Talk:Annie in Wonderland
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Martin IIIa in topic Personnel section
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Personnel section
editThis is deliberately worded & spelled exactly as appears on the album sleeve, and the article text makes this clear. There is no need for it to be corrected, even in a well-meaning sense. The reason being that the article would then be lying about the subject. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't you then breaching the copyright in the information on the sleeve, by expressing it in exactly their words? Surely WP should be using the information from the sleeve, but translating it into correct English spelling and capitalisation. PamD (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- You can add a [sic] tag to words like that, found here. Sophus Bie (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Problem is that there are several, and I didn't want to have the article festooned with tags. As for copyright, as long as the source is attributed and quoted exactly, it's not a problem. And as for correcting the spelling, that's original research; who are we to say that they didn't intend it to look like that? --Rodhullandemu 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- You guys are missing the point, which is that there's no sense in reproducing the album sleeve verbatim to begin with. Wikipedia is not a collection of direct quotes, after all. The only thing significant about the personnel listing on the album sleeve is the information contained on it; things such as the exact order in which the instruments are listed and how "acoustic" is misspelled are both ludicrously trivial.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Problem is that there are several, and I didn't want to have the article festooned with tags. As for copyright, as long as the source is attributed and quoted exactly, it's not a problem. And as for correcting the spelling, that's original research; who are we to say that they didn't intend it to look like that? --Rodhullandemu 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)