Talk:Everywhere at the End of Time/Archive 1

Archive 1

The descriptions written by Leyland Kirby are essential and need to be in this article as they are freely available on both Bandcamp and Youtube.

Please do not delete them, as they are also necessary to organize notable information about the music on this album which is properly sourced, including descriptions of music and sample sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9B80:5FB0:8991:4050:335C:44CA (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues with the article

While I think the album is notable enough, with the massive view count on YouTube and the New York Times having published an article on it, the article as-is is riddled with issues. I have a draft rewrite at User:InvalidOS/sandbox/Everywhere at the End of Time, feel free to edit it. Invalid^OS_talk 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the spirit of the additions made (expounding on the specific content of the tracks/albums and analysis of individual albums' samples and connections to overall themes) is still fairly valuable on this kind of abstract work, but it likely needs to be significantly condensed for readability and accessibility to a wider audience that is otherwise uninterested in musical analysis. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sample information for the last 5 minutes

I think this should just be deleted. Mind you, I was actually in the Discord server when this happened and heard it live, but there are no external sources, and this is generally not a very notable thing to mention. It is far more for niche Caretaker fans, and would be far more suited to a Fandom wiki or other similar platform. 2601:601:9B80:5FB0:C9B1:2EC:7D18:DB8D (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Audio Player

I've tried correcting "L1" in stage 4 to "I1," however for whatever reason it broke the position of one of the audio players in stage 3. I do not know why this is happening or how to fix it. I've tried adding multiple enters, but it didn't work. Can anyone help? I'm new to wikipedia, and don't know how it works. - HelixxUnderscore (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

that's a nice track name for a hypothetical fan-made digital version of the album, "Drifting Player Misplaced" lol

Jokes aside, are you sure it isn't something with your computer? I have three browsers installed (Opera, Firefox, & Chromium) and they've all shown the right position of the player. 177.37.173.112 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

1900s to 1960s -- claim not properly sourced

This article says the music comes from the 1900s to the 1960s. The source cited says nothing of the sort.

Jasper0333 (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

About removing info from the article

As of this section's publication date, an anonymous user deleted the entirety of "Descriptions for each stage," arguing it presented too much subjectivity/too much journalists' opinions. While I do agree that some of the info within it is indeed very subjective when looking back at it, and while some of the subsections are pretty much journalism-based, it also presents a large amount of useful info about the series, such as audio samples, album covers, and official descriptions for each album.

The point I'm trying to make is basically, for people with a desire to remove large amounts of info from this article, see WP:PRESERVE. The original edit has been undone but I still think it's important to point this out since this is not the first time a deletion of this magnitude happened. There was the removal of the official descriptions too, as you can see in the very beginning of this talk page.

Stay safe.

177.37.173.112 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I made a change to the album Infobox, but screwed up the explanation in the edit summary. The TYPE field in the infobox needs one of a pre-defined set of terms for the categorization of album articles. Therefore "other" is probably the most appropriate term for this project. See Template:Infobox album; see also Teargarden by Kaleidyscope as an example. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes for each album

I am wondering if adding an infobox for each album in the series is actually any good. Personally i think just seems redundant and messy, but i wanted to see what you all think of it before i end up unilaterally just reverting the most recent edit 🜚 Yatagarasu 🜚 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Just finished adding 'em. I just realized that articles don't need to have a single infobox in them, they can have multiple ones. I always though that, somewhere on the manual of style, it said "thou shalt not use more than one infobox per article," but I recently saw there isn't.

Wetrorave (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

oh ok, frankly the only reason i objected to it was 2 main reasons, the amount of space the infoboxes take up, and the fact that it ended up getting rid of the descriptions of the images themselves. Though i will say the latter issue can most likely be resolved by simply editing the commons page for the files, it's just that i'm too lazy for that lol

🜚 Yatagarasu 🜚 13:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

How will we show the album covers if they're not free for use?

I'm new to wikipedia and this confuses me 213.34.27.90 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

About the album covers

I have spoken to the guy who removed them after their removal, and in these conversations, we ended up reaching a consensus of including only the box-set covers and the Stage 6 one after I rickrolled him. Yes, I did that :)

Wetrorave (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the stage 6 cover copyrighted?

Why is it back now but at the top?? --213.34.27.90 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Calm down, Bonecopes

@Bonecopes:

If you think a mass deletion would be appropriate, please discuss it on the talk page of the article first. If you find yourself stressed out due to problems in the article, calm down. Go for a walk with your dog (if you have one), listen to some dementia music (or synthwave music, whatever you prefer), relax. Then come back here, and discuss about changes you'd think are appropriate with civility, rather than insulting everyone on edit summaries and possibly edit warring.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Everywhere at the End of Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DMT biscuit (talk · contribs) 10:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency: I am a fan of this album and considered it to be one of my favourites. DMT biscuit (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments to be added.

Sourcing

Not to be harsh but this is bad. There appear to be numerous instances of self-published sources, including from Kirby, vendor and e-commerce sources and student media which appear to amount to WP:Puffery.

Instances of vendor and e-commerce sources/self-published sources from Kirby and adjacent artists

• Forced Exposure
• Bandcamp — Bandcamp Daily is excluded and is reliable
• Boomkat
• Flur Discos

These can be permittable in small quantities, but, their excess isn't.

Instances of student media

• The Daily Utah Chronicle
• The Daily Campus
• The Blue & Gold
• DGN Omega
• Varsity

Instances of self-published sources

What makes any of the following sources reliable?

• Spectrum Culture
• SputnikMusic
• Fluid Radio
• Dead End Follies
• Entropy
• No Wave
• "His Orchestra, Mantovani — Copyright violation that should be removed per WP:VIDEOREF. The text it relates to is also original research.
• Betreutes Proggen
• La Gramola de Keith
• Raven Sings the Blues
• Indie Style
• The Daily Campus

Prose

This is a bit difficult to assess, presently, as I hope you'll remove the text related to the unreliable sources. Still, I can say the quote boxes coupled with the infoboxes are very obtrusive, constitute an overuse and perhaps violate copyright.

Orginal research

• Modern classical is listed in the infoboxes but isn't mentioned in-line text.
• Similarly, I've added cn tags to some of the soundbites as their captions don't match the in-line text.

Images

I assume you got the picture of Seal from this video. However, this isn't listed under creative commons and you falsely uploaded it as your own work which would violate creative commons requirement. If I am wrong please

Board coverage

This article highlights material that is overly trivial. For example, the Minecraft rendition, unless mentioned by reliable sources, shouldn't be included.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, considering the problems at hand I'm electing to fail the article. Once these highlighted issues have been dealt with, feel free to re-uploaded the article and you can personally contact me if you so wish. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: No need to have a fear of being harsh. In various instances, being harsh is good. The more people point out your errors, the more you learn with it. Everybody was like this at some point: putting unreliable sources all over their articles. I saw your most recent FA, A Crow Looked at Me, along with other FAs/GAs, and I kind of tried to correct possible errors of this article as I saw other reviews. Feel free to be harsher than the confusion and horror of Stage 4. I'll remove those student sources, original research text, the trivial info, and the vendor sources (some of the vendor sources only exist to promote the album, such as the Boomkat ones).

Seal's photo, however, is mine; it seems similar but I just took it near where they were filming. Besides, when actively looking, I couldn't find any timestamp of the video that matched my photo; this Google IMG Search link should show the exhibition video, if it was from the video, but it doesn't (when searched, it shows "woolen" for some reason). It was on an old smartphone of mine for some time and I have not found much use for it until now, since there was no photo of Ivan Seal on Commons. I don't know why you finished that sentence with "please" but ok.

@Wetrorave: Thank you for this response and for clarifying the image. I intended to say 'If I am wrong, please say. ' It must have escaped my mind, which is quite ironic—I must have forgotten forgetting :)

RE: Your rationale: Spectrum Culture and Sputnikmusic's rationales are sufficient for GA criteria. If we can't conclude that Fluid Radio undergoes the same fact-checking it's best to err on the side of caution. Dead End Follies and No Wave being "powered" through Squarespace and Wordpress mean that those are the generic hosting sites. The websites aren't influenced or affiliated by them. Entropy and No Wave should be removed per WP:BLOGS. Agree with you on RSTB. If we can't conclude the reliability of La Gramola de Keith or IndieStyle than we should again err on the side of caution. Thank you for providing detailed responses; it's nice to see a passionate editor. DMT biscuit (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

An update is that Betreutes Proggen is reliable, and has a lot of info about the styles of each individual album. There's this page that shows various writers they have; do a quick CTRL+F for the word "editor" here and you can see a lot of em. There's at least three different editors, which I think is enough. And if the top editorial is two cats, then the source is clearly reliable :)
~ Wetrorave (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Now, this is the part that interested me the most:

User-generated sources
That was a concerning part for some time. The article previously had a LOT of TV Tropes sources, which I removed as obvious WP:USERG. But some of those you've mentioned are reliable. For instance:

• Spectrum Culture has an editorial team, as seen here.
• Sputnikmusic is a reliable source, as shown on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, but only for reviews done by the staff; and the review I think you are referring to, this Stage 4 one, is done by a staff member
• As shown on its main page, when you scroll down enough, you can see that Fluid Radio is, apparently, a WP:NEWSBLOG of The Wire. I'm not sure if they go through the normal fact-checking process that The Wire does, as the aforementioned WP:NEWSBLOG shows, so this one might not be reliable. In this case, I'll happily remove info sourced by it.
• Dead End Follies is "powered by SquareSpace," as seen on the bottom of its about page. I'll happily remove info sourced by it as well.
• Entropy is most likely a blog as well. It uses Disqus for comments, and the description of Beach Sloth is "Beach Sloth blogs hard."
• No Wave is a blog, as seen in the website's "About" FB section.
• Betreutes Proggen is powered by Wordpress, as seen here.
• I'm not sure about La Gramola de Keith, as it says the name "magazine" on the bottom of its main page but I wasn't able to find much more than that.
• About Raven Sings the Blues, it says here that only one person maintains; unreliable as well.
• Not sure about IndieStyle. Looked through their page and it doesn't seem to be unreliable but it also doesn't seem to be reliable. I don't know.

In conclusion, yes. The article still is a long way to go in order to reach GA. But this is good, this means I'll work better on the article. Wetrorave (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the Forced Exposure source is only mentioned once in the article, in the "Background" section. It isn't excessive; the other ones are, however.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Just in case

In case someone remakes it so A3 (and not A2) samples Say It Isn't So, this talk spot is for the discussion against the edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantupediholic (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the audio clip for Stage 6 have a description?

This is a genuine question from me. I think not describing the audio clip at all would help future readers in understanding Kirby's vision for the series, and the last stage in particular. Plus, it would be kind of humorous to people who are already familiar with EATEOT, as they'd probably look at it and think "oh this audio sample is without description haha." But I'm curious to hear your opinion on this.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: I think it should. Firstly our work is intended to form a comprehensive encyclopedia—ergo info in the articles should pertain to that desire. Secondly, I disagree with that understanding of the stage—and in turn the matter at keyboard. With the section featuring the long drone and the concluding choir—a possible depiction of terminal lucidity—it's more diverse than the preceding two. Place in the World Fades Away I think should be the audio track simply based upon the in-text quantity. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: I think the audio sample should aim to represent the majority of its sound, so I think one of the earlier tracks would be better to include. Though, I do agree that a description should be included. Invalid^OS_talk 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: Perhaps including a sample of the organ segment would be good? It is the segment most fitting with the artwork in my opinion, but I know well that personal opinion is bad for making arguments on Wikipedia. I have cut R1 to show 10 seconds of the organ segment, 10 seconds of the unknown sound after the needle drop (thought to be someone falling down a set of stairs, followed by someone coughing), and 10 seconds of the piano. I have also cut R1 to show only the last 30 seconds of the organ, without the needle drop. I personally think the latter is the best choice, due to the artwork, but the first one shows a lot more info in less time. But again, I don't know; again I'm curious to see your opinion on this.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: I think the latter would probably better. Though, if the organ drone isn't really mentioned in the article, it might be better to include a different portion of the album. I'd advise avoiding the choir segment, since it's not how the majority of the album sounds. The organ segment is still pretty close to how the rest sounds. Invalid^OS_talk 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: After a bit of talking with myself, I've decided to include both "A confusion so thick you forget forgetting" and "Place in the World fades away", since one shows the majority of the sound and the other shows the last 5 minutes, which may be what a reasonable amount of readers will be looking for (since everyone talks "oh I cried at the last 5 minutes", and there is probably someone who'll think "what do the last 5 minutes have that is so special?" I'm gonna look it up on Wikipedia").
~ Wetrorave (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: Sounds good to me. Invalid^OS_talk 11:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Al Bowlly

Considering Heartaches' pressence and Kirby deeming him one of the "main guys I sample", an image of Bowlly would perhaps be worthwhile and a caption summarising the reuse of Heartaches. DMT biscuit (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: That is a good suggestion but I'm not sure where exactly to add an image of Bowlly. Perhaps moving Kirby's quote to the "Concept" section and adding an image of Bowlly in the "Background" section would be the best choice. I don't think Bowlly would fit well within "Concept", as the section never mentions him (subsections do, but not the section itself); and additionally, Kirby's quote is mentioned before the main body of "Background", which may cause a lack of context for mobile users who see the question "what's the appeal of these records anyway" ("what records?", asks a mobile user), serving as one more argument that it should be moved to the "Concept" section. But again, like in all discussions here, I'm not sure. I must be the most uncertain person of any talk page on Wikipedia.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Added.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: The Kirby quote would perhaps be better placed in the reception or internet phenomenon, as it directly deals with why listeners like it. DMT biscuit (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Nah, not really. The quote doesn't deal with why the general public likes the samples but rather why Kirby himself likes the samples; thus I think it's more appropriate to present it near the "Concept" section, as the section heavily talks about Kirby. Plus, reception sections do not need images, and the internet phenomenon section deals primarily with the record's TikTok popularity. Kirby's quote is currently at the "Concept" section and Bowlly's image at the "Background" one, that should be ok for most people.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave:  Self-trout You're totally right; I misread that and had thought it was pertaining to EATEOT. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Question – Original research

@Wetrorave: Looking through the sources, there's an abundance of citations relating to the official YouTube uploads. Their frequency is already shaky, but the bigger problems are that it appears they constitute original research. For example, "Sampling Ellis' "Heartaches," "Burning despair does ache" is a distorted version of its Stage 2 counterpart, with glitch effects in its melody.[14]"

Upon checking the citation, the description mentioned nothing of this song—or any other—and, so, I assume that you infered this from the songs. Per WP:PRIMARY: "an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." If this is the case, then you should remove any instances, as original research is a violation of Wikipedia's tenets. If you want help, you can look at my recently promoted to FAC article, A Crow Looked at Me, or similar ones. Thanks. DMT biscuit (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Thank you for warning me about that, since I was unsure if it constituted original research. I'll see if I can find sources relating to Stage 3 and start editing it.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: This might be the wrong place for asking, but anyway. Is Entropy considered a reliable source? There's two good articles, Tomorrowland and The California Field Atlas, that used them (in ref 82 and citation 34 respectively). Both references were retrieved before their respective GA nominations of their articles, and both articles passed their reviews. There's this review of Stage 3 done by the website that adds a lot of info about the stage, but it was removed during the "source overhaul" done by me here. The website might not be appropriate for FA, which requests "high-quality reliable sources", but it might be so for GA, which requests "reliable sources." And it doesn't seem high-quality (which means has a reputation for fact-checking), but it seems reliable. Would it be ok if it was added back?

~ Wetrorave (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: After looking over their parent company, I would conclude that, Per GA criteria, it is reliable. You're however right that it would get shoot down at FAC. DMT biscuit (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll re-word it later, since I've got personal stuff to do. I've noticed there is also some WP:OR on subsection Stage 5, particularly in regards to the parts explaining the first "Advanced plaque entanglements" track.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Just removed most original research.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A copyright concern regarding the descriptions

Do the individual descriptions violate copyright? After reading WP:CV and WP:TOP100 I saw that "long copyrighted excerpts" is "unacceptable use" in regards to the policy.

In my opinion, translating the meaning of the words is what should be done (as stated in some guideline I don't seem to find).
For instance, on the description for Stage 3, instead of including it entirely, present this:

• "In the album's description, Kirby states Stage 3 is the final cohesive record of the series before "confusion fully rolls in and the grey mists form and fade away." He writes that on the stage, "finest moments have been remembered," with the "flow" of the music becoming more "confused and tangled in places." The musician added that, as the listener progresses through the series, a specific portion of them becomes "disturbed, isolated, broken and distant." Concluding the description, he regarded its tracks as being the "last embers" of the patient's awareness of the disease. This is prior to entering the Post-Awareness stages."

And for Stage 6, arguably the most memorable and memeable description, simply present something along the lines of "While previous stages had description, Stage 6 lacks one. It has a description, but it reads 'Post-Awareness Stage 6 is without description.'"

The article is pretty close to good article now, but the issue above seems to be copyright violation, and thus "immediately failing" per the good article criteria. Should I do what I suggested instead?

~ Wetrorave (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This is the appropriate choice. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Wetrorave (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Audio formatting + more samples?

I think the audio should be inside of the infoboxes, mostly because I think the article is more readable that way. Also, I think adding more samples to Stages 3 and 4 would be a good idea. Probably F4, and either the Hell Sirens or I1. Maybe F8 as well, since it appears in the section of M1 that's in the article. Invalid^OS_talk 12:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: Mayhaps? I don't know. Having too many samples in the article is what caused the album covers to be deleted that time ago. Wouldn't just one sample of Heartaches for each stage be enough? I'm also inclined to implement more samples to the article to present the tracks you've talked about, but the article's already high on this list. I do agree with you on the formatting though, but not so much on adding more samples. F4 and F8 aren't mentioned in the article, and the Hell Sirens/I1 aren't massively different than the rest of the stage. They don't present something entirely new to the series, like voices, as with the mandolin segment of Stage 5 and the last six minutes of Stage 6. This video explains the issue of non-free content on Wikipedia better than I can.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: I'd say I1 is different enough for a sample to be included. I1 is described as being very different to most other works by the Caretaker in the article, and I think it could warrant inclusion based on that. Invalid^OS_talk 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: Yeah ok, that would be good. Then, there would be one sample each one of the first three stages and two samples for each Post-Awareness stage. I'm re-formatting the audio clips back to the infoboxes now by the way, so I'll likely include I1 while doing so.
~ Wetrorave (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: Alright. Invalid^OS_talk 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate sources

Google Translate seems to be used as a source multiple times throughout the article, which seems like something that would violate WP:QS. I'm assuming the passages being translated are being pulled from other sources. While Wikipedia:Google Translate exists, it's an essay, not policy. The essay also does say that machine translation may not be sufficiently accurate. I think with Google Translate being sourced, the source being translated should also be linked. That way, someone more fluent in the language the original source is in can at least fact-check it against the translation. Invalid^OS_talk 13:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: What source are you talking about? Doing a CTRL+F for "Google Translate", I've only found one ref that uses it (this one), and it doesn't seem to fall under the WP:QS category. I've already removed it though, since it makes up for only two sentences in the entire article, and the two sentences simply repeat Kirby's thoughts about Seal's art.
Wetrorave (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That's probably it. Invalid^OS_talk 20:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Some samples removed

I've removed samples I1, K1, and O1 of the article; below is why.

• I1 was initially uploaded because critics state it is vastly different than any other releases by the Caretaker. However, G1 presents a section massively similar to it; as much as I1 presents a panning piano, G1 also does near its end, and G1 also has Heartaches. G1 was updated so that it shows a specific part where both "Heartaches" and the panning piano play.
• K1 was removed because it did not present Heartaches, and also because it did not present anything much different. Pretty simple. M1 was updated so that it shows a section where C3 plays, followed by a quieter section to introduce the reader to the style of Stage 6. This is opposed to the previous version of M1, which presented a section that had F8 but F8 was nowhere to be found in an audio clip (and still isn't).
• O1 was removed because R1 was updated so that it plays only the organ. As explained in its update summary, the organ is simultaneously similar to both the entirety of Stage 6 and the terminal lucidity following it.

I am aware some editors may oppose to these changes, but the article was extremely high on a ranking of how much non-free content is used per article, and still is. Such a large amount of samples constituted an excess of copyrighted material. Wikipedia's vision is to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

The essay Wikipedia:Fair use overuse explains this better.

Additionally, the two samples per each Post-Awareness stage-pattern made the Stage 5 infobox too long for monitors of smaller resolution. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"NATMOS" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NATMOS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#NATMOS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Impact section

Simply my opinion, but with the presence of only two citations, one being relied on significantly, I don't know if a separate section for the "impact" is warranted and is potential fancruft and/or undue weight. Thanks. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: Removed. I really only added it because the infobox overlapped with the "Background" section if I did not, but that varies with monitor to monitor. Besides, the addition of the "Release history" fixes this. Wetrorave (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth adding is that I literally do not know how to find more sources for this. The talk header has helped me a lot but I don't think there are any more secondary source pages, besides the ones on this page, that have EATEOT as their main subject. Wetrorave (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: It's ok. Running out of reliable sources isn't something to fret over; if anything, it means the article is closer to "completion". DMT biscuit (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Wetrorave: You don't just have to use citations that have EATEOT as the main subject. That's only for establishing notability. As EATEOT is notable, you can cite any Reliable source that mentions EATEOT. But you don't have to--and probably shouldn't. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: I mean, yeah that's true. I think there's just something about articles with, say, 300 refs, that makes me think those articles have a higher quality, even though the number of refs does not determine this. EATEOT itself was previously filled with TV Tropes refs, which made the ref count +100 but did not mean the article itself was supported by reliable sources.
At the end of the day, the only thing that truly matters is whether said sources are reliable or not. Wetrorave (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Progress

This does not relate exactly to EATEOT–perhaps it would be more appropriate to talk about in this other talk page–but I still think it's worth noting here. There will be more pages regarding Kirby's work, such as albums under his own name, albums of the amnesia period, and other releases that don't relate to memory loss. Wetrorave (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Some more recently-created articles: Selected Memories from the Haunted Ballroom, A Stairway to the Stars, We'll All Go Riding on a Rainbow, Persistent Repetition of Phrases. Now there's only Theoretically Pure Anterograde Amnesia left, though this one is nearly as long as EATEOT. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Who ever said Mournful Camaraderie was misspelled on purpose?

Like I just need some sort of proof Aschoolaccount (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Aschoolaccount, it's misspelled here, here, here, and here. I think it's pretty safe to say it's misspelled on purpose. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In Aschoolaccount's defence: such a claim does require secondary sources. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed right DMT Biscuit. The claims were removed, though the misspelling itself is still there. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Album cover of the main infobox

I propose that we use the album cover for Stage 1 in the main infobox rather than the one for Stage 6. The only use I've seen of the album cover for Stage 6 as representing the entirety of EATEOT is on the Bandcamp page and this student media article, whereas the album cover for Stage 1 has been more widely used to represent the series as a whole. Examples include The New York Times, the series' thumbnail on YouTube, this Tiny Mix Tapes list, this other Tiny Mix Tapes list, this ARTnews article, and various others. It seems to me as though Beaten Frowns After is much, much more widely known than Necrotomigaud, and it also seems to be used as the image most associated with EATEOT. And given that the album covers on infoboxes are meant for "quick identification of the article's subject", this seems like a good choice based on the sources present.

But consensus is important. So: support or oppose the use of Beaten Frowns After?

@DMT Biscuit, InvalidOS, and BrayLockBoy: pinging these editors that I know are familiar with EATEOT. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Support, per your reasoning. Although that will perhaps render the image in the Stage 1 section reduant, but I'll leave that for others to decide. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Beaten Frowns After is a bit more recognizable than Necrotomigaud. I think arguments could be made both ways. But, with most sources using the former, I'd say it's best to use that. Invalid^OS_talk 23:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Support, per the reasons given above. I'd argue that Necrotomigaud is fairly recognisable too, though the same could be said for any of the covers, so using Stage 1's cover as the first image on the page makes sense.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've edited it to show Beaten Frowns After for now, as I'm away from the computer on weekends (which makes it harder to edit comfortably) and this change seems to be mostly agreed on. If anyone opposes though, they may present their opinion here–in case anyone worries about the image's copyright state, the non-free image description for Stage 1 is already updated. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Summarization proposal

I propose that we summarize the section "Concept and composition" into two main subsections: "Stages 1-3" and "Stages 4-6". This has surfaced to my mind after I changed the album cover of the main infobox; specifically when this guy asked if changing the album cover of the main infobox "will perhaps render the image in the Stage 1 section redu[n][d]ant". There are several advantages in summarizing the section into two subsections; it will:

• make infoboxes easier to maintain, particularly in the "Genre" parameters;
• reduce the length of the article, which is surpassing 100KB of prose and "Almost certainly should be divided";
• make the article have less non-free images, since the two infoboxes will use two montages made by History Always Favours the Winners that are this one (direct link) and this one (direct link);
• not render the Stage 1 cover in the main infobox redundant anymore, as it won't be repeated later on;
• overall make up for a more manageable, cleaner page.

It also makes sense to divide it this way, since Stages 1-3 are MASSIVELY different than Stages 4-6, rendering the article easier to navigate through.

It is worth noting that this edit will remove some info about some parts of the albums for the summarization to work. Information about Heartaches and the last six minutes will probably continue to live on (since they are arguably important), but parts such as the Hell Sirens or the mandolin solo vocal prob won't.

Again, to ping some editors familiar with EATEOT and this article in general. @InvalidOS, DMT Biscuit, and BrayLockBoy:

Like in the previous question about the album cover of the main infobox, any kind of substantial re-work in articles needs consensus. So: support or oppose this proposal?

It's honestly good for the GA review not to come soon–the later it comes, the better the article will probably be.

~ Wetrorave (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Saport, pear yr weeasoning.This article may prove useful.DMT biscuit (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMT Biscuit: It's funny that you pointed me out to an article about a trilogy of albums, as I was about to create an article of the Caretaker's "haunted ballroom trilogy". And bruh, are you sure you're ok? Is your keyboard functioning well? Wetrorave (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Idk, I'll take him to the vet soon. DMT biscuit (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMT Biscuit: okay... then. The transition I've proposed will probably take a while, so for now I'll work on it at my sandbox. Wetrorave (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool. It's definitely best for it take shape there. DMT biscuit (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: I've done it. Is it good in your opinion? What I really did was just rearrange the paragraphs, along with some minor modifications on prose. This might cause some problems regarding to pages that link here, although I'll prob fix that as well. Wetrorave (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no. EATEOT is very diverse in terms of composition, with Stages 3 and especially 6 being quite different from the other stages they're grouped with. Plus, the montage covers would be considerably less recognizable. I'd say 1-3 can be summarized, but 4-6 shouldn't be. Invalid^OS_talk 11:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I thought you were referring to the album covers used by the Stage 1-3 and Stage 4-6 vinyl sets that were on Boomkat. I think the images used for the covers here are fine. Invalid^OS_talk 11:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@InvalidOS: I also thought about summarizing only Stages 1-3 for a second but I don't think Stages 4-6 are MASSIVELY different from each other. Maybe it's just the length of the project that makes us think about that but in reality, even though I love EATEOT, I have to admit Stages 4-6 are just 4-and-a-half-hours of pure noise (though they are indeed important for the impact of the last six minutes). I also think Stages 3 and 6 are very different from the other stages they're grouped with but that's probably a biased statement—none of the sources in the article state this—and Stage 3 isn't really. I do think Stage 6 differs from Stages 4-5 but Stage 6 already occupies two paragraphs, whereas Stages 4-5 occupy one para each. If Stage 3 really was different from the other pre-Post-Awareness stages, I don't think Kirby would use a song of it (Long term dusk glimpses) on Stage 1 (Quiet internal rebellions). In fact a handful of songs found on Stage 3 (e.g. E4, F2) would fit nicely on Stage 1. That's just my opinion though—I may be biased as well. ~ Wetrorave (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, today's the tenth anniversary of An Empty Bliss Beyond This World! I'll listen to it as celebration. Wetrorave (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Hi there, I was going through a bit of this article and I just have a few ideas.

• Remove the William Basinski picture. In my opinion, seeing William Basinski performing adds no insight to the reader. If one was interested they could click the link to the article and see the picture. It's not even certain if Kirby was inspired by him, just critics thought they share similarities (which, what I know about the albums, they do, but the image doesn't help signify this.) Removing the image would allow the Stages 1–3 infobox to match up with the section as well.

Done. Wetrorave (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Trim Everywhere, an Empty Bliss Per WP:OFFTOPIC, this is a paragraph about an album loosely related to EATEOT as far as I can tell. I cannot find enough sources to warrant it's own article, but why not a merge to The Caretaker, leaving just a few sentences for the Release and promotion section.

To do (this change may take some time, since the section is reasonably big). Wetrorave (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Trim Memories Overlooked Similarly, another paragraph about a different album. This really should just be a mention, not a paragraph about the making of the album. I'm not sure why someone making an album dedicated to an artist warrants this inclusion. It has 2 notability sources, so not really close enough for it's own article, but if you find a third source I'd say one could

To do (like with Everywhere an Empty Bliss, this change will take some time). Wetrorave (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Everywhere, an Empty Bliss tracklist I'm not sure why a track list is needed for an album the article isn't about.

Done. Wetrorave (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Internet phenomenon picture Not sure this picture adds much, it's just text. You could just mention what the thumbnail says in the prose. Anyways, using a youtubers opinion is WP:UGC, so I'd probably just remove the picture and this sentence: "in June 2020, one YouTuber titled it "The Darkest Album I Have Ever Heard".^[20]"

I'm not sure. I used the YouTuber's thumbnail because it had been used by a reliable source (NPR) and has been mentioned by that source as the causation of the modern 'haunting' status that EATEOT attained on the internet. I believe it signifies this status, but your opinion may differ. Wetrorave (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I would do these changes myself, but I'm running them by the talk page first as they're fairly major. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mcguy15: Thanks a lot for the suggestions! I believe I have addressed most of the issues here. The only one that needs to be addressed are the Memories Overlooked and Everywhere, an Empty Bliss paragraphs, which should indeed be simply mentioned briefly. Wetrorave (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually. In my opinion, it would be ok to have a paragraph and track listing dedicated to Everywhere, an Empty Bliss. This is because the album is compiled from outtakes that were meant to be used on EATEOT, making it strongly related to this article's topic. Wetrorave (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the suggestions! I'm still not entirely happy with the inclusion of Everywhere, an Empty Bliss, and I've just realized the best option is probably splitting it off onto its own article. These 3 sources have more than a passing mention, giving notability: [1], [2], [3]. Lemme know your thoughts! Thanks Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 00:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a valid suggestion—I'll work on an article for Everywhere, an Empty Bliss at my sandbox and when it's a big enough article, I'll move it to the main space. Wetrorave (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mcguy15: Done :) Wetrorave (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Great work! New article looks awesome! Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Everywhere at the End of Time/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article, please expect my comments in the next few days. Artem.G (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Artem.G, thank you so much for reviewing this article. This message is just to let you know changes made since the time of the review: [4] [5] [6]. Wetrorave (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already checked previous GA review :) Artem.G (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, unlike the previous GAN, I have checked each website used in order to make sure they have an editorial and a reputation, as well as awards of some type or reputable writers. Wetrorave (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, isn't the article 4,000-some-words long? It isn't 9,000 words, as you stated at the GAN backlog effort. Wetrorave (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I count both body and refs by the script. Artem.G (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The article is a really good read, and needs just a little bit of polishing.

Few comments/question:

• produce music that "gave the alias dementia". - quote seems to be unsourced
  •  Done – changed to "Kirby decided to produce Everywhere as his final work under the alias."
• The Caretaker was a pseudonym of English electronic musician Leyland Kirby that sampled big band records. - just a though - wouldn't it be better like The Caretaker was a pseudonym used by English electronic musician Leyland Kirby in 2005-2017, who sampled big band records.?

 Partly done – I've changed it to "The Caretaker was a pseudonym of English electronic musician Leyland Kirby, from 1999 to 2019, that sampled big band records." This is because Kirby has numerous other aliases, such as V/Vm and his own name, so saying that Kirby himself used samples from the 20s rather than the alias may give the wrong impression

Agree. Artem.G (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Quote by Virginia Heffernan contains several wikilin~ks; I think it's better to include these links to the main body. Same with other quotes.

 Done per MOS:LWQ, which says to be conservative about this

• In the infobox there is a line "Box set of Everywhere by the Caretaker", all wikilinked, where "everywhere" redirects to the page itself, the Caretaker is duplicated. I think both links can be removed.

 Partly done – I've removed the |longtype= and |artist= parameters from the two box set infoboxes

I came back and decided to re-insert the |artist= parameter, because without it, the 'chronology' part of the infobox looks very wrong

• It features an organ, - Organ (music)

 Done

• it has more melancholic, degraded, and droning-like samples - maybe link Drone (music)?

 Done

• Kirby and Seal were born in the same country, became friends in the same city - maybe it would be better to mention the country and the city for readers who are not familiar with Kirby and Seal?

Very good point,  Done

• This statement caused confusion in websites.[65] - maybe "the critics were confused" or something similar?

 Done – changed to "Some critics were confused about this statement."

• External links

Stages 1–3 on vinyl - it's a shop

Stages 4-6 as well,  Done – removed both of them

Everywhere at the End of Time at MusicBrainz - https://musicbrainz.org/release/7022296d-df0b-4c27-8058-066518a3f77d - returns "Release Not Found"

 Done – changed id to https://musicbrainz.org/release/e9624820-9924-4d67-b7c0-3bb729507514 , which is the correct link

#EverywhereAtTheEndOfTime on TikTok - should it really be included? It can be quite popular on TikTok now, but would it be in a year? and does it helps to understand anything about the music?

I think it helps any potential readers to further see how exactly the users were reacting to the album. Having a link that allows one to take a look at how the public, specifically a younger public, has reacted to this album (err... series of albums) is important imo, especially given that this is certainly not the kind of music one expects to be popularized by TikTok

Ok, I can see your logic here. Artem.G (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Categories - Internet memes introduced in 2020 - I don't really think it's a meme, but it's up yo you to decide.

Some of the sources do mention it as a meme, and it might indeed be a meme, but I don't think this is relevant, so  Done – removed it

Actually, this has been  Undone – as I said it myself, some sources ([7] [8]) mention the series as a meme. Wetrorave (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, let it be a meme. And I've checked how many views the article has, and it's half a million, wow! Artem.G (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this album's been getting quite popular in the pandemic for some reason, even after the TikTok phenomenon mentioned in the article. Wetrorave (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I will check the refs a little bit later, and re-read the whole article. Artem.G (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Artem.G. Here is the article's copyvio score if it helps. Wetrorave (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

So, I've checked nearly half of the refs, and everything seems to be ok - quotes are real, without copyright violations. Album covers here are 'fair use' and I agree with that. Other images are public domain or own work of wiki users, so it's ok. Copyvio detector shows nothing bad, and I couldn't find any copyvio. Article is stable, there is no edit war here. Overall, it's a very good article about interesting album. Thanks, Wetrorave, and congrats with a GA! Artem.G (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As one of the first GAs I have ever nominated, I feel really satisfied about it for some reason :). Thank you! Well, now the goal is FA for this article, and possibly GA for other ambient music articles. I'm thinking An Empty Bliss Beyond This World. And yeah, this is an album that seems to interest pretty much anyone who hears about it. Thank you again. Wetrorave (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things

Stage 4 audio clip

The Stage 4 audio clip has been changed from Section B of PAC1 (Post Awareness Confusions 1) to Section B of PAC2. This is because Section B of PAC2

• highlights the series' dark ambient aspects much more than PAC1. A1 showcases the series' ambient nature (the vinyl crackle) and R1, its experimental nature (the emotional aspect). The remaining audio clip, the Stage 4 one, should showcase the series' dark ambient nature, and Section B of PAC2 sounds like "a cavern of memories", as one commentator put it. Plus, ambient, dark ambient, & experimental are the only actual genres of the series' Bandcamp page tags; these are chosen by Kirby, and it thus communicates Kirby's artistic vision of what he thinks the series is about in a more profound way.
• was used by Solar Sands on his video about EATEOT (timestamp 7:19). Although not mentioned by any of the sources, we know this video was what really made the album get ingrained on the Internet culture.

This may come across as WP:OR, but that policy specifies that it "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". ~ Wetrorave (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Where to next?

Now that the article has reached GA, is it better to put it up for WP:PR or WP:FAC? I would especially like the opinion of DMT here, since he has an FA (A Crow Looked at Me), however any suggestions are appreciated. I personally think all sources are of "high-quality" but am not sure about whether the article's 'engaging'. Judging by the reviewer of the second GA nomination (who called it "a very good article") and the approver of the DYK nomination (who said "everything about the article checks out with flying colors"), is the prose good? I don't know. I would also like the opinion of editors InvalidOS and Artem.G, the latter of which seemed to be interested by the album (as well as Cat's Tuxedo, who's apparently listening to it as I type). What do y'all think? ~ Wetrorave (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not received any feedback, and just realised it's best to put it up for Peer review anyways. The FA criteria represent the 'best' work on Wikipedia, and that's probably not easily achievable without the PR consensus. Wetrorave (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not very familiar with FA criteria; I checked and it seems to be the same as for GA, but strickter? IMO this article is good enough to be FA, but it's probably better to go through peer review :) Artem.G (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you on the article possibly already meeting FA criteria G-Man (not to be confused with this G-Man). One thing worth addressing here though is that, after the first failed GAN of this article, I tried to improve it to be in par with FA criteria as much as I could, rather than only GA criteria—which is possibly why it's "a really good read"? Idk. I've put it up for PR, lemme know your thoughts on what I consider reliable if possible.

Also, see Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article for the differences between GA and FA. Wetrorave (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't really been active on Wikipedia lately, and haven't been following the article much as of late, but I'd say look at the criteria for whatever you're aiming for and decide from there. Invalid^OS_talk 21:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer review is certainly the the route to go down. For more clairtiy on FAC's source quality, see: User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You. I'll add any thoughts I have on the peer review. DMT biscuit (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Was the title "FAC, Sources and You" a play on Midnight, the Stars and You? If so it's very ironic, given that Kirby smapled sampled that song on Selected Memories.

Regarding sources, here is my view on what is considered "high-quality". I haven't found any definition of what a "high-quality" source means (which is why I have mentioned it in between quotation marks), so that list may be very wrong in someone else's POV. Wetrorave (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey DMT, any thoughts regarding the article? Wetrorave (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Wetrorave: If you're still unsure about FA sourcing, check out Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The guidance essay gave me much more clarity on this, so thanks. Wetrorave (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Archived talk page request

i think we should start to archive this talk page, because it's getting pretty long. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey Realmaxxver (sorry I always read your name as realvaxxiner), I thought about this as well but didn't really think about it after reading H:ARC, where it is stated that "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." I have no problem with this talk page being archived—in fact, I'd support it if it were—but I'll probably not be the one doing it, as I'm a bit busy in Wikipedia terms. I'm currently translating the EATEOT article to the Portuguese Wikipedia, since it's also become a bit popular in Brazil due to a famous gamer and a musician having reacted to it together in an 8-hours long livestream; unfortunately there is no such thing as a draft at pt.wikipedia.org.

Also, when I finish this translation I'll likely put the English article at WP:FAC, since I'm fairly sure that the article meets all of or is very close to the FA criteria. Wetrorave (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Realmaxxver (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

going to leave this link here for when the archive page is needed: Talk:Everywhere at the End of Time/Archive 1. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in EATEOT anymore.

My name is Wetrorave. I used to edit this page a LOT - when my interest in the series peaked, about 12 times a day. I wanted to get this article to Featured status but since then, I've discovered and rediscovered other unique, interesting things from the Internet and from my life, such as [9] [10] and [11] (plus life continues and I'm much busier now). I'm no longer that interested in this album anymore, and that is why I no longer edit this article as often as I used to. That isn't to say I forgot about it (get it? hehehe) - I still edit it periodically for small error correction, and I even bought the vinyl for it. This album has changed my life, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that. But bringing it to FA status would mean a LOT of hours being spent to perfect something that I think is already good enough (a Good Article, ironically). So if any editor wonders "where is the FAC for the dementia album?" this is the answer.

And if you want to bring this article to FA status, then by all means try to do so.

− Wetrorave (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I take back what I said. Wetrorave (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Post-FAC comments

@Wetrorave: My support on the FAC was premature because I thought it was going to be archived quickly. Really should have looked at it over a couple days as I usually do. Sorry about that, and if you're burnt out I'll go through them myself—my responsibility since I was premature.

• The linked source does not actually use the term "anosognosia"; find a different source or remove
• Copying from the FAC: The anosognosia redirect headnote should be "For the condition of a patient's unawareness of their own disorder, see ..." since the (nonmedical) term post-awareness evokes something like, "totally unaware of surroundings", rather than the more specific anosognosia.

Removed term. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• How are "Post Awareness Confusions" and "Temporary Bliss State" clinical names?

Source says so?

Not quite? The second citation says "Post Awareness Confusions" is a clinical name, but not the latter

Alright, I've changed this part to "Tracks G1, H1, and J1 are titled "Post Awareness Confusions", which Bowe felt were clinical, while I1 is titled "Temporary Bliss State". Wetrorave (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Epic Ovinus (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "saying that the intention of the first albums was for them to feature interchangeable compositions" I'd suggest removal as it is nearly restating the previous part of the sentence

Done. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Kirby said what he was interested in for Stage 6 was removing specific frequencies of the samples" Reading some of the interviews, this seems like undue weight; has he said this anywhere besides that one interview?

Yeah he doesn't say this in any other interview. Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "both were born in England and both present similarities in the way they produce art" "painting like this works more like a brain" This needs to be made a bit more explicit; how is Seal's work similar to Kirby's?

I've replaced this quotation with "Art is always working from memory". Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "unravelling their awareness of the disease" Seems to be putting words in Sydney's mouth; I don't see "unravelling" anywhere in her writing. Also, is Teenink a high-quality RS?

I've replaced this with "likened to the patient's awareness of the disease's progession." As for source quality, this piece of writing is from WP:TWL, which should normally always give high-quality sources, given that it is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation itself as a source resource (no pun intended). Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm... okay.

• "which Beaten Frowns After portrays humans themselves" also needs to be a bit more explicit

I decided to just remove this and re-word the previous sentence. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "which some claim is a woman,[55] descending through a marble-like staircase" This is combining two sources: one states "woman", while the other states "staircase"; neither say both.

Changed to "woman or staircase." Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and presented the names of the album covers" Maybe "revealed"?

Changed. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "presented the concept in detail but the physical packaging did not include text" I get what you mean, but it should be more clear about one having text and the other not

Changed to "detailed the concept with text but the physical packaging did not include such descriptions". Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and he was happy Seal used them as the album covers" Kirby used them, not Seal

Looks like I got a bit Post-Awareness-ly Confused back there, huh Benjamin? Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'Kirby stated in an email to Pitchfork that he himself did not have dementia; only the Caretaker persona did. He added that there should not be any confusion and "it's not intentional if there is any."' Is this too much detail?

I think it's fine, but even so I removed the email part and shortened the last sentence a bit. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Kirby drinking whisky" Not sure how I didn't notice this; what?

Yeah it's kind of an extremely irrelevant thing to say lol. Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'with the visual art also exploring the idea of making the public "feel ill."' Seems a bit shoehorned in there, maybe remove

I think it's fine, and it kind of serves as a complement to the "battle" quote from the previous sentence. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "with Kirby expanding on the themes of An Empty Bliss" A bit of a non sequitur. Did the album receive praise for expanding?

Kind of. I've added a bit more information now. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'expected the public to say "it's just the same, he's just looping parts of big band records"' I'd recommend removing this quote; it's excessive detail and could easily be glossed

Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "generally described as better, although some disagreed" I mentioned this at FAC, but the hedge makes it the sentence somewhat meaningless. I'd suggest removing the latter clause since "generally" subsumes it

Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Citation [4] is not archived properly (and can't, since it's paywalled)
• 'its listing of "2019's Best Albums"' Can remove quotes and make lowercase

Done. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "the most ambient-driven ones" This commentary is a bit randomly inserted; I'd remove it

I think it's fine, but I've replaced "ambient" with "chaotic". Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'due to its long length and, in the words of author Crew Bittner, "existential dread."' Is the speculated reasoning behind the TikTok challenge necessary?

I believe this is fine. It's not necessarily a speculation, so I've slightly changed the prose. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is Slomka's statement relevant? It has two or three degrees of separation from the album: It merely mentions a comment from a YouTuber who discussed the album

Yeah maybe not, but it can still be used as a source for the previous sentence. Removed the statement. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• 'which Arielle Gordon of Bandcamp Daily attributed to the "serene" deterioration of the stages' I'd suggest removal, unless the point is justifying "ambient" before, which is not particularly important

Removed. Added a bit of text before the previous sentence for clarification. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• "He said he desired to be authentic to himself while the record's popularity continued" I'd suggest removing this quote from Kirby; it isn't really saying anything new. If the point is that he wasn't changing the album in response to criticism of a random TikTok trend, that falls quite squarely within the previous sentence

Removed. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Addressed issues. The paywalled ref is something out of my control. Wetrorave (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Removed the archive on that account. Please respond to the clinical thing above; otherwise, all looks good, Thx for bearing with me. Ovinus (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Something I've been worried about

This album recently got FA status, and now it's finally time to move on. I've been working on getting some vaporwave artists their own articles, starting with 猫 シ Corp.

Anyway, the question is, is anyone else experiencing MOS:SANDWHICH issues? My monitor's resolution, which is 1366x768, is low compared to modern standards like 1080p, and I know Wikipedia displays differently on different resolutions. It looks normal to me, but are the big elements of the article (e.g. infoboxes, quoteboxes, images) overlapping or sandwhiching to anyone else?

@Wretchskull, Ovinus, and Gerald Waldo Luis: to ping some people to answer this. Wetrorave please don't 11 April 2022 21:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. It all looks good to me! Wretchskull (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I second Wretchskull here. Everything seems perfectly layouted, and there's no overlapping. GeraldWL 01:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I guess I've been watching too many Wikipedia speedruns lately lol. Wetrorave please don't 12 April 2022 10:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wetrorave: Agreed, I see no sandwich issues. What is a "Wikipedia speedrun"? Ovinus (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: It's a challenge some people do where you attempt to go from one Wikipedia article to another in the shortest amount of time possible, with both subjects being widely different and using only the article's wikilinks. Let's say, for instance, I want to go from Everywhere at the End of Time to Osama bin Laden; how fast could you speedrun that using only the article's wikilinks? Sections after See also and tricks such as CTRL+F not allowed. Wetrorave please don't 13 April 2022 10:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Everywhere at the End of Time -> Krakow -> Pope John Paul II -> Iraq War -> Osama bin Laden 70.124.147.243 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Friday Night Funkin mod notability

Hi,

The notability of the everywhere at the end of time FNF mod is questionable.

• The source supplied [[12]] gives a passing mention of the mod

• I was unable to find any other WP:SIGCOV of the mod from anything resembling a WP:RS

• Even if it was notable enough to warrant a mention, a spot in the lede is unwarranted. Its popularity on TikTok and in memes received significant coverage as evidenced by the multiple sources cited. The only source was the Romero article, which as mentioned earlier, was but a passing mention, unlike the multiple dedicated articles to the TikTok/Internet notoriety.

These are the reasons I opted to remove it from the wikipedia article, since the reverter asked me to elaborate in the edit summaries.

If the reverter could explain why it is notable that would be nice.

I have also left a similar message at the reverter's talk page.

Cheers, (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@JayPlaysStuff; hi, I just wanted to say I'm sorry for being ignorant in the edit summary, and it was not my intent to be ignorant.

That being said:

1. "passing mention"

• [13] does give significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV states, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. An example of a trivial mention would be something like what is found in SIGCOV itself: The statement that "he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. Meanwhile, [1] has a full paragraph destinated to explaining the contents of this mod.

2. "no reliable sources"

• [1] is a Gamurs source, one of the biggest e-sports groups in the world. I'll try not to make this part too complex, but you can check "Gamepur" at User:Wetrorave/Sources if you're still unconvinced.

3. "not notable for lead"

• Well... maybe, but there's plenty of stuff in the lead that's just a passing mention in the body. For instance, the phrase "although some medics felt the series was too linear" is backed by a part in "Medical responses", which has a length of less than three sentences. It's justifiable if this happens, though, so feel free to remove it from the lead.

Wetrorave please don't 30 May 2022 21:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)