Talk:King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime

King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime is the main article in the King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
March 27, 2022	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Mr. Bungle Influence

Should it be mentioned that around this time, Mr. Bungle also released their most experimental record? - ZEROpumpkins 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's relevant, since the bands are only minimally connected (via Patton and Spruance). Patton's own highly experimental Adult Themes for Voice came out the next year, but I wouldn't mention it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.136.139 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its relevant if sources can be found that suggest its relevant, which for their previous albums I have. I also wouldn't consider a third to two fifths of the members of the bands a minimal connection. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background singers in Just a Man

Does anybody know the background singers at the end of Just A Man? --88.74.232.13 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The album's CD liner notes don't say, and my copy of the LP doesn't have any liner notes with it. Odds are there's no official credit given for it, GRAPPLE X 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See below~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fine
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fine
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nothing but constructive edits
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good, I think
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

Lede

Should definitely have the nationality, genre too probably. Compare with FAs Kala (album) and Is This It
I went with "San Francisco-based" rather than "American", it seems more relevant to their leanings than something as broad as a country ("American" music is pretty wide spectrum depending on your home city/state, it seems). I took the genre out as a lot of FNM articles are the subject of an endless edit war over precise genres; I felt it best to just let the discussion of the actual music take precedence without listing a genre that will no doubt be changed thirty times back and forth by IP editors. :( GRAPPLE X 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Martin had already begun skipping practice sessions with the band," in 1993?
1992ish; I've directly mentioned that it was during the recording of Angel Dust. GRAPPLE X 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"during the Angel Dust recording session" - Huh, when? Link (if available)
Linked at first reference, didn't realise I hadn't done so. Reworded the date for it to draw more attention to the release year. GRAPPLE X 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
whose wife Courtney Love was a close friend of Bottum's. - In the lede you have him as Cobain's friend
Have amended the lead to match this. GRAPPLE X 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2

Reference for German charting?
Must have overlooked that; the German chart site doesn't actually list it as having charted at all. :/ Removed. GRAPPLE X 14:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3

No information where the album was recorded and the like?
All in all the production section is a little light.
Have expanded it with an extra parapgraph worth of stuff and broken it into two subheadings; if it still feels a bit brief I can see what else I could dig up. GRAPPLE X 17:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

On hold for seven days — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look at this one for me. I appreciate it. GRAPPLE X 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there, just one {{fact}} tag to deal with (direct quote, so needs a citation) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cited that, was just the same source as the one used for the paragraph. GRAPPLE X 10:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good to go! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the album?

Is it:

1

"King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime"

(wikipedia, musicbrainz, faithnomore.fandom)

2

"King for a Day, Fool for a Lifetime"

(applemusic, spotify, allmusic, music.youtube, amazonmusic)

3

"King for a Day Fool for a Lifetime"

(discogs)

and WHY? Toke0 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genres in infobox

Bringing this here because apparently edit summaries and an in-article edit note aren't enough. The manual of style is very clear at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE that an infobox should be used "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Sticking a genre field into the infobox which is in no way supported by the article itself, and is in fact directly refuted by the article, is not helpful, and it's entirely counter to MOS practices. Reverting its removal as "unexplained" despite clear explanation is disingenuous. The actual prose of the article describes a "genre shuffle", a "breadth of genres", "multiple genres", etc, which would be a strong indication that shoehorning in some information which is not discussed in prose is not actually reflective of the subject, and is merely WP:GWAR behaviour that serves no one. Can this please stop. 2.222.160.197 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the primary bad actor here (User:SpaceHelmetX1) is refusing to engage and is instead resorting to attacks on character, I am going to open an RFC on whether this field belongs in the article or not. 2A02:C7E:329F:5A00:5C9D:6C90:2658:2581 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the inclusion of a "genre" field in the infobox

Given the article's prose clearly discusses a breadth of genres and no sourced prose is given over to categorising the album as any one distinct thing, should an infobox genre field be omitted here in accordance with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE? 2A02:C7E:329F:5A00:5C9D:6C90:2658:2581 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The field does not summarise any information discussed in the article and adds nothing of encyclopaedic value. It is in fact directly contradicted by the prose which is sourced. 2A02:C7E:329F:5A00:5C9D:6C90:2658:2581 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. To me it seems clear enough that there are songs of many genres, but not a genre for the album. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Yes - Is there a reliable source that directly calls the album itself a genre? If so, then yes. If not, then no. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the sources (see Rolling Stone and AllMusic, for example) explicitly describe it as a mix of styles. 151.224.190.163 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a spot check, this pretty directly calls the album a progressive rock album, so I certainly support its inclusion. If the others are this clear cut, I'll just revise my stance to "Yes" I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following may be worth bearing in mind--from AllMusic: "he tackles any genre put in front of him -- romantic love songs, bile-spitting rants of hate ... gospel, and breezy pop"; from Spin: "the music still careens from genre to genre"; from Metal Hammer: "[they are] a pop band, a rock band, an avant-garde noise outfit, a funk crew, a synth-rock band, a hardcore band, a deeply psychedelic band"; from Rolling Stone: "a genre-shuffle that added Portuguese balladry and soulful crooning to the band's militantly eclectic agenda". I believe any source which is ascribing a singular genre to the record is doing so on basis of an individual song, which is as accurate as describing an album as "instrumental" just because one track is. 151.224.190.163 (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty standard protocol to do both. Got sources that directly state a genre? Add it to the infobox. Got a source with a more nuanced view? Add it to the prose. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the article doesn't actually discuss what the infobox says, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, then it shouldn't be summarised there. They shouldn't contradict each other. 151.224.190.163 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then add all the infobox content in the prose too. It'd be one thing if the content was truly contradictory ie "Rolling Stone said the album was "definitely not prog rock material". But that doesn't appear to be the case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I believe it to be a disingenuous conclusion, the onus is not on me to add anything in support of it, and unless that is done then the current field still falls afoul of the MOS. 151.224.190.163 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no contradiction here. Infoboxes are like a WP:LEAD - an overview, not all encompassing. And music genre is subjective, not absolute. Your conclusion comes off as somewhere between being deliberately obtuse, misguided, or not really looking to work with others here. I wont discuss further, as this is bordering on WP:GENREWARRIOR type stuff, and generally a waste of the community's time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article was assessed for review with no such genre field, the intention is to avoid genre warring. If it can't be accurately called any one thing, it makes sense to allow the prose to speak for itself. It existed in this fashion for years until a recent spree of reverts has seen the field being added in contradiction to the sources given. If it's a "waste of the community's time" to attempt to mediate, to attempt to discuss on talk pages, to attempt to actually follow the site's own internal style guide, then I don't understand what wikipedia has become. 151.224.190.163 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of time to spend so much time on such a non-issue. And it's hard to believe your intention is not edit warring given the level of edit warring over this point by IP addresses that write the same way you do. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I could get anywhere by pointing at policies and having people actually discuss their edits we wouldn't be here, but I'm discussing something actually based in MOS principles while a user whose only contribution is to knee-jerk mash the undo button ignores every attempt to engage. Remind me again why burnout is such a factor in editors 151.224.190.163 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]