@Moisejp: Again, thank you so much for the review. And ditto from me: I always enjoy working on these song articles with you. I especially appreciate the spirit of collaboration you bring to the process each time – it's not something that every reviewer necessarily applies, unfortunately! All the best, JG66 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
out/in deep waters, also sprach Yoko
These are deep waters that may be better left ... out.. of the article:
One problem with a book of this nature is that of consistency. Let me take a
few examples. Speaking of the track “Revolution 1” (The Beatles) as part of his lengthy consideration of “Tomorrow Never Knows,” Reising declares that “the band pointedly follows the lines, ‘But if you talk about destruction / Don’t you know that you can count me out,’ by adding ‘in’ to replace ‘out’... the slower, mellower version carries a harder revolutionary punch” (126). Yet in “We All Want to Change the World: Postmodern Politics and the Beatles’ White Album,” Jeffrey Roessner’s consideration of that same album interprets Lennon offering “a statement of his own confusion”:
He sings, “When you talk about destruction, / Don’t you know that you can count me out... in.” In his indecision, he gives equal weight to both the “out” and “in.” By the time the Beatles recorded the faster, raunchier version... Lennon had made a commitment. . . . he wanted to be counted “out.” (149) Well, which is it? We should note that Reising takes an ahistoricized view, comparing the two versions (“Revolution” and “Revolution 1”) as equally present, whereas Roessner’s phrase “by the time” indicates a more nuanced position. Logically, perhaps, either “in” replaces “out,” or it doesn’t. Or, perhaps more advantageously, we need to acknowledge that whether or not “in” replaces “out” is a matter of interpretation, a matter of taste, a matter that cannot be objectively determined. That realization is crucial, and the didactic tone of some of this writing seems not to admit the possibility
...and also sprach Yoko, in a bit with several other usable quotes, see "hodgepodge"
[1] But I will make one tiny point. Revolution "in" and "out" seemed to have been a big issue for the revolutionaries in those days. John was simply saying his spirit was "in" but his body was "out". A confession of a truly conceptual guy. His idea of
Hey, I thought about editing either the article or your sandbox, but I guess I just don't have the passion for this topic that you do. Do you have access to JSTOR? This article (below) explains why the Beatles are modernist rather than postmodernist, and the explanation resonates with comments in other articles: "Nothing's going to change my world": Narrating Memory and Selfhood with the Beatles: Kenneth Womack, Style, Vol. 44, No. 1-2, New Psychologies and Modern Assessments (Spring/Summer 2010), pp. 261-281. There are several other useful-looking articles, including one written by someone named Tim Riley, though I dunno if it's the same Tim who edits here. This article also seems quite informative: "Helter-Skelter"?: The Beatles, the British New Left, and the Question of Hegemony. Oded Heilbronner, Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1/2 (Fall 2011), pp. 87-107. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)07:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for interrupting. I noticed that Slant Magazine said that the song "bass drops" into an arrangements which is a "pop rock arrangements". And just like Let the Groove Get In section where says has a pop arrangement which not means a pop song genre. 123.136.106.165 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:It's All Too Much 1996 jukebox single.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:It's All Too Much 1996 jukebox single.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
According to Template:Quote/doc, citations can be placed ‘[a]fter the quoted person's name, in |author=, when a |source= is not being added’ and ‘[a]fter the source title, in |source= (the preferred location when both attribution parameters are present)’. I know that's not {{quote box}}, I don't see why a distinction would be made between quote boxes and block quotations in general. Esszet (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Esszet: Thank you for starting a discussion (although I was actually referring to the article's talk page). I appreciate that you don't see why a distinction should be made between the scenarios, but I (and many others, it seems) do. I pointed to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band FA as an example where the same approach was used as in "Love You To" – box quote accompanied by the citation; speaker given below – and that's the approach I have always followed, having seen it applied so often when I started expanding song and album articles for GA nomination (mid 2012 or thereabouts). So I think it stands, for those reasons. And yes, in my opinion, it just looks better. JG66 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you go here, you'll see that such usage is far from universal. I'll take this to the template's talk page; this would not be the appropriate place to attempt to develop a consensus about this. Esszet (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article It's All Too Much you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: Sorry, I had no idea you'd even started on the review. The page is on my watch list, of course, but I'd not received any notification of recent activity at Talk:It's All Too Much (which I appreciate would be transcluded from Talk:It's All Too Much/GA1). Bizarre. I'll start on it as soon as I can. JG66 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to bother you with this task, but for the "Recording" section of the "Norwegian Wood" article, I could use one or two more sources. I have one book that could cover everything; however, I would prefer variety if that's possible. Thanks for your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It must be a British/American thing. In the US, "fluff" as a verb means to make something softer and fuller. It's what you do to a pillow. I have never heard "fluff" used to mean to make a mistake. We use "flub." I'm not sure which word should appear about an event done by Americans and Brits in the US.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bob Caldwell CSL. That's interesting – there does seem to be a division in meaning, doesn't there. It is a BritEng-style article, but I take your point. I'll try to think of something suitably mid-Atlantic! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hekerui: Ah well. It'll give me a chance to read through the article myself over the next few days, and maybe pick up one or two things. Do you think it might be an idea to add a comment on the review page, just to keep the GAR "alive"? JG66 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on another GA. I know this is not PR but how often does one get a critical eye on one's articles on here? Never. (Although the Beatles were popular so maybe you do.) This is why I was picky despite my terrible delay in starting.
Also, maybe you're interested to know that every year the Berlin embassy of India has Kamalesh Maitra memorial concerts where all his pupils play, the next one is on April 11. I've never gone, I admit, and I didn't have the chance to see him, but his memory lives on. I surely want to help if you need another review on an article on ICM. All the best for you! Hekerui (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hekerui: Oh please don't worry about the delay – nor the level of scrutiny. The article obviously needed it. And besides, if I'm honest about it, I could have done a whole lot more after saying above that I'd be re-reading the text in the meantime.
I'd love to catch one of those Maitra memorial concerts; I've got a brother living not too far away who raves about Berlin generally – could be a good reason to meet up there … (What I'd really, really like to have done is catch Maitra, Hariprasad, Shivkumar, Rakha, Lakshmi et al. at one of Ravi's Music Festival from India concerts in 1974. Alas, as with almost all the music I like, I was born way too late!)
And thank you for the offer to review in the future. You know, I just wish there was a biography or two on Ravi Shankar, or at least a study of all his works. I've got Raga Mala and My Music, My Life, but until I find a couple of dedicated 3rd-party sources, I don't feel that any of the Shankar articles I've started or worked on are really worthy of GA nomination. JG66 (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the Revolver article. While I was reading it, I realized it was really good, enough so I checked for a Good Article plus. Tagus 07:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tagus: Thank you so much, that's very kind of you! And thanks for the encouragement, because the Revolver article has long, long been on my to-do list to finish & nominate for GA … Best, JG66 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ojorojo. Thanks for starting that, I'll come along and add something soon. Funny thing is, last week I was looking at a song article and thought "Aha, there's an excellent example of that ital + quotes issue and why it's useful ..." Can I remember what the article was, now? No … JG66 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sainsf: Ha – too much! In my sign-off at the review just now, I mentioned the many exclamation marks we contributed there – I guess I felt slightly self-conscious, knowing it's a GA Review. Anyway, no restrictions on exclamation marks when it comes to user talk pages …!! Thanks again – it's been such a pleasure with "Long, Long, Long", writing it and the GA process with you. And that "sunset near Königswalde (Germany)" on your user page – I still haven't got over that yet … JG66 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think we should try to be formal on GA review pages, Talk:Bay duiker/GA1 will make you rethink! And to be honest, I spent hours searching for the most breathtaking panoramas on Commons! Wish I could add tons of them to my userpage. Sainsf<^>Feel at home16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work!! Any chance I could interest you in Wp:Atdrag. I don't know if you like the Stereophonics or Manic Street Preachers, but they're on my core list. If you feel like expanding a Welsh band/album or musician this month it would be a great help! It could even be something like that cottage Led Zeppelin used to stay at! Ritchie333 and page stalkers are quite welcome too!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: thank you, that's very kind. And that's an admirable initiative you've got going, Wp:Atdrag, I'm well impressed – but at the same time I'm afraid I'll have to decline. I'm just stretched so thin right now – my list of GAs-in-the-making doesn't even begin to cover it! I'll try to look in at a Stereophonics or Manic Street Preachers article, see if I can add some contemporary reviews if nothing else. You've pricked my interest with the Zeppelin cottage too, which gets me thinking about (the great, great) Ronnie Lane's time in Wales – I know I've got Mojo or Uncut features on both of those … Good luck with it anyway, Doc. JG66 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG66, I am wondering about a recent edit to "Sunshine of Your Love" and you're the George expert: "BeatleGeorge Harrison also contributed to the track, though his work went uncredited" with Bill Drake & The History of Rock & Roll 1981 (a radio series) as the source.[2] I didn't find anything at Google books with "harrison" and "sunshine of your love" and the series is not searchable. Is there anything to this? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ojorojo. That's a new one on me, and I would've thought GH & EC's friendship began a little later in 1967, if not early 1968 (at least in terms of hanging out and exchanging ideas). One thing's almost definite: there's no way Harrison was in New York over April–May '67, so that would count out him participating in the session, if that was his supposed contribution. I suppose all you can do is introduce the point as a claim, unless you're really sure the whole thing's baloney … (PS: "Expert"? – I'm flattered!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The editor added it to the "Recording" section and uses "track". Your info on the time frame (and lack of any other RS) rules that out. He probably got SOYL mixed up with "Badge", which is also in the same radio episode and mentions Harrison. Thanks! —Ojorojo (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caden: Of course I don't, and I enjoy working with others on these articles. But you're sure acting like you own articles here. Taking "Ticket to Ride", that's just ridiculous, the attention afforded the Carpenters' version (the inclusion of a personnel list for example). JG66 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's you who is acting like you own it, not me. The Carpenters section and list was not written by me. Both were a part of the article way before I ever edited that page. Just because you write GA articles does not mean you own them nor does it mean you are better than others who edit. Cadencool04:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket to Ride
In Fred Bronson's book of Billboard number one hits, Paul McCartney is given songwriting credit to "Ticket to Ride" so I'm not sure why you undid my edits. Cadencool15:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caden: Well, take it to the article's talk page. There's a couple of editors here I want to ask about this same issue: when so many Beatles biographers or other sources seem to sidestep McCartney's claims (and it's particularly noticeable in Womack 2014, because the author goes on to quotes from Miles 1997, p 193). I'm not undoing your edits per se, Caden, I'm trying to expand the article and give the subject the attention it deserves. JG66 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very weird to me that Paul McCartney is being sidestepped by biographers/sources. I like him and his music so it's just weird he's not getting credit. Anyway your idea of asking others is a good one. I think it's best that you bring it up on the talk page. Is this okay with you? Cadencool15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is seen as something of a revisionist, obsessed with his legacy, to put it mildly. I'd read Howard Sounes' book and others, but I hadn't appreciated just how much this was the case until I worked on Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now. So, I'm not too surprised to see McCartney's claims to Miles treated as such (i.e. as "claims") by biographers and authors who are otherwise generous towards McCartney. JG66 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain to me why you are undoing nearly all of my edits? It makes no sense why you reinstated the "Other versions" section when none of those covers charted and they do not pass WP:SONGCOVER so I'm not sure what you are doing. I was editing "Ticket to Ride" way before you showed up and I feel you have literally took it over. I'm trying very hard to work with you but I'm getting the feeling you are not interested. Cadencool15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caden: You can see I'm trying to expand the article, right? I made sure to provide an explanation in that edit: they don't have to have charted but they need to have had some discussion/critical commentary. If I can't find that for the versions I've brought back in, then they go, but like all the Beatles' best known songs, "Ticket to Ride"'s attracted a huge amount of covers and, perhaps more importantly, in a wide range of styles – so it can't just be ignored. But to repeat, I am expanding the article not undoing your edits. I'm sorry you feel I'm taking over, but I feel the article was completely underplaying the importance of this song, and I feel you're more interested in simply keeping it the way you had it than seeing the subject suitably represented on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see you are expanding the article which is good and you are doing a good job at it. However I feel the "other versions" should not be reinstated for the reasons I provided. I also feel my Fred Bronson book ref supporting McCartney as co-writer should be included but since you removed my edit I won't re add it. I will leave "Ticket to Ride" for good and let you do what you need. You are a very good GA content writer and you know what you are doing. Good luck and keep up the good edits. Cadencool15:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say Assume Good Faith. As I've said, none of those "other artists" covers will stay if I can't find the necessary commentary, although I've got sources for some already. But if we're talking about what should or should not be in the article, please note that, aside from the mention of all those Manchester groups preceding the song at number 1 in 1965 (and the list of other covers of course), I think I'm right in saying that the only non-sourced info in the whole article is around half of the text dedicated to the Carpenters' version. Meaning, that content is just as questionable.
Thank you for the compliment regarding GA writing. But hey, you don't have to leave the article for good, no one has to – you've just got to let other editors try to improve it. As for the Fred Bronson book, what does he say, that the song was written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney? Well, yes, that's how it's credited, but the only challenge to it being a Lennon composition in reality (as "Yesterday" is McCartney's) has come from McCartney in Many Years from Now. I get the impression that authors since then have ignored the claim, and in fact I've long been saying we ought to use that book with caution. As soon I made the change, I got a thank-you notification from an editor I know from working on WP:Beatles articles. There are currently four refs to support Lennon's authorship, and I reckon I could come up with four more, no problem. So if you want to pursue this, would you mind taking it to the article talk page? Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Something" lyrics
Thanks for the link. I tried to find them using various combinations of "something" "beatles" "official" "lyrics" without success. I guess "thebeatles.com" would have been too easy. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no probs. It's somewhat disconcerting to see Wikipedia's article on the song come up there – but heck, it's the band's official site, so one has to assume they've cleared the copyright issue for the lyrics! JG66 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Jay Way
The first image looks nothing like the view from Blue Jay Way, which is more important for the article. In fact, it is not possible to see downtown L.A. from behind the Hollywood Hills. I hope there are are more suitable images for the article. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That view is from the top of the eastern end of the hills, not behind. Also, fog should not be confused with smog (L.A. has both). The night photo is also taken from much further east. There should be photos from the site.[3] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: Yes, I'm aware of the difference between fog and smog. What I thought was fitting for the start of the article was a shot of a hazy/misty/foggy/smoggy LA skyline. Having already investigated what's available at Commons, I'd rather live with what's in the article currently. (Plus, I can't see us being able to justify including any of those zillow.com pics.) So the only question is, what geographical details would be correct to put in the captions for the two images, do you know? JG66 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the Westside it can get foggy at times and I've heard people refer to it as smog. Anyway, the captions used at Commons are correct. The ridge in the first photo is in Griffith Park and the view wouldn't be described as "from behind the Hollywood Hills" (that would be the San Fernando Valley). If you're happy with the photo (although the view from Harrison's house is quite different), a better caption might be "View of downtown Los Angeles from Griffith Park" or "from the eastern end of the Hollywood Hills". The second photo is taken from near the Hollywood Bowl and caption is fine. BTW, when the editor that added the bold to the time signature returns from break, I am going to ask if it can be defeated for use in text. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: Sorry if I was a bit snappy there. Thank you for the factual info re Hollywood Hills (or what's not the Hills). Much appreciated – I'll be changing the caption(s) accordingly. Far as that time sig template goes, yes the bold treatment is a problem, but imo the thing looks so out of place in text anyway. I'm not surprised it's rarely/never used in song articles, at least from all those I've seen. JG66 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should leave the images alone (i.e. retained in the article). I've already put it up for discussion at FFD. Removing it during discussion would deprive readers from engaging in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you were interested in this dreadful episode I mentioned at the review, here is a link to it [4]. I did not want this link to go on the review page, and may be hurt someone. It escalated from an AN/I complaint to an ugly editor review, it will take a few hours to get through all those walls of text. Sainsf(talk·contribs)18:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sainsf: Wow, that's huge – I'll have to set some time aside to read it … Thanks, and I think it's nice of you to present it here rather than at the GAR, out of sensitivity towards the editor. JG66 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She had a very bad time, and it is a wonder she did not leave Wikipedia forever after the level of tension she must have had for a month. Instead, she responded with such politeness and tranquility, and she continues to be someone I and many others are proud of. Indeed an inspiration. Sainsf(talk·contribs)18:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a potential article for you. It's currently a redirect to a not-very-notable website, but I think if we look carefully in sources we might be able to retarget it as the "supergroup that never was" containing all the former Beatles except McCartney, plus Billy Preston and Klaus Voormann. Let me see what I can come up with. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JG, it's going great. I don't mind the label being replaced (the sleeve definitely looks better on the eyes than that green label...). Go for it. Yeepsi (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ojorojo. Ah that's a shocker – I'll remove the link. And no, nothing for any of the Beatles' solo songs at beatles.com. Used to have all of Harrison's lyrics at georgeharrison.com, I seem to remember, but that's no longer the case. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the White Album is a bad example. The only reason to continue numbering side 2 from side 1 and side 3 from side 4 is that this is how they appear on the now more common compact disk versions. Sides 1 and 2 are on disk one and sides 3 and 4 are on disk 2. (Even so, I disagree with this logic. If you're going to refer to original album sides, each one was numbered separately on the record labels and album covers. Preserving this is important for an encyclopedia entry.)
However, this is not the case with Bangladesh. Sides 1, 2, and 3 are on disk 1 and sides 4, 5, and 6 are on disk 2 (along with the bonus track). Therefore, side 3 should continue from side 2, side 4 should start fresh, and side 5 should continue from side 4, if we are going from the CD.
Several double or triple albums that fit onto multiple CDs have each side numbered separately: Woodstock, Yessongs, Ten Years After's Recorded Live, The Last Waltz, Four Way Street. Some double albums that fit onto a single CD are numbered separately: Dylan's Blonde on Blonde and Self Portrait. Conversely, Humble Pie's Performance Rocking the Fillmore is numbered continuously through all four side, presumably because the album fit onto a single CD. Fitting none of the other patterns, multiple disk albums that fit onto two CDs that are continuously numbered through all sides include the Grateful Dead's Europe '72 and Dylan's Before the Flood.
The point is that we have a mess. The Track Listing template shows the White Album as described above without explanation for why it's numbered that way. The only discussion on numbering says, "Note that a track listing does not have to start with a #1 or continue with 1, 2, 3... order (e.g., for having side B of an LP start at track six or leaving out empty tracks preceding a bonus track)." [italic mine]
I think we either need to present the numbers as on the original vinyl album (preferable in my view) or as on the CD format. To continue the numbering between sides of a vinyl disk, as you have done with Bangladesh, seems to me to be the least defensible and least preferable option. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Caldwell CSL. Hi there. Well, I do see a logic in what you're saying, but I think you're focusing only on the possibility that the rationale is based on the change from LP to CD format. Aside from that, the White Album example is in the template documentation so that's the approach we should follow, surely. If you feel so strongly about it, then how about starting a discussion at WP Albums or, better, at Template talk:Track listing with a notification on the Albums talk page? – you could well get the whole issue sorted/reversed. There was an attempt about two years ago (it'll be in the archives there), but from memory, consensus favoured sticking with the approach outlined in the documentation. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know I've passed "Simply Shady" at long last! Thanks for your patience, and for all the hard work you've poured into this and other articles. It's lovely to see George represented so thoroughly in the GA Songs listings! Evan(talk|contribs)11:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Evanh2008: That's wonderful, thank you so much! It was great to work with you once more – good to know you're still around here, if not quite as Beatles-busy as before. All the best, and thanks again, JG66 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on Quote Boxes.
Hi JG66. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midnightblueowl, yes I'd seen some developments there. I'll try to stop by soon. Oh, and in case it needs stating: I was fully intending to weigh in before you left a message here. (Just thought I'd make that clear – I think you know what I mean!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Navboxes
Hey JG, hope all is good. I was always under the assumption that a navbox should appear in articles that have a Songs list in the template. Unless I've missed a guideline somewhere that says otherwise, I've always included navboxes in song articles. (I found a couple of essays here and here that might be of some assistance.) Hope this helps! Yeepsi (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Yeepsi: thought I'd keep this convo on the one user page(!). Thanks for your reply. OK, I've now reverted to my original way of thinking: as you say, if the navbox carries a Songs list for the artist, it should be included in the song article. Problem is, I've now got to go back and undo all the edits I made when removing navboxes … aargh. Cheers! JG66 (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She Don't Care about Time
I thought the same thing. "If I Needed Someone" has such a straightforward beat. Parts of "She Don't Care about Time" is straightforward too, but the notable parts are not present in Harrison's song. However, I could hear it fitting. I wonder if there is an early take where Ringo tried a drum pattern like that but they abandoned it. It didn't show up on Anthology 2, so we may never know. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob Caldwell CSL: I don't know, I'm flummoxed by this! I can't hear any likeness between the two drum parts at all. I'm no drummer, but to me, on "She Don't Care About Time", the drums are playing almost a "jagged, whack-and-jump" pattern (as one writer describes Starr's playing on "Ticket to Ride"). Some straighter stuff also, sure, but on "Needed Someone" it's dead straight throughout (unfortunately). The Beatles recorded the track super-quickly, in a single take, so somehow I doubt the likelihood of there having been a different arrangement. Anyway, the quote in the "She Don't Care" article is from Derek Taylor, I believe: I just wonder whether DT got a bit mixed up. Harrison (and McCartney) attended the session for the Byrds song and was highly complimentary about McGuinn incorporating the Bach piece into his solo … But rather than any similarities in the solos, I hear something "She Don't Care"-ish in McCartney's bass part, which was very much a departure for him, stylistically, at the time. So, I wonder if Taylor meant to say bass, not the drums.
Sorry to crap on, Bob. I love it how, during much of the '60s, these musical and philosophical influences were going back and forth across the Atlantic, and it's something I really like incorporating into song articles. But at the same time, I can't stand seeing something included that doesn't seem to make any sense! JG66 (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know it looks horrible.. I hate some of these guidelines lol. I had been doing it with the semicolon, then someone said that's a no-no. Then I bolded it on pages and someone said it's not good to have any kind of "pseudo heading". totally bogus. I won't change it back though because I agree with you.--Jennica✿Talk09:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jennica. Thanks – and I know what you mean. Some editors somewhat blindly follow/impose any old guideline simply because it's there … Well, a) it's a guideline, nothing more; and b) in this instance, the guideline does at least make an allowance for a so-called pseudo equivalent. Personally, I think aesthetics are important on the page. Taking that Pet Sounds personnel example (and there would be hundreds of others), there's no way we need such a grand heading for a list of 2 or 3 musicians, nor a whole lot of (unworthy) second-level headings then appearing under Personnel in the Table of Contents. If you come across problems with this – as you say, "someone said it's not good to have any kind of 'pseudo heading'" – then perhaps we should raise it for discussion sometime. Best, JG66 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JG66: Yep we are on the same page. I hate it.. and I even had a discussion on the Joanne (album) page and an editor preferred everything to be under a subheader. I think I'd rather everything be one big list if it's going to be like that. I've seen other pages do that as well. --Jennica✿Talk22:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dialing it back
You're literally the first editor in over a year that I can remember who actually dialed it back on request in an MoS related dispute. Ha ha. Longer version of MoS post (trimmed there to stay on topic for that thread):
Thanks, and sorry if I came off as dismissive. I really did not mean "get lost", I literally meant "look at MOS:HYPHEN again, then let's continue when we're on the same page about what it says", but I see how that didn't come across that way. Overturn? Skirt around? I'm asking to revisit the rationale for some fine details in the wording in this MOS:DASH section because it appears to have cognitive dissonance and we haven't looked closely at its wording in a long time, and this dissonance has caused an issue at an ongoing RM. It's actually very much like the LQ discussion above; we had not closely examined the exact wording in years, only dealt with perennial ranting to delete the guideline in question, and the same pattern has been around MOS:DASH, which various editors also like to rattle swords at. In both cases, some wording tweaks may resolve the issues. (Or I might just be wrong on the MOS:DASH thing.)
"Batting away productive editors and article writers" implies I'm not one, and ignores that the same group (from WT:FAC) were viciously attacking me and all other MoS/AT/CITE regulars again and again at "their" talk page, then they came in to do a LOCALCONSENSUS bloc vote to try to just outright delete a guideline some of them didn't like (a quote boxes matter that hardly ever comes up) apparently just to "show everyone who's boss", and seriously proposed their own "anti-MoS", and so on. "It takes two to tango." I specifically bailed from all these discussions for almost all of Oct. to just let that dispute die a natural death, and because I'm perfectly capable of taking wikibreaks. Not everyone is GA/FA focused; a large number of editors prefer to focus on small improvements to hundreds or thousands of articles, infrastructural coding, administrative work, policy stability, dispute resolution, etc. It's all challenging. They're just different interests and focuses. A cruiser needs a cook and an engineer as much as a navigator, or everyone starves while the boat stalls out at sea long before we get lost.
WT:MOS gets tedious and heated because its regulars care about stability, clarity, consistency, and the conflict-prevention capabilities of the guideline more than most of its specifics. But so many incoming commenters just want to change it to match what they learned in school or use at work. It seems lost on them that MoS is for cleanup work and never means "you can't contribute without complying". Most editors don't read MoS, or other P&G in any detail. Disputes happen when editors who know better feel too proprietary about every single character in an article and blockade guideline-compliance cleanup work, as if their living room were being invaded. It takes outright education to bring people up to speed on the diversity of competing style rules and why many of them are not appropriate for WP, but it takes endless, frustrating rehash argument since this isn't Style University.
Imagine if everyone came to FAC and told its regulars that none of their criteria are meaningful, that they're all a bunch of fascist obsessive control freaks trying tell other people how to write, and have no business telling people whether their article is good enough or not, etc., etc. The similarities are telling. I think FAC and MOS people conflict so much because what they're doing is so similar in so many ways, with the same goal of greatly improving quality incrementally with the synergistic effect of numerous often very nit-picky adjustments, that many article "authors" want to deny as things they should have to comply with. It's a bit like if two anal, temperamental, argumentative people try to date each other. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SMcCandlish. Damn it, whatever I write, my reply's gonna look inadequate after all that(!) … No look, it's all okay – I feel the way I do about that particular spaced-en issue, but I'm pleased that Dick has just posted to emphasise that there was no oversight as such, way back when. That's important.
And yes, this beast Wikipedia has many tentacles and each one plays an important part. You mention the FAC regulars: in fact, it's after seeing the level of cronyism, the popularity-contest aspect, at certain FACs, often to the detriment of a balanced article if the nominator so chose, that I decided years back to avoid taking articles I work on beyond GA. Funny old world. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for length. I type very fast and have a huge monitor, so it never looks like that much text to me. :-) On the "oversight" thing, yes, I see that he's correct on that. Tony1 also thinks we should look again at this. A review of the history of the discussion suggests we did not end up with the most sensible possible language, but rather that people argued until they got tired of it all, and progress stopped where we are now, which is contradictory advice that produces confusing, inconsistent output. Hopefully we can reconcile that in one direction or the other. I posted something at WT:MOS about addressing your concern (the one that something like "a techno-industrial – futurepop – melodic punk band" might structurally look to some people to be of the same form as "the specimen's albinism – its lack of melanin pigmentation – made its survival in the wild unlikely"). GA and FA: I was wondering why you had such a thick stack of GAs without FAs. I understand fully. I only have a few GAs (I've written more GA-quality stuff, I just don't bother going through the GA process), and have avoided taking any to FAC for the same reasons as you (plus now the add-on reason that all the FAC regulars now despise me personally as "one of those MoS people", since about two months ago). I should probably do the GA process more, since it's less wikipolitical. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed a few, obviously incorrect, hyphenations. I'd also like to change number-one to number one, as it's unusual, and unnecessary, for this to be hyphenated. Do you object to this? If you do, I'll take it to the talk page first; although such a minor alteration shouldn't really require consensus. Obscurasky (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
