Talk:Spit (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kittiespit.jpg

Image:Kittiespit.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 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) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Singles

The singles' pages are now redirects to the album. They contained the following information, in case someone wants to add it to the article:

Brackish

"Spit"
Song

"Brackish" is a song by Kittie, released as the first single from their album Spit.

Track listing

1. "Brackish" (3:06)
2. "Da Shit Ya Can't Fuc Wit" (2:16)
3. "Charlotte" (Alternate Mellow Version) (3:53)

Video

Video: Brackish (3:02)

Video Directed By: Candave Corelli, Juli Berg
Video Producers: Laurel Harris, Michael Santorelli

Charlotte

"Spit"
Song

"Charlotte" is a song by all-woman aggro metal band Kittie, released as their second single from their album Spit.

Tracklist

1. "Charlotte - Alternate Mellow Version"
2. "Suck - Live"
3. "Spit - Live"
4. "Charlotte - Alge Remix Radio Edit"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spit (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/kittie/albums/album/302361/review/6067655/spit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tanya Candler

Something in the article needs to talk about how she left the band after recording and how Talena Atfield joined afterward. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Arrangement of info in WP:LEAD

I was going to start it myself, but I figured it might be better done by Statik N, the article's main writer.

Anyways, the lead/intro needs to be reorganized a bit. A lot of the information is good, it's just that the ideas aren't really grouped together very well. For example, looking at what it looks like at the time of writing this:

In this order, it mentions:

1. Album release date of Jan 2000.
2. Band forming in 1996.
3. Band signed to label in 1999.
4. Album recorded in 1999.
5. Album certified Gold in 2000.
6. Album finished in 1999.
7. Album delay lead to release 2000.
8. Tour was in 2001.

Conceptually and chronologically, it jumps all over the place. Similarly, the critical and commercial reception are mentioned in different paragraphs.

I'll leave it up to you on how you want to reorganize, but you probably want to rework it so things flow more in chronological order, similar ideas are mentioned together, and some of the sentences can probably be merged together or cut out. (ie it mentions being recorded in 1999 twice.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Improved the lead. What do you think of it? Statik N (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's...a step in the right direction...but I don't feel like its fully fixed... Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What else should I work on? Statik N (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Spit (album)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Seems perfectly fine to me. Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Although most of this article is good (i.e. the reception, composition, etc), I have several issues.

1. The page has suffered from an increasing amount of bloat since the original GA review in 2017; sometimes feels like sections have been copy and pasted around. And poor writing, no straight narrative (or chronology; you understand what I'm getting at); i.e.

"Kittie was formed in 1996 and got signed by NG Records after the band approached Jake Weiner, the record label's second-in-command. After seeing Kittie play live, Weiner signed the group to NG during the summer of 1999. NG was then acquired by Artemis Records toward the end of 1999 and Kittie recorded Spit at EMAC Studios in London, Ontario during the summer of 1999."

...among other really confusing repeats of stuff to do with NG's acquisition and whatnot, and influences. just hard to read

2. having done some extra research, page has several inaccuracies with dates or lack thereof (resolved those) which have created additional chronological difficulties. More sources are needed. Sources are still being found.

3. page lacks any details regarding things like "the legacy/reappraisal" of the album as one of the best of the nu metal genre; it, and some of its songs, have received accolades, with the most recent being a spot on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Metal Songs of All Time list. (ask what citations, i'll give you them) The lack of acknowledgement makes the page feel unfinished to me (and yes, I will do something! I'm not asking for someone else to find them, so don't ask)

Notify: @Tbhotch:, 2017 GA Reviewer, @Statik N:, biggest contributor Chchcheckit (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If this doesn't get any traction, contact me as a last resort prior to closing and I will attempt to fix it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to close this now, since I've fixed everything I've said here. I mean, it could be reassessed to see if its still aight, but idk. I don't think this has traction Chchcheckit (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, i guess that's the new criteria; does this page with its new contents still stand as GA or are there things I need to fix Chchcheckit (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

page retrofit

hola. i have retrofitted the page, mostly from the ground up but with a lot taken from previous versions, for a number of reasons:

• irrelevant references/tighter writing with restraint; a lot of mess from the previous 2 years worth of attempts (work commenced in march 2023). some stuff was no longer needed but bc of confusing transition to bibliography things got messy. my bad
• history/chronology issues: a lot of new details kept creepin in as time went on after after juggernaut 3 came in mail i realised a lot had to be redone here. i.e. now we know talena does in fact play on album and morgan plays bass also?????? wild
• more better/musical commentary; i.e. not just "they're girls and they're killing it, they're girls and they're killing it" bc that was playing into the exact stuff they (kittie) complained about at the time
• better commentary/aftermath: see point 1. also: my viewpoint on a lot of things has changed; i was 19 when i began, now im 21, and a lot of what to do and not do, and where i stand/understanding what i am supposed to do, has been learnt in between.
• referencing issues from before i was in: i.e. "washington post suppelement" was band's press bio. other stuff clarified also. a lot of sources removed/replaced bc they were random online blogs, mostly replaced w newspapers. many of the newspapers are accessible via wikipedia library.

for further exposition on this article from me, see here. idk if this is good but in the end i am trying and that's what counts, right? // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

also: i would like to thank User:MFTP Dan for help/suggestions // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Spit (album)

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because... at this rate,, I might as well make this a featured article. In the two years of trying/failing to write this thing up, I've essentially scoured the earth for sources and I feel it now covers most if not all bases in terms of content: however, I know I have likely overlooked some things or am aware of things I am struggling to address that I desperately need an outside opinion/comment on, especially on gender (having tried and failed to address this for 2 years and i am tired/head done in). the last two years of versions until the recent march 2025 rewrite have all sucked because I was still processing things whilst trying to write, instead of thinking about the quality of my writing. I need outside comment, because I just want to be over and done with this and I think i can actually do it now, for once.

Stuff I'm aware needs doing

• reduction of quotes and rewriting in my own phrasing
• reducing number of citations where possible (i.e. random online blog interviews: reviews, in composition and reception, are currently all from reliable sources) to most important ones
• i need to check up on some more touring citations: i.e. for sevendust february 2000 tour and i think there was some other tour towards the end of the year
• Need to change "Choke" sample because it is citing the band's press kit. Will likely replace this with "Brackish".

Stuff I'm stuck on how to address

• Gender issues/gendered writing: pervasive issue in reviews/media that the band didn't like, morgan/mercedes say the media reception to album led to stigma later down the line
• Neutrality especially on gender; again because it is a contentious issue. especially in legacy/aftermath section(s) per above point. also the third paragraph of music and lyrics overview which deals with misconceptions about lyrics and song titles and the band's contemporary denial of feminist associations to their lyrics (or smth). either way, i don't know if i'm making a big deal out this than it should be.

Idk. I want to actually get this right for once. I want reviewers to call me out in the bluntest and harshest of tones so I can actually get this right. I am tired of failing and want do succeed at this for once, since I basically don't plan on doing another FA (that isn't an fa list; i.e. discography) after this. // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Chchcheckit (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)