Talk:Post (Björk album)

Fair use rationale for Image:BjorkPost.jpeg

Image:BjorkPost.jpeg 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) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Third album ?

This is Bjork's third studio album. She created an album in the late 70s in Iceland under this name. Please don't change it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It was referenced as her second album by every music publication back in 1995 as well as the label and the artist herself. There's an official album count, why we should ignore it and "invent" our own ? If to include her juvenilia album in the count, why not to include Selmasongs album as well ? My apologies but any count except official is a secondary/alternative opinion. Official count is a primary opinion. You cannot ignore the primary opinion completely and force the alternative opinion to be the only opinion presented at Wikipedia. Some articles from 1995: The Face, Rolling Stone, MTV Online, NME. Shimenawa (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Björk has acknowledged the 1977 album as her first release in various occassions, for example, in an interview with Politiken in 1995. Her official website also: link. And major publications as well: Request, Now, The Guardian, Record Collector, Blue Jean. An annotation could be added to adress the confussion.--Bleff (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact 1977 release is acknowledged as first still doesn't affect the official album count and doesn't give us the right to alter numbering. All her subsequent albums after Debut were consistently numbered as 2nd, 3rd etc without taking the juvenilia record into account. We all know her latest Vulnicura was officially 8th, not 9th. None of original official sources support wiki's alternative numbering (funny, two of the publications you have linked count Debut as 3rd, counting Gling-Glo in ;-). It just shows how any alternative numbering is irrelevant). Yes, Björk may call her child album as first, yet she actually named Debut as her first in that Blue Jean interview above. She also clearly said "My first album didn't come out until I was 27" here. This official label statement mentions the juvenilia record as first album and on the same page it calls Debut the first international solo album. Is there anything against Wikipedia rules in my offer to present both official and alternative numberings on her pages nicely ? Shimenawa (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think both points of view should be acknowledged in the articles. --Bleff (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i will add referenced explanatory sentences to the body, i think Release section fits the best. Regarding the lead section, as i understand it should be unreferenced. Then Andrzejbanas blamed my previous attempts to be complicated, so the shortest solution i can think of is "third (officially second)". However, Andrzejbanas have also offered to remove mention of third/second from the lead completely. Do you have an opinion on what should be in the lead ? Shimenawa (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Shimenawa I don't think "a studio album" is a good option for the lead. It's just so vague and imprecise... Pedro u | t 16:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it's better than misleading "third album". I thought this solution may please most people. What your solution could have been ? I can offer "the second (technically third)" or just "the second solo album". Maybe "the third (officially second)". I'm Ok with any of them, although personally i would use "the second solo album", since alternative point of view is explained in Release section. Shimenawa (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What about putting "third album", and clarifying it via footnote? The Template:Refn, for example. --Bleff (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the best option so far. Pedro u | t 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Using the word "third" alone in the lead still brings the altered unofficial numbering into dominance. The official number should be given first or just leave it without number as it is now. One of the possibilities could be "second international solo album". Btw, why altered numbering includes child album but disregards Gling-Glo and Selmasongs ? Shimenawa (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert in Wikipedia rules, but i've got an impression the inclusion of the juvenilia in her solo albums breaks all 3 of the main Wikipedia rules, called Core content policies.

First, Wikipedia is all about references... Why her albums shouln't be defined as they were defined by majority of "references" in 1995, 1997 etc. ?

Second, officially her child album is not a part of her solo work. When we include the child album in actual Bjork solo work and alter album numbers, it feels like an "original research". The altered numbers from this "research" are not really supported by reliable sources except of several post-2009 publications which were fooled by Wikipedia.

From the rules: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

Finally, when we agree to mention both official and "researched" numbers, but still mention only altered number in the lead the "Due and undue weight" section of the "Neutral point of view" rule becomes broken. 100% of original official sources do not support the inclusion of the child album. 80% of major publications share this point. From remaining 20% only a handful of sources may support the point which was forced by Wikipedia in the past years, the others support different alternative views on numbering, for example Record Collector and Now magazines think Debut was a third album, while others may include Telegram and Selmasongs but still exclude the child album.

Her biography books, at least those i own, predictably call Post "the second album", despite they have articles on the child album as well. If the Post is the "third" album, how to cite the books or Bjork when she says "my second album" ? Amend citations ? Provide false info ? Shimenawa (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox genres

Genre labels are sometimes complicated, specially with an album like this. I'm creating this new section so as to promote discussion as to which genres should be listed in the article's infobox. As of 10 July 2016, the following genres are listed, with the following sources:

• Art pop

• Coleman, Nick (31 August 2003). "Live Box". The Independent. Independent Print Limited.
• Also, I am aware that the following are not proper sources, but sites such as Acclaimed Music and Rate Your Music frequently call this album "art-pop".

• Avant-pop

• Mackay, Emily (12 June 2015). "Bjork's 'Post' 20 Years On: How The Icelandic Genius Created A Glossy, Future-Focused Avant-Pop Wonderland". NME. Time Inc. Retrieved 4 April 2016.

• Experimental pop

• "Björk". Time. Vol. 147. Time Inc. 1996. p. 139. Retrieved 10 July 2016.

• Electronica

• Catch-all label that, according to this source, encompasses the downtempo, trip hop and chill-out labels sourced in the "Composition" section.

• Alternative dance

• Gives a clearer picture of the dance tracks, I feel that the label "dance" would be too simplistic.

• Blyweiss, Adam; Bossenger, Alex; Grotepas, Nicole; Speranza, Greg; Terich, Jeff (5 June 2014). "10 Essential Iceland albums". Treble. Treble Media. Retrieved 27 March 2016.

• Jazz fusion

• While a "jazz" tag would be too exhaustive, "jazz fusion" gives a clearer idea of the jazz elements in the album present in tracks such as "Enjoy", "It's Oh So Quiet", "The Modern Things" and "I Miss You"

• Ali, Lorraine (2 February 1998). "Post". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
• Press, Joy (2 July 1995). "Björk: 'Post'". The New York Times.
• Ali, Lorraine (30 September 1995). "Iceland's ethereal pop princess breaks the ice". Us. Wenner Media LLC.
• Martin, Michael (30 April 2015). "Björk talk: the avant-pop queen on festivals, technology and how to get old". Time Out. Martin. Retrieved 10 July 2016.

• Ambient

Ambient is also prominent, most notably on tracks such as "Headphones" and "Possibly Maybe"

• "Icon: Björk". Wondering Sound. eMusic.com. September 9, 2010. Retrieved June 22, 2014.
• "..love bites Björk & Goldie". i-D. No. 154. Time Out. 1 July 1996.

Please make your suggestions here before editing. I know these are quite a lot genres, but the album is quite eclectic. Discussion is encouraged! Warmth, --Bleff (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Feeling it was too redundant to include "art-pop", "experimental pop" and "avant-pop" in the Infobox, I removed the last two and included them on the album's main section.--Bleff (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Post (Björk album). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726193458/http://www.wonderingsound.com/icon/bjork-2/ to http://www.wonderingsound.com/icon/bjork-2/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nme.com/reviews/reviews/19980101000356reviews.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510091655/http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/1995/ to http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/1995/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012152302/http://www.brits.co.uk/artist/bjork to http://www.brits.co.uk/artist/bjork

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) 08:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Critic lists

The tables listing critic lists should be trimmed per a community consensus. A recommended number was 10 publications. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)