Talk:Your Box Set Pet (The Complete Recordings 1980–1984)

For the most part, I've enjoyed working with both of you on this and other Bow Wow Wow articles. There are a few minor things, writing out numbers vs. writing the number, for example, that I disagree with one of you on, but it isn't worth an edit war in my eyes.

One of the items that I disagree with one of you on, and I feel needs to be reversed is the track listing for the Your Box Set Pet version of When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going within the article for that album. If the disc is gonna be called that, and is referred to as such "Plus bonus tracks," it absolutely belongs in the article. Humble opinion, but feel free to disagree with me.

I also don't believe that it is accurate to say, "Your Box Set Pet is a three-disc box set compilation album by English new wave band Bow Wow Wow." I don't believe it was "by" the band; I believe it is a compilation of their music that the members of the band had very little to do with the compiling of. The cover is not a "version" of the cover of Your Cassette Pet. There is not version of Your Cassette Pet with this as the cover. Therefore, it is a play on it. If "play on the cover" is a little slangy for you, find a way to phase that differently without making a false statement. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the most common criticism of Wikipedia is that inaccurate information is printed as truth. Let's be certain that we only print truth, even in small cases.

And I can't understand why the fact that there is a demo out there called "Cash" that is not included in this set, and a link to the Youtube video proving its existence would be removed from this article.

There are a couple of things missing from wikipedia articles that if either one of you have any way of finding out this information, I think should be added to those articles. For starters, was Teenage Queen ever formally released for purchase through record stores? Did you purchase it through Perky Jean, or was it given away with cosmetic purchases?

Why wasn't Your Cassette Pet eligible for the album charts? What is the criteria? I would think eight tracks constitutes an album over a single.

Johnny Spasm


 * 1) I will tackle all these one by one. Writing out numbers nine and below, and writing numbers 10 and above as numerals is the standard format in almost all media. Pick up a newspaper, read a magazine, look in an encyclopedia, etc. Wikipedia does not specifically state that you cannot write out numbers above nine, but it does specifically state that you should not change the number style of an article once it has been established.
 * 2) Box sets are entities unto themselves, they are compilations, no matter how the individual discs are subtitled. Album articles on Wiki do not put in full discographical info for every box set the album is later included in. It's fine to mention the inclusion of an album in a box set, but that tracklisting for that disc belongs on a page for the box set compilation, not the specific album page. Please examine some other album articles (this is what I specialize in here on Wikipedia) and you will see this is standard.
 * 3) It really doesn't matter what you think is accurate wording, we go by what is standard here on Wikipedia. All albums, whether studio, live, box set, posthumous, etc, are normally listed as "by". If you don't like this, bring it up as a general Wiki issue and see what other editors say. In the meantime, please try and stick to what is STANDARD here. I will give you some examples (these are just the first three I saw when looking at the Box set article on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh,_by_the_Way, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_The, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_Out_of_the_Box
 * 4) " If "play on the cover" is a little slangy for you, find a way to phase that differently without making a false statement". It is not my job as a Wiki editor to solve your writing issues. Maybe before you jump in and start editing these articles, you should do the necessary work of familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's rules for using neutral, clear, encyclopedic language and to avoid slang or casual phrases. Besides, you shouldn't be making such an analysis yourself as a Wiki editor, you should be finding a proper source that states this fact, and referencing it. If you cannot source it, and you cannot articulate it in a encyclopedic way, then leave it out. Don't ask other editors to clean up your slang. As for "Let's be certain that we only print truth, even in small cases", better to not add something to an article at all if you cannot word it properly or cannot source it.
 * 5) "And I can't understand why the fact that there is a demo out there called "Cash" that is not included in this set, and a link to the Youtube video proving its existence would be removed from this article". This is completely irrelevant to the article, which must focus on the box set, not on other songs by the band that may have existed. We do not do original research on Wikipedia, surely you know this? It's against the rules. If you want this mentioned, you'd need to find a source that discusses the demo and why it wasn;t included. Otherwise it is completely unrelated to this article.
 * 6) "There are a couple of things missing from wikipedia articles that if either one of you have any way of finding out this information, I think should be added to those articles. For starters, was Teenage Queen ever formally released for purchase through record stores? Did you purchase it through Perky Jean, or was it given away with cosmetic purchases?" Those are good questions, but please remember, you would need to find sources for the answers before adding any conjecture to the article.
 * 7) "Why wasn't Your Cassette Pet eligible for the album charts? What is the criteria? I would think eight tracks constitutes an album over a single." Because that's how the UK chart rules were laid out. I believe it is due to the fact that cassette-only releases were not allowed on the UK Albums Chart. It doesn't really matter what we think, though, that's what the fact is, and that's what the sources say.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I believe most of my issues are with wikipedia, not you. I looked at the Robert Johnson box set, and it says that it is a box set "by" Robert Johnson. I find that inaccurate, but not worth arguing over. The point I massively disagree with you on is the inclusion of the fact that "Cash" is not part of this collection. If you're going to advertise that this is complete recordings, the fact that a song is out there that makes this set less than complete should absolutely be mentioned in the article.Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. As a fan of the band, I am also curious why this song was not included. But it is not our place to ***do original research***. In fact, Wiki expressly forbids this. Your job and mine as Wiki editors is to write factual material that can be referenced from valid, published sources. If you can find an article that discusses "Cash", by all means, mention it with the source. Otherwise it is conjecture. You cannot include material that is research by Johnny Spasm. It has to come from an outside source.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're reinterpreting what I've said. I said the song exists, and is not on the set. I did not say the song exists, and it is not on the set because... That would be conjecture.Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not reinterpreting you. I am saying that this exactly what WOULD merit inclusion here. Right now, as it stands, the possible existence of an obscure demo has no valid reason to be mentioned here in this article. The only way it WOULD be valid is if you could find a source discussing that demo and its lack of inclusion here. In other words, the reason for inclusion would be you finding a valid source that included conjecture on this topic. Conjecture is fine if it is **from a source**. It's not fine if its coming from you or any other Wiki editor. As a hypothetical, if a review of this album said "I wonder why they did not include the rare song "Cash?", then you could quote that, and it would be a valid addition. Does this explain better? Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll agree to disagree, and since I don't feel like getting into an edit war, I'll let you win.Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but you are making it out to be a difference of opinion. I'm trying to tell you that this is about Wikipedia rules. Theyre not my rules, theyre not my opinion. If you disagree with Wiki's rules, that's fine but that isn't my problem and not me "winning." It's following the rules.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm disagreeing with you on the interpretation of this rule. From personal knowledge, I was aware of this track, and did my best to dig up evidence of its existence. Reason being, the set calls itself complete, and this is something missing from it that makes it incomplete. The only thing I found was the Youtube video, so I used it. You seem to think that the only source of information we're allowed to give is written source, and you took it out. Not wanting to have an edit war, I let you win.Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you can use other sources, but Wiki is pretty explicit that sources need to be authoritative and valid. The video you referenced is not an official video by the band, or a clip from a documentary, or a video posted by an actual source such as a company/label/TV show/film clip etc. It has no provenance and no way to prove its correctness. For all we know, the track on the video might actually not be Bow Wow Wow, or it could be wrongly titled. We have no way of proving this and the anonymous person who posted it to YouTube fails every Wikipedia criteria for a valid source. There's a reason that Wiki does not allow unprofessional and open-source reviews etc to be used as sources. You didn't let me win. If it wasnt me, another veteran editor would have removed it as it doesnt follow Wiki rules. No offense, but you do need to brush up on what is and isnt a valid source here. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Annabella vs. Lwin
Madonna is referred to in her wikipedia page as Madonna, not Ciccone. Cher is referred to as Cher. Adele is Adele.

As a solo artist, Annabella has billed herself as Annabella. I believe that she should be referred to as Annabella in this and other Bow Wow Wow related articles.Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an article on Annabella the solo artist, however. This is an article on Bow Wow Wow. Her stage name throughout her tenure with Bow Wow Wow was Annabella Lwin, not Annabella. (Her real name, as I am sure you aware, is Myant Myant Aye). She is primarily known (which is what Wiki considers) as a member of the band, not a solo artist. In fact, she currently is not billed as a solo artist. Madonna and Cher are not relevant examples as they were always solo artists using a single name. All the sources we cite in discussing BWW use her full stage name, as do the records themselves: https://img.discogs.com/BanwXPOt4g6DzEIEkQ1miFXyEr8=/fit-in/600x600/filters:strip_icc:format(jpeg):mode_rgb:quality(90)/discogs-images/R-631284-1166626960.jpeg.jpg
 * As I have mentioned to you previously, we STICK TO SOURCES. We do not make editorial decisions like you seem to be advocating here. As I have also said, you would benefit from reading through Wikipedia's Manual of Style and getting a better hang of how Wiki handles these kinds of issues.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lastly, please examine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabella_Lwin. End of story.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In the bio on her actual website, she is referred to as Annabella. http://www.annabellalwin.com/about.html Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not outweigh preponderance of sources, nor the fact that this is a BWW article and we go by what is written on the band's album credits, promotional materials, contemporary articles on them, etc.