talk  01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this has been posted at GAN, I won't be providing a 3O here. I might post over at GAN. Additionally, @Skyshifter, you should feel free to open a new nomination for this article, and you can then point the new reviewer to this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't sure if a renomination was the correct way to do it, but in that case, I'll add secondary sources to Background (along with some other adjustments I'm planning) and then renominate while mentioning this discussion. Skyshifter   talk  21:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Chronology
Right now it seems that the Virtual Self alias was a one-off / ad hoc thing, so I think Porter Robinson should be the chronology there. If Robinson releases more things under Virtual Self, then I think the chronology should be Virtual Self indeed. It is strange to have absolutely nothing in the chronology there. Skyshifter  talk  21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember reading a discussion in the archives of WT:ALBUMS about works generally not being included in discographies if released under an alias, unless there was a compelling argument to be made for an exception using reliable sources. I'm not finding it at the moment, but I'll keep looking when I have more time. I see where you're coming from here, but given that both Porter and the majority of reliable sources consider Virtual Self to be a clearly separate side project (as well as every other source calling Nurture Porter's "sophomore album"), I don't see why we need to make that exception here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)