Talk:The Roxx Regime Demos

Fair use rationale for Image:Roxx regime.jpg

Image:Roxx regime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is clearly established

Wikipedia's guideline for album notability:

In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

This is an official Stryper album, consisting of songs from Stryper's pre-Stryper days, when they called themselves The Roxx Regime. This is not a demo. The album was released on 7 July 2007 by Stryper. Notability is thusly established. Amsaim (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes made to type of album (studio or demo)

Please do not change the type of album while the AfD is still open. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay Do you also want to leave in Category:Demo albums, as it was here before the AfD as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the type be either "demo" or "compilation" as per Template:Infobox Album#Type? It certainly was recorded in a studio, but it wasn't released as a studio album. Even the lead sentence states compilation. So where is the consensus that it's a studio album? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

None There isn't one. Nor is there one to call it a compilation (which it plainly isn't.) Amsaim wants to take this directly to AN/I and AN/V (three times in total) without ever responding on this talk or posting to mine. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the nature of consensus. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So the entire set of demos was recorded in a single session and wasn't released individually on cassette at concerts? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus points to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos and no consensus about whether they're demos or a compilation is reached there, although I tend to favour the idea that they're a compilation as per the discussion there. There is never even the suggestion that they should be considered a studio album. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This should be categorized as a compilation album. It's a compilation of demos, but a compilation nonetheless. The allmusic link lists it as a compilation. Allmusic is a WP:RS. Seems pretty straightforward to me. That link is even used to cite it being called a compilation in the body of the article. Clearly, the infobox should match, and be changed to compilation. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we reach consensus, we shouldn't be changing the article, particularly the infobox. This is starting to look like an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought with admin intervention, it had been determined that compilation was the correct listing. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Was there an admin? I tend to agree with listing the album as a compilation, but I think it's best to leave it for a few days to determine what a few interested sides have to say, not just those of use who are on Wikipedia too much :) . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Since Koavf has announced that he would continue with his reverts, trying to push forth his own personal opinion about 'The Roxx Regime Demos', I have requested a full page protection.

Here is some additional information. If you would like to comment, please do so by either starting a new thread or by writing your post below the last collapsible (Summary). Please allow the collapsibles to remain as they are for better readability. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Background information

In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation: Allmusic.com writes: The 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band MTV.com lists it as an album. MSN.com lists 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a compilation. vht.com lists 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. PiercingMetal.com calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. RollingStones.com had an article on 'The Roxx Regime Demos' and listed it amongst Stryper's album discography. Unfortunately, rollingstones.com has changed their website and thus that link is no longer available for unregistered users. There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Main issue

Editor Koavf is ignoring various reliable and verifiable sources which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album / a compilation. He refuses to acknowledge that various reliable sources call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album. He insists that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a demo and not an album, and therefore since it is a demo the article must be deleted. Koavf is ignoring Wikipedia's guideline of Verifiability which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. By simply clicking on the provided reliable verifiable sources one can easily verify that the published material on the reliable source undebatably declares 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album / a compilation, and not a demo. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute

In a content dispute the conflicting sides all have reliable and verifiable sources to back up and prove their point. In this issue, Koavf has not provided any reliable verifiable source which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. Koavf is aggressively pushing forth his own personal opinion about the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' without backing up his claims with reliable verifiable sources. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Koavf

Here are a couple of edits from Koavf on the 'The Roxx Regime Demos' article. 1st Disruptive edit - 23 March 2010, Koavf places a CSD#A7 tag on the article. 2nd Disruptive edit - 23 March 2010, Koavf places a Prod-template on the article. In both cases there were two (1, 2) reliable verifiable sources present on the article which clearly prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a compilation/an album and not a demo. Koavf has since then actively ignored these two reliable verifiable sources. On March 26 2010 I removed the prod-template, added an additional reliable verifiable source (Rollingstones.com article on Stryper's discography) which prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is an album and not a demo, and referred to the talk page in my edit summary. In addition to this, I started a new topic on the article's talk page on 26 March 2010. By ignoring these available reliable verifiable sources, Koavf started his disruptive edits. 3rd Disruptive edit - 20 April 2010, Koavf takes the article to Afd, again ignoring the available now 3 reliable verifiable sources. 4th Disruptive edit - 21:43 CET, 25 April 2010 - While the Afd was still actively going on, Koavf changed the type of album in the infobox from "studio" to "demo" 1 minute after a fourth editor gave his 'Keep' recommendation on the Afd. In this edit, Koavf did not provide any source to support his edit. WP:BURDEN tells us this: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." As long as Koavf is not able to provide a reliable verifiable source which calls Stryper's 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, he is merely presenting either his own original research or trying to push his own personal opinion. Koavf continued changing the infobox to "demo" which lead me to bring the issue to the attention of Ani and other administrators. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Misquotations by Koavf

When confronted with the available reliable sources which call 'The Roxxx Regime Demos' a compilation/an album, Koavf resorted to lying by misquoting a reliable source. After placing the article on Afd, with his nomination rationale being "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC.", I provided several reliable verifiable sources as my first reply on the Afd. Koavf's reply to this was: "Comment None of those sources establish notability, simply the existence of the demo, which was never in doubt. In point of fact, one of your sources explicitly states that it's a demo (in addition to the name of the album, of course), and notes that it's only for die-hard fans. Since it's a self-released demo, it is assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC." Anybody can see that Koavf is lying by misquoting allmusic.com. Allmusic.com clearly calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation, and not a demo. Koavf repeated his misquotation on Ani. An editor who uses such discussion tactics has removed himself from the foundation upon which reasonable discussion can take place. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary

This is a very simple issue: Is the 2007 release by Stryper 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation or a demo? We all know that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability-not truth. Therefore, if an editor keeps on changing the type of album from "studio" to "demo", without providing any reliable verifiable sources, and he actively ignores the available reliable sources, then he is acting in a disruptive manner. Since we have several reliable verifiable sources calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album/compilation, the article should reflect exactly that. Amsaim (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in a further witch hunt and muck slinging over what is in essence a trivial matter and qualifies as one of the lamest edit wars ever and actually engage Koavf directly? Rehevkor ✉ 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and insisting that everything Koavf does is disruptive goes against Wikipedia's guideline of assuming good faith. Rehevkor ✉ 19:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything? That previous comment appears to be an ad hominem attack and that too goes against Wikipedia guidelines. Let's focus on the topic here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Amsaim invited comment, and I just did that :P Neither party is totally innocent here, I'd like like to hear Amsaim justify his actions. Rehevkor ✉ 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's stay on-topic. Is this a demo album, a compilation album, or a studio album? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It could technically be all or none. "Studio album" in the traditional sense is the least likely - they were recorded and released as demos, albeit in pretty packaging. Demo? Of course, it's in the title, all the songs are apparently demos, that could classify it as a "demo album", it does what it says on the tin. Compilation? As I mentioned on the RfC this is probably the closest that applies, even as a compromise; compilation of demos I suppose. In my view, it can be both a compilation and a demo, and can be categorized as such. The main issue is seems was brought up in the AfD, is notability inherited? Apparently yes, which for some reason people seem to mean the album is not a demo in any way, so, DRAMA ensues. Does a demo being officially released album magically stop the material being demo material, a demo album? Ho hum. Rehevkor ✉ 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with WP:NALBUMS! WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be flatly contradicted or at least the spirit of it is. Is notability always ensured if the artists is notable? Or unlikely if the album is a "demo"? No idea, but IMO all of these should be considered on their own merits not on those of other entities or people. Time to seriously review WP:MUSIC then... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it includes demos that ended up on three different albums, which makes me believe it is a compilation. But our opinions on it don't really matter, since a major reliable source, Allmusic, lists "Type: Compilation" on the album's page. That's why I don't understand the confusion. Just go with the source. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI - SlimVirgin has declined the RPP, mainly because you don't protect pages pre-emptively --Jubilee♫clipman 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the debate on the category

• The Roxx Regime Demos is a compilation album that consists entirely of demos. That is, it isn't a "demo album" i.e. an album put together as a rough draft of an intended album (qv Nebraska (album) which "demo album" was actually released as an "official album", whatever that means...). Thus, the album, per se, is not a "demo" though all the tracks were "demos". This is not unheard of where it is felt that the material is of high quality and/or historically important. Much of the Beatles Anthology series, for example, comprises of demos but those albums are in fact compilations (scroll down). However, that's only my take on this: I note that those Beatles albums are actually catted as both demo and compilation. It all depends on how you define "demo", I guess. Either way, the two terms, "compilation album" and "demo album", are probably not mutually exclusive --Jubilee♫clipman 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point. I recall that Phil Keaggy gave demos for an album to his new label. They decided to release the demos as a finished product. At the time, the production values on the guitar and vocals were high enough, although the drum machine is annoying. It is listed as a studio album as well. It seems that the criteria is whether it was released by the band alone or a label. The problem here is that the band created its own label to release The Roxx Regime Demos. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then again, Anthology 1–3 were released by Apple Records... (as was almost everything Beatle-related from 1968 onwards for that matter) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

...which sort of proves your point, now I think about it... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to compare the calibre of the two bands, or to Phil Keaggy, it seems that a compilation of demos is a compilation album as far as the infobox is concerned and should carry both categories as far the cats are concerned. Can someone give a reason to the contrary? Possibly some example articles? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible example album is Concrete. The article itself is a bad example, no sources. But it was recorded apparently as a studio album, but they weren't happy with it and disowned it. It was later released as a demo album by Roadrunner (to fulfill contractual obligations). Previous to that, it was not released in any way, leaked or otherwise. It could be considered both a studio album and a demo album. Rehevkor ✉ 23:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the opposite to what happened with Nebraska! Interesting... Also suggests strongly that this isn't black and white. However, the lead to Category:Demo albums states: "Albums that were recorded as demos." Neither Concrete nor The Roxx Regime Demos were recorded as demos: the former was recorded as a studio album (apparently), the latter was put together as an official release from demos. Thinking about it, the Beatles albums don't belong in that category, either, according to that lead --Jubilee♫clipman 23:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't the "category" we're talking about. It definitely qualifies to have the demo category applied. The question is what the infobox should contain.

Actually, The Roxx Regime Demos were recorded as demos. They were simply gathered together and released as an album. Think back to the 80s. Bands would record songs for cassettes and release them at gigs to help cover the cost of studio time, but the main reason for the recordings would be to distribute to record companies. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion would help with understanding what a demo is. Simply put it is a recording to demonstrate a song, this can be anything from a gtr & vocal to show the rest of the band to a fully arranged full-blown recording. For instance, Can't Get You Out Of My Head is the orignal songwriter demo with new vocals by Minogue, nobody would think to call the released version a demo, which in many respects it is. Much the same was happening with all the recently successful Swedish songwriters, they laid down the backing tracks in Sweden for Back Street Boys, Spears et al to put their vocal tracks over the demo. If nobody liked the song enough to record and release it would have remained a demo! This proves to me that "demo" and "low-(er) quality" are not always synonymous. I actually can't think it can be a demo is it is officially released by the artist/record company, but would be "recordings that were intended as demos." With computer recording the difference between studio and home recording is marginal. Sorry if I am preaching to the choir, but only 2 cents worth! --Richhoncho (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am honestly starting to think this is being given too much thought. If at some point down the line a recording, group of recordings or "album" were considered a demo, they can be considered a demo for categorization purposes? I don't see how that could be considered controversial in any way, it can be considered a matter of common sense. As for how it's classified in, say, the info box, that can be analyzed via the sources, compilation seems to fit best for this album, sources that just describe it as an "album" could be completely disregarded - which leaves us with compilation. Now, for NMUSIC - that is an issue, but not one that has any use being discussed here. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents I'm honestly disgusted and put out by the actions of one of my fellow editors on what amounts to a completely trivial matter. This is probably the dumbest and lamest interaction I have ever had on the Internet (and that is saying a lot), but I will say my piece on this matter in spite of my better judgement: the infobox can only contain one entry for type, so choose whatever, I personally don't care. If it keeps an editor from flying off the handle, call this a compilation. Furthermore, this clearly fits the intended criteria of Category:Demo albums: the recordings are demos and they were released as an album. If you have any other perspective on this, you are probably thinking about it way too hard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also It's short enough to be an EP. Can't wait to see how this turns out. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand how one person can be such an idiot! You can see that there have been days of discussion. Days! And you have you ban lifted and without discussion, without consensus you, the great Koavf unilaterally decide that this is an EP! I am so angry. Absolutely outraged! Stop being so arrogant. Seek consensus before you change things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay That was totally inappropriate, as was marking my edits as vandalism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No less inappropriate than your earlier actions. We are attempting to seek consensus and you in all of you actions have not. What exactly would you call that? Your unilateral, apparently omnipotent decision to change this without debate or discussion seems to be appropriate to you? I know that you read the discussion because you went out and changed information on the album I mentioned above. So I've explain why I did what I did, now do you mind explaining who made you god of this page and why what what I did shouldn't be done to you again? Also while personal attacks on editors are not neither are threats. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm sorry that I attacked your character, but you obviously have a problem with consensus and there's really no way around that. Had you suggested that it should probably be listed as an EP I would have agreed. However, you have entirely missed the point of this discussion and I don't know how else to characterize your actions that blatant disregard for the opinion of others and against consensus-building. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not discussing anything with you if you are not going to be respectful. My earlier statement stands: if you continue labeling my good-faith edits vandalism and calling me an arrogant idiot, I'm not going to tolerate it and I will report it as necessary. If and when you choose to be civil, I will be happy to interact with you. Until that time, I will not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No? How respectful of you. I am showing you the respect that you showed the other editors. You threatened my twice on my talk page. I reverted those threats as vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment I thought we were here to discuss the categories and infobox not sling mud at each other. Ad hominem attacks are unuseful at the best of times. Can we draw a line under the above and carry on? (Again.) --Jubilee♫clipman 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Resuming category and infobox discussion

I would argue that while the length of the album is right on the border between EP and album, oftentimes things like this are categorized based on how they are marketed, so that one band's EP is another's album. Also, in this particular case I don't think labeling the release as an EP is appropriate for the infobox, as it isn't precise enough to explain what makes this release distinctive. I'd say the categorization issue is debatable, however. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The length of the album is the same as the CD version of The Yellow and Black Attack. That original EP was only six songs long and twenty-four minutes in length. The re-release, which is listed as a studio album, not an EP, has eight tracks and clocks in at just over thirty-four minutes. For the infobox, I still think compilation makes more sense. EP? Yes, for the categories section particularly since it can have multiple categories.

As a side note, this album was still listed in the Stryper discography under the studio albums. I have moved it to match the current definition in the infobox. When we come to a consensus, we need to update the discography to reflect what's happened here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have looked hard at this article and thought about the issues a lot over the past day or two. First off: calling this an EP is WP:OR, nothing more nothing less; none of the sources, so far used, call it that therefore the category "2007 EPs" must go, IMO. Second: the Infobox correctly identifies this album as a compliation for the reasons I explained above. Third (related to WG's last point): no one seems to have noticed that the navbox identifies this album as a "Studio album", which it patenty is not, in anyone's book! The album should be identified and catted as a compilation album but I would say that it is allowable (pending further discussion) to categorise it as a demo album also without identifying it as such in the navbox or infobox. IMO, though, this is a compliation album, pure and simple --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with every point you made. If no one has any objections in the near future, I'd say we could make those changes. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me Rehevkor ✉ 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it for a few days though since the current infobox setting is OK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No rush, so that's fine --Jubilee♫clipman 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As already stated in the Summary collapsible: the content of the article, the navbox, the categories and the infobox should be a reflection of what's in the reliable verfiable sources. If the sources do not state it, then it shouldn't be in the article. WP:Verifiability states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This should be the guiding principle of every Wikipedia editor. Since there are no reliable sources which call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a 'Demo-Album' or an 'EP', then these 2 terms should not be in the article. After all, if, for example, someone should add the category (or type of album in the infobox) "Film music" or "Black_metal_albums" or any other category which is unsupported by reliable sources, then people will be quick to protest, right? Therefore, the categories, the infobox, the navbox and the content of the article must reflect the available reliable sources. Any other thing is Original Research or Personal Opinion. Amsaim (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no reliable verifiable sources which define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' either an EP nor a Demo-Album or Demo, I have removed those 2 categories that were added by Koavf. Please do not ignore the ongoing consensus discussion and please refrain from adding unsourced material in the article or the infobox or navboy or category. If you want to add a category into the article, feel free to do so by backing up your addition with reliable verifiable sources. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... The consensus is against Category:2007 EPs. However, while I don't actually disagree with removing Category:Demo albums, the consensus above appears to be that "it is allowable (pending further discussion) to categorise it as a demo album also without identifying it as such in the navbox or infobox" (as well as Category:Compilation albums, that is). Time for further discussion? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict} That's not the way I read the discussion. The consensus is that the infobox should be compilation, but that the additional categories could be added as per the Beatles' Anthology collection and Phil Keaggy's Underground. Did I misread that? The issue around whether EP is original research or not is still open, but it certainly is a compilation of demos. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jubileeclipman, what is the reason given for placing the Demo-Album category into the article? When you search the net for "demo album", you will find out that a large number of reliable sources define a demo-album as a Demo. Nothing else. It is not a combination of demo and album, it is a Demo. Check here for a just a few reliable sources on "Demo-Album": (1, 2, 3, 4). Since 'The Roxx Regime Demos' was officially released as an album, and the available reliable sources call it a compilation or an album, what reason is there to add the Demo-Album into the article? Amsaim (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter, in bother cases (Beatles' Anthology and Phil Keaggy's Underground) it is Koavf who added the Demo-Album category, and this just recently, therefore these 2 examples do not count. Amsaim (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ansaim: the consensus on this page is against you. The collapsed summary above is entirely your opinon, as far as I can tell. If you can bring forth a Guideline or Policy that states that categories should not be added unless they are explictly endorsed and verified by a source, then please do so. Even then: the album's own name could actually be used as proof that the album is correctly categoried in Category:Demo albums, since "demo" is so loosely defined on WP that almost anything could be a "demo"... Now, if we were to actually able to define "demo"... --Jubilee♫clipman 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Check here please: Categorization - "Particular considerations for categorizing articles: 1. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". Amsaim (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that there's no verifiable information to state that these are demos? I think the album's title would argue against that. I agree that categorizing it as an EP is likely OR though. Many albums, other than those mentioned, have multiple album type cats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter, you are using the plural on a single album. It's the album as such that is the subject of the article. The article is about the album, and not the individual songs. Noone is denying that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is comprised of 'demos from the pre-Stryper time', yet please realize that this article is about the album itself. As of now, there is no verifiable reliable source which calls Stryper's 2007 release 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. If you know of any reliable source which calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or a demo-album, then please share the source with us. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jubileeclipman, Wikipedia is very clear on the definition of demo. The opening sentence in Demo (music) says it all: "A demo version or demo of a song (shortened from the word "demonstration") is one recorded for reference rather than for release". There you go. WP defines a demo as an unreleased work, as against an album that is officially released. Amsaim (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Slow down!!!! Slow connection alert! Thanks for that Categorization link... you learn something new every day! I actually agree with you, Ansaim: this is an article about the album not the individual songs. And I did go on to say "IMO, though, this is a compliation album, pure and simple"... I was merely pointing out the consensus as I saw it --Jubilee♫clipman 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, etc. Amsaim, consensus has been reached; it's very simple. Also, we don't use Wikipedia articles as guidelines, but even if we did, this would clearly be a demo album, since the songs on this album "were recorded for reference rather than for release." If they are released later, that makes them part of a demo album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub... Different editors interpret the sources differently --Jubilee♫clipman 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the individual songs. It's about the album itself. The songs on the album were recorded for reference in the early 1980s, but the album 'The Roxx Regime Demos' was recorded for release in 2007. Since the article is about the album and not about individual songs, the category must be a reflection of the subject of the article. Some further interesting info: there is a redirect from Demo album to demo (music). Thus Wikipedia does not make a distinction between demo-album and demo. According to Wikipedia a demo-album is a demo. The question here now is this: is 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, a demo-album? Reliable sources answer this question with "no". Amsaim (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jubileeclipman, what sources are you talking about? Amsaim (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No This has been explained over and over again and I have no idea what more to say about this. An album is a collection of songs. Demos are musical tracks recorded for reference and not intended for commercial release. Demo albums are collections of demos released together as an album. There are some albums which are commercial and some which are not. There are some demos which are released and there are some which are not. This is very straightforward. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What you've written above about demos and demo albums is your own personal opinion and your own original research. So far you have not provided any verifiable source to back up what you've written about demos/ demo album. Does allmusic.com agree with your asseessment about Demos and demo albums? No it doesn't, because it defines 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a compilation. Wikipedia's entry on both Demo album and demo does not agree with you, as it calls a demo-album a demo, and a demo is a recorded work not intended for release.Amsaim (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OR No, it's not my own personal opinion, nor is it my own original research. Album, Demo (music), WP:ALBUM, etc. Thankfully, Allmusic certainly does agree with my assessment since it calls this an album and it says that it is "comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos." Hence, it is a demo album. There is nothing contradictory about a demo album being a compilation, and nothing on Wikipedia says that a "demo-album" is a demo not intended for release, but even if it did this album was not recorded for release so it is a demo-album even by your definition. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that calls it a demo album? Wikipedia articles need not apply ;) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Koavf has again resorted to misquoting a reliable source. Just for the record, please carefully take note of what Koavf is doing here: while Allmusic.com write this about 'The Roxx Regime Demos':

"And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band."

Koavf misquotes allmusic.com by writing this:

Thankfully, Allmusic certainly does agree with my assessment since it calls this an album and it says that it is "comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos." Hence, it is a demo album.

Anybody who can read and understand the english language is able to see this blatant misquoation. If you have any reliable source which calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or a demo-album, please share it with us. Until this happens, calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or demo-album should be considered original research or personal opinion. Amsaim (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is good the way it is now and consensus has been reached. Is there a way y'all could take this bickering somewhere else? It doesn't seem to be advancing the article, but I could be wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got called away from WP: I would have suggested that hours ago. Perhaps we could carry this important debate on at User talk:Jubileeclipman/Demo album? I detect that there are fundamental differences of opinion on the extact meaning of those sources we are all quoting from. We do need to deal with those differences but not here. I have started by asked some important questions but feel free to look at this issue from any angle you like. The consensus at this talkpage was to leave both Category:Demo albums and Category:Compilation albums on this article (which is the way it stands now) until further discussion resulted in a consensus to remove one or both, IIRC, so please respect that. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Who said you could have a life outside of Wikipedia? I don't think we've reached consensus on that. (that was supposed to be funny. If it wasn't, sorry)
2. I agree with almost everything you say. See below.
3. Maybe the place to discuss the fine points on this would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Right I am ashamed in myself for getting bogged down in this quagmire again. Irrespective of any other semantics, the consensus is that this is a demo album and on Wikipedia, consensus is king. This conversation is an increasingly preposterous waste of time and is in no way resulting in a better article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing stopping us discussing it on a user talkpage, though, AFAIK. Perhaps not annoy that WikiProject just yet... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus reached that this is a demo-album. What 5 editors have agreed upon is that the 'Demo-album category' should be included into the article, the EP-category should be left out, that the infobox should be compilation & the navbox should be adjusted to feature the article in the compilation section. From the 5 editors that have agreed upon this none was able to provide a verifiable source for the Demo-album category, the way Wikipedia's guideline on categorization requires. Walter has asked Koavf a direct question ("Can you cite a source that calls it a demo album"), and Koavf has not replied to the direct question. I am again asking the 5 editors to follow WP:CAT and cite a source that calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo / demo-album. Amsaim (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's a compilation album but not demos? If that's the case you need to learn how to read young man. The WP:V source is the stinking title. If it didn't have Demos clearly in the title, you'd have an argument. It's so blatantly obvious that they're demos that I don't know how you can even try to pull WP:V on us over and over. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article or the title of the compilation album are not reliable sources. That's not what WP:V and WP:RS is about. 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a compilation which comprises of demos. The compilation itself has been officially released as an album. That's what the reliable sources (like allmusic.com, mtv.com, msn.com, rollingstone.com) all say. Again, Walter, you are not understanding that this is the article about the compilation, and not about the individual demo songs on that compilation. So the category must describe the compilation, and not the individual demo songs. I am going to watch and wait for some time for a reply citing a source for the inclusion of the 'Demo album' category. If none is provided, the category 'Demo album' should either be taken off the article, or tagged with the "Category unsourced"-template. Amsaim (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Earlier you listed http://www.piercingmetal.com/cd_stryper_roxxregime.htm as a WP:V source. In that source, that you listed it reads: "For a bunch of demos there is still a sufficient amount of heaviness presented..." (emphasis mine). Thanks for providing the source that says it's a bunch of demos. That source never indicates it's a compilation album either. Also, if you feel you must add unsourced, feel free since it's your source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you seriously write that the object itself is not a reliable source? That's not true at all. The album title is a reliable primary source. Check WP:RS# Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." If you can identify how a title that includes the word demo cannot be a reliable source to indicate that it is a compilation of demos I don't know what can be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I see 2 issues here:

• 1. Concerning primary reliable sources, Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable Sources writes this: "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". If you hold the compilation 'The Roxx Regime Demos' in your hands, and you feel that you need to categorize it as a demo-album, then you can only do this if you can find the published opinion of a reliable author who also calls it a demo-album. Our opinions as Wikipedia editors are irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we as editors should only write in articles the opinions of reliable authors. Therefore, your interpretation of 'The Roxx Regime Demos' being a demo or demo-album simply because you saw the word 'demo' in the title, is original research, since you do not have a reliable source to back it up.
• 2. The article from Piercing Metal is referring to the songs as demos (plural) and not to the compilation album (singular). If Ken Price, the writer of the article, was referring to the compilation then he wouldn't have used the plural form (demos), since there is only one compilation album. Clearly Ken Price is talking about the individual songs on the compilation, which are demos from the pre-Stryper area. Keep in mind that the wikipedia article 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is about the compilation album, and not about the individual songs. The word 'demos' in the title of the compilation does not satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I suggest you get yourself a copy of that album, so that on it you can see that it is an album, and not an unreleased demo (that's what demo-albums or demos are: material that is not released by a recording company). If the editors at rollingstones.com, allmusic.com, vh1.com and elsewhere, who actually have access to the compilation album, can call it a compilation or an album, and not a demo or demo-album, why are you unable to accept their verdict? Amsaim (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that they're demos, it's the opinion of the band who entitled them demos. Period. Any suggest6ion that the title is a personal opinion is misleading and outright twisted logic. The article cannot be spun. It says they're demos. As a reliable source, it is conclusive that it's demos. Whether the fact that it's a collection of demos makes it admissible for the category of demo albums is not up to me to debate. Take it off this page. Any more eristic debate on this point of minutia is futile and I will not be dragged into it any longer. Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Any change would be going against consensus. That's my position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you never address the question of what the word "demo" in the title means leads me to believe that you know it's a compilation of demos but refuse to cede any ground in your running battle with Koavf, to which I have to say: It's not about you dude. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The singular word 'demo' does not appear in the title. What appears in the title is the plural word 'demos', and 'demos' simply means "demo songs". Allmusic.com says the same thing. It is evident that you do not thoroughly read what I write, or else you wouldn't make this claim, as I have repeatedly stated what the reliable sources say: this is a compilation consisting of demo songs. And concerning what you've written about "the opinion of the band who entitled them demos", Stryper themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album and not a demo, as they have listed it in their album discography. It appears as if Wikipedia's guideline on how to handle primary sources doesn't seem to impress you. Primary source material (in this case the title of the compilation album) is not to be interpreted by Wikipedia editors themselves, but editors are to publish the opinions of reliable authors about these primary sources. There you go. It's not about what you or I say or think it is. It is what reliable authors (not wikipedia editors) have published. As long as you cannot point to a source which clearly calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo or demo-album, then calling it so is your own original research and personal opinion. Amsaim (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an eristic debate with which I will not participate. I am reporting your actions to an admin. Let's let them sort this out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your call. That way the personal attacks you made against Koavf will come to the attention of the administrators. As for me, I am simply discussing the issue at hand on this talk page. Amsaim (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I am fully aware of the personal attacks made and I even mentioned them in the request. Your threat of outting doesn't scare me and it too is considered a personal attack. I considered slapping a "page ownership" template on your talk page, but I'm done for now. If I come back, it will be at the request of someone else. You have shown your colours and I will have no part in your grandstanding eristic debate. You requested consensus and when you didn't like the consensus you fell back on procedure. You can't have it both ways. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how did I miss this? I thought things had calmed down, and it looks like things completely exploded. We have plenty of sources saying, correctly, this is a compilation of demos. Thus, for the box, calling it a compilation makes sense, but since all of the tracks are demos, having both categories at the bottom of the page, where most readers don't look anyway, seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think there should be any concern that the article is going to be deleted because of it, as notability has been established. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the title of the release is 100% absolutely a primary WP:RS. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Torchiest, primary sources, according to WP:RS, are not to be interpreted by Wikipedia editors: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo / demo-album because of the word 'demo' in the title, is an interpretation of a primary source by a Wikipedia Editor. WP:RS does not permit this as it tells us that Wikiepdia only publishes the opinion of reliable authors (not Wikipedia editors). What therefore is the opinion of a reliable author concerning 'The Roxx Regime Demos'? This is the issue at hand. As of now we have several reliable authors (like the writers at allmusic.com, rollingstones.com, mtv.com, vh1.com, msn.com etc) who define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a compilation / as an album and not as a demo/demo-album. Amsaim (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter proposed the CD review at PiercingMetal.com as a reliable source, however, when you read through the entire article, you will notice that the author is writing about the songs on the compilation, referring to the songs as demos (plural). Please allow me to further elaborate on this in the collapsible below: Amsaim (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CD Review by PiercingMetal.com

PiercingMetal.com writes: "I like the idea of the band releasing their demos to the public years later..." - the word 'demos' here is referring to the individual songs (plural) and not to the compilation, otherwise this would infer that there are several compilation ablums, whereas there is only one. "What you are hearing now is how the demos sounded at the time of their recording...." - again the plural form, referring to the songs, and does not define the entire compilation as a demo-album "I found it interesting to compare the original demos to the finalized albums production...." - plural form again here referring to the individual songs "Don’t get me wrong and think that these demos sound bad" - again the plural form indicating the individual songs "My personal favorite from the first album was “Loud ‘N Clear” so it was cool to hear it in demo form and the same applies for “You Know What To Do”" - clearly talking about an individual song (Loud n Clear), referring to the song as in demo form. In summary, the CD review of PiercingMetal.com does not define 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a demo-album. It merely writes about the indvidual demo-songs on the album, and calls the songs 'demos'. Amsaim (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My discussion page looks a little lonely... I offered it in all seriousness and chose my examples quite deliberately: each of the albums I chose contains demos but may or may not be a "demo album", depending on your perspestive (or rather, on the perspective of the RSs and how one interprets what they say). Is Nebraska a "demo album", for example, given that it, also, was put together from various individual demos (many of which were not included in the final release) rather than recorded as a unit and offered as a demonstration album wholesale...? The album was put together at the last minute after the band versions were rejected, IIRC. There has been no discussion of this (or anthing, actually) over at Talk:Nebraska (album) and this is not the place to discuss it, obviously: hence my centeralised location --Jubilee♫clipman 10:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page you opened is a good idea. It's only been open for a couple of hours now, so it should be given more time in order for other editors to notice the discussion page and start discussions there. However I respectfully disagree with you when you try to stop this on-going discussion on this talk page, because the issue at hand here is about 'The Roxx Regime Demos', and it should be discussed right here. I will join the discussion on your page and contribute there as well, but for the time being this discussion about 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is at the appropriate place. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry: I meant that this isn't the place to discuss either Nebraska or the actual "Demo album" category. It is indeed the place to discuss the article The Roxx Regime Demos and I apologise if I appeared to suggest otherwise. However, I think a centeralised discussion about the entire subject is necessary, now, as do others (including yourself, of course) --Jubilee♫clipman 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a demo album. 'Demo album' only makes sense as a description of the album itself was intended as a demonstration, which this clearly isn't - it's a compilation album containing tracks originally recorded as demos. The few reliable sources that discuss 'demo albums' do so meaning albums that are released in order to attract record company attention,[1][2][3] - not the case with this release.--Michig (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC) It isn't an EP either. EP's are not defined solely by length. If it was marketed as an album rather than an EP, it's an album.--Michig (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both statements: it is neither EP nor "demo album", IMO. However, we still need to define what we really mean by that latter and you have suggested three overlapping possibilites in my user space talkpage --Jubilee♫clipman 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had reached a consensus, is there really any need to keep dragging this trivial matter on and on? Aren't there more important things? Rehevkor ✉ 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The RfC got plonked over here by one of the editors over at WP:RfC but wasn't properly formatted as an RfC so Amsaim and I tweeked it somewhat when it landed here. The consensus is good so far as it goes but it only tolerates the existance of the "demo" category without actually justifying it. The thing gets dragged out because the debate is far from over... And, in the bigger picture, the question of whether an album (or a single, for that matter) is a "demo" is not a trivial matter but a matter of central importance, IMO. The issue can't be dragged out forever, though, hence my attempts to keep everyone talking --Jubilee♫clipman 23:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing from Rolling Stone

The Rolling Stone link is broken as a result of a massive restucturing of that site; see Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Rolling_Stone.3F for discussion about this. The only place on the entire site the even mentions Stryper I can find is: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[8622,33643] Note the horrendous code and the square brackets that will need to be coded as %5B and %5D to avoid breaking the wiki markup, ie as http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=%5B8622,33643%5D: compare

• [8622,33643 this]
• and this

... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment from 29 April 2010

The status of this release (by Stryper using material written when they were called Roxx Regime) is questioned by several editors. Is it a demo album, a compilation album, both, neither or "other"? The present article was the subject of a recent AfD at which it was kept and the precise meaning of the word "demo" in WP:NALBUM has been questioned (though that particular section has been changed since the AfD). Please help us to end this debate 20:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubileeclipman (talk • contribs)

Editor harej has moved the entry from the Rfc board posted on 29 April 2010 to this talk page, and so for better readability I have used collapsibles. Amsaim (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the collapse box for even better readability... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Album or demo?

For the following music-related issue I am asking the community to please voice its opinion.

Editor Koavf insists that this officially released album is a demo, and thus the article must be deleted. For his claim he has no proof and does not back up his personal opinion with any sources. What he does is to misquote a reliable source by leaving out the part in the album review that calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation (see here, here and here).

In 2007 the band Stryper released an album consisting of demo-songs from their earlier years when they were called 'Roxx Regime'. The name of the album is 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. The album was released by the recording company 535 Records. All major professional players from the music business have defined 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be an album or a compilation:

• Allmusic.com writes: The 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band
• MTV.com lists it as an album.
• MSN.com lists 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as a compilation.
• vht.com lists 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album.
• PiercingMetal.com calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album.

There are numerous other reliable verifiable sources that have identified 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as an album. The Stryper band themselves call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album

What's the difference between an album and a demo? A demo does not have the legal status that an album has. A demo does not have a Label Code (LC) number. A demo is not released by a recording company. These are merely a few differences between demos and albums. Demos are not eligible for the RIAA sales count.

It can be assumed that Koavf has difficulties understanding this difference. The very moment a band goes to the studio with demo-songs, and release these same demo-songs as an official album (with LC number etc.) the demo has become an official album and has ceized to be a demo. The community has cleared agreed on this.

In 1982 Bruce Springsteen recorded several demo-songs. These demo songs were later on mastered in the studio and officially released as an album: Nebraska. Editor Koavf has no problem with this album, as he dares not to touch the Nebraska article. However in the case of Stryper's 2007 album release 'The Roxx Regime Demos', he has prodded the article for deletion, taken the article to Afd, and after the Afd resulted in Keep, he is now actively changing the type of album on the article from "studio" to "demo" (1, 2, and 3). I have taken Koavf to both Ani and Avi over this matter.

Could other editors please look into this issue, and voice their opinions on whether 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is an album or a demo? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I read through the AFD, and there appears to be agreement that it is an officially released album. The AFD is quite long, but note in particular the last few comments which sum up the situation. I think that in trying to make a strong case, you are being a bit wordy, and that's working against you, because when I read your remarks above, "A demo does not have a Label Code (LC) number", etc., I thought you were saying this album does not have an LC, which made me think, well then, it's not a public release. But after reading the AFD, I see you are saying this one does have an LC, and other characteristics of a commercial release.

So getting back to the current concern, the problem is that another editor wants to change the album "type" parameter in the infobox to "demo", and you feel that is confusing, because while the source of the music is songs that were once recorded as demos, the album itself is not a demo, and calling it such could lead to another future ADF nom. I agree.

As to whether it should be called a studio album or a compilation, it depends on whether it compiles material from prior commercial releases. If it contains material from several demo sessions or demo releases, rather than previous albums and singles released to the public, I don't think it should be regarded as a compilation, so studio album would be my choice. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be either? Technically it's neither a studio album (which by my understanding (or opinion?) of WP:MUSIC is the only kind of album that inherits notability; I could go on for hours about the vaugies of that particular guideline but this is not the time or the place) or a demo in the traditional sense. To me it seems closer to a demo than a studio album; compilation seems to be the best bet, even if it is a compromise. Rehevkor ✉ 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Demo albums The idea that "albums" and "demos" are contradictory is a false dichotomy. E.g. Nebraska (album) or Magnapop (album). Amsaim keeps on posting this same complaint everywhere except the talk for that page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen this brought up here, ANI, AfD and never in the place it should be; the article talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Roxx Regime Demos. 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/20100317111841/http://www.stryper.com/Discography/Albums/albums.htm to http://www.stryper.com/Discography/Albums/albums.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)