Talk:Barenaked Ladies Are Me

Untitled

I don't understand this at all. So it's a double album and they are being released at different times? --Macarion 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What the album is "considered" is debatable, but because the entire 29 tracks were recorded at once, and they will all be sold at once under the name Barenaked Ladies Are Me on itunes and online (in some places 25 or 27 tracks, but still parts of the second disc). There will also be a limited run of 2-disc digipacks with both (probably with the 2nd CD saying Barenaked Ladies Are Men). However, the true second disc, in the form of a physical CD, sold on its own won't be out until early 2007, except in Canadian Starbucks. Because all the music was recorded together, and will be released together in a few forms, and the double digipack, and the names being almost identical, it's being thought of as one collection of music, and thus a double album. As much as anything can be counted as single and double in an age of downloadable music. TheHYPO 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The band themselves have said (On the podcast over the last few months) that they consider this a double album Aquarion 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The deluxe edition lists track 23 as "I Can I Will I Do." There are no commas. Should this be considered the official title? I didn't make the edit because some might consider it more correct with the commas. Personally, I think it should follow the released title. --Secret Weapon 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The song was released on the iTunes Originals series without the commas as well, so I'd say the released title is correct Aquarion 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Changed (and a few other grammars) based on the deluxe edition. I had already done the first half, but didn't have an official copy of the second disk to confirm. TheHYPO 12:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the digital booklet for the album lists the song with Commas in its TOC... however, the lyric entry has it listed without commas as in the printed book. I tend to follow the latter which corresponds to the back listing on the physical album too. I am not a fan of inconsistancy, but sometimes it just happens. I cite Shoe Box v. Shoebox (1996), The Old Apartment v. Old Apartment (1997), and Capitalization of words like "a" "of" "the" in a good number of songs depending on the release. TheHYPO 01:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a promo has emerged in the UK for Barenaked Ladies Are Men which has 16 tracks - the last 16 on the list in the main article. Who knows if the final UK version will be like this. Can confirm the promo catalogue number and details if that's helpful. 83.244.167.133 14:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Mike

It's looking more and more like the 2nd half will have more than the 12 songs the Starbucks version had. In any event, onsale will be the first week of February, so we should have an official tracklist any day now TheHYPO 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Received the UK Promo, and it definitely does have 16 tracks and includes the download only bonus tracks. Mike 81.179.115.21 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From my research, the released versions of the album (BLAMen) feature the full 16 tracks, so the additional asterisk on the track list is redundant. I think a better idea would be to say those tracks WEREN'T included on the Starbucks pre-release, as that's the exception, not the rule. KingDaveRa 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Albums split

Whether or not BNL think this is a double album (why didn't they release it as such then?), both albums came out separately and, as such, each album warrants its own page. BGC 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating official page

I'm copying this from the Are Men page BGC created because I feel it should be discussed before such an action is unilaterally taken -- TheHYPO:

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)

Here's the problems with your arguments that I see:

• Are Men was released in Canada at Starbucks' in October, shortly after Are Me. Time between releases is completely irrellevant as to whether albums are seperate enough to require their own articles. If Gordon were re-released today with several bonus tracks under the title "Gordon Revisited" or something, I don't think it would garner a new article on wikipedia. Just a new section in the Gordon article, even 15 years later).
• On a similar vein, you had no viable info to include in an Are Men article. There was no information there. You also seem to want to delete a lot of relevant info in this article and the E2E article, So if you're making these articles even shorter, I don't know how you can also say that the articles need to be split.
• If you read the article, the albums WERE released as one album. The name "Are Men" was not used, but the deluxe edition of Are Me is essentially Are Me and Are Men 2-disc sets. The Are Me Deluxe edition as downloaded from iTunes as a presale, you got every song that is now on Are Men, and similarly if you bought Are USB, you also got all of those songs. There is nothing on Are Men that is a new unique release. Even the artwork is from the same art package as Are Me.
• The only link between the Guns and Roses albums, if I read correctly, is one song which has a different recording on each album. The deluxe edition of BLAM (even the non-preorder) has 12 of the 16 songs on Are Men; All 29 were recorded at once. The other 4 bonus tracks have been included with both Are Me and Are Men. It's far less confusing to have all the info on these two releases in one article which covers all 29 songs and all the ways they were released.
• Are Men hasn't had a new single released from it or any major promotions (the new single, Sound of Your Voice is from the Are Me release - adding to the fact that the entire unit is being considered as one unit, or else presumably they'd push a song from the new disc.

I hope this covers it. Again, If there is strong support for a new article, I'm all for it, but a unilateral move (and wipeout of a lot of info in the article) is uncalled for TheHYPO 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

* There is a PHYSICAL release of Are Men; It's been reviewed separately in music fanzines; it's offered for sale as separate from Are Me on the band's OWN website

* The Deluxe Edition only came out in Canada, and is only available outside of Canada as an import. The rest of the world gets the individual albums. The deluxe edition will also be a limited one. - what more proof do you need?

* Also, instead of outright deleting the page, why not leave it so that others can see its worth? Kind of sneaky, don't you think? BGC 13:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to 2007. iTunes Originals don't even HAVE a physical release. Do they not deserve their own articles? Physical release doesn't mean new article. In October, when BLAM Deluxe came out on itunes (27 songs + the 2 bonus songs - IE: all the content of both discs) and the USB stick (again, all 29 songs) - these were BOTH reviewed too. You're suggesting creating a whole new article that BASICALLY says "in February 2007, BNL released this physical CD - but all info about the songs and writing and process of this disc are in another article..." So you basically want an article just to show the release date of the physical disc seperately from the BLAM article. I see that as a waste of article, and adds to the confusion for people trying to understand how the BAND released this ONE session of 29 songs.

Additionally, the Deluxe 5.1 CD, containing ALL 29 songs in one package, on one disc, came out in the US late last year. What more proof do YOU need?

I'm not being sneaky. Wikipedia archives history for a reason. All your work is still in history and you can link to it if you want to show anyone it's worth. But I personally don't see the merit of your argument, so I would LIKE to hear others' opinions on the matter. That is all I'm saying. If you're gonna go deleting things from BOTH articles (Why are you against keeping things like the international release dates? I don't see why that offends you), I think there should be some sort of a vote. Not MY opinion rules. Not YOUR opinion rules. Group opinion rules, and only then should drastic deletion of content start. That is wikipolicy for consensus. TheHYPO 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate clearly my view on the issue: The band recorded 29 songs, released them ALL digitally at once, in October, and then subsequently released the tracks in both 1-copy physical form (USB, deluxe and deluxe 5.1) and in 2-copy physical form (standard BLAM and BLAMen). There are so many different release methods for these 29 songs that I have to see it as one cohesive set of songs, BLAMen being just one of many releases - certainly worthy of a heading in the article if there is any BLAMen specific info that comes to mind besides the release date and tracklist), but I really view it identically to if an artist released a 2-CD set, and then also sold discs one and two seperately (regardless of whether there was a gap before disc two was released), and both discs do not justify their own articles unless there is actual cultural, social, or notoriacal uniqueness about the second disc (EG: if physical BLAMen had it's own singles when it came out, if it went platinum but BLAM didn't, if it spawned a hit single, if it had some unique songs or something that would be encyclopedically notable) then I could see having two articles, but right now, there's nothing super notable about BLAMen that can't be covered in 2 sentances in this article. This is remeniscent of the Beatles red and blue albums which each have their own articles, which both have a lot of identical info, and the only reason they garner seperate articles is because of the noteriety and fame of the albums, and because they were never released "combined" like the 29 BLAM songs were. I would rather keep BLAM how it is, with its line about the albums being "debatably considered as one album", and let the readers form their own opinion, since both arguments have some points of merit. TheHYPO 07:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take after watching this tug of war over the last few days: I've argued this problem with myself since the original announcement, but in a more broader sense: is the BLAMen CD a separate album or merely a part two? Frankly, I don't know. I haven't come to a clear decision on the WP article(s) either. About the only thing I can tell is that both of you guys could use a WP:BREAK. I don't know which way the articles are now, as I've just arrived for the evening. I'd say leave them how they are, take a couple days away from them, come back, read through each others arguments, and start fresh. Otherwise, at this rate, there's gonna be some WP:3RR violations sooner rather than later. JPG-GR 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have less issue with doing so if this user would stop deleting unarguable, unproblematic, unbiased, information from this article every time he reverts. Explain to me why splitting this article from BLAM(en) to BLAM and BLAMen results in a delete of international release dates, track's recorded (the deluxe version of BLAM still exists, so stop pretending it doesn't), and all the release methods of the album - which is one of it's most notable features in the music industry outside of BNL (the inovative release methods). Just put a "Main article - BLAMen" tag in this article. That's all that is required to change it. There is no reason to DELETE any info from this article that doesn't directly pertain to BLAMen. I'm reverting this blanking, and if BGC wants to try editing it again to sync up with the BLAMen article, (s)he's welcome to do so without blanking out half of the rest of the article. TheHYPO 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why is that the article needs to be toned down. It's overwhelming (and superfluous) compared to the other BNL album pages, and it's hard to tell what songs are actually on the album with your multiple tracklists. And let's not be dramatic; I pulled out a few lines here and there, nowhere near half (or even a sixteenth). If I were a newbie reading on BNL, I'd have skipped this page because it just had TOO much detail and is too confusing. And do we need to know when it came out in Switzerland, or whatever? Take a look at: [1]. We don't need 4 dates. It's redundant. The North American one will do. You've done a good job on the article, but you've written it as a fan, not from an objective, encyclopedic point of view. BGC 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say it. There is more information on this article because Gordon wasn't out when Wikipedia existed. The fact that this article is LONGER than Gordon's is not a valid reason to wipe out information. Additionally, You are wrong in your assertion that because the physical CD has 13 tracks, that is the only tracklist that should be shown in the article. "Barenaked Ladies Are Me" includes the deluxe edition, the presale, the USB key, etc. And as such deserves to include all information. If I were a casual reader, one of the most important things in the article, to me, as a NON FAN would be information on various options I have in where to find all the songs, and what options exist to buy the album. I don't deny that the onsale dates needn't necessarily all be there, but that's only one of many things you blanked.

So I will do your work for you and put all the viable information back in the article. If this were a release by the The Beatles, or U2, noone would complain if the article were thorough, but because this isn't the biggest band in the world, and because most album articles aren't detailed, that is no reason an album that had a lot going on (remix contest, all new revue concert, usb release, 5.1 release, two disc release, two SEPERATE disc release, etc.) needn't include all the details. TheHYPO 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Failure to Go Gold.

I support deleting this comment as it seems un-neutral, implying that the album not going gold is a failure in some way or that the album should be expected to go gold without any context. The band's previous album (Everything to Everyone) did not go gold either, so it's not the first time this has happened, not does it seem like it was expected to. Discuss TheHYPO 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- the comment seems out of place and unnecessary. JPG-GR 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BNLMe.jpg

Image:BNLMe.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 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 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wind It Up HIRES.jpg

Image:Wind It Up HIRES.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) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover-easy.jpg

Image:Cover-easy.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) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One Little Slip redirect

I was wondering why "One Little Slip" redirects here, when according to the article, that song doesn't actually appear in this album? Is the article mistaken or is it an invalid redirect? Trainer Alex (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)