User talk:Dan56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Main Page appearance: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Beatles

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the eighth studio album by the English rock band the Beatles (pictured). Released on 1 June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success. After the group retired from touring, Paul McCartney had an idea for a song involving an Edwardian era military band, and this developed into a plan to release an entire album as a performance by the fictional Sgt. Pepper band. Knowing they would not have to perform the tracks live, the Beatles adopted an experimental approach to composition, writing songs such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life". The producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album included the liberal application of signal processing. The cover, depicting the band in front of a collage of celebrities and historical figures, was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth. One of the best-selling albums of all time, Sgt. Pepper is regarded as an important work of British psychedelia and an early concept album. One music scholar has described it as "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded". (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neo soul[edit]

The article Neo soul you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Neo soul for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've been awarded![edit]

WPABarnstar.png The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
Congratulations on your 49th good article and well done in improving numerous albums from the neo soul genre. The Wikipedia community is grateful for your contributions to the music field. Retrohead (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Precious again, "your" music on the Main page Marquee Moon, following the lonely hearts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification[edit]

This is to inform you that Song of Innocence, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 7 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. I have not scheduled an image; the lead image is copyright, the Blake image might misinform as to the nature of the article, and the other image within the article is tangential. Please let me know if you have other suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't too concerned about it to begin with lol. I trust your judgment. Dan56 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you for improving Wikipedia by contributing so many high quality music articles. Your work does not go unnoticed, and your time is appreciated. Keep up the great work, and happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite[edit]

AbbeyRoadZebraCrossingRevisited.jpg Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

Body Count (album)[edit]

Hey Dan! Wanted to ask you to take a look at the critical reception of this album, and eventually expand it. It's a shame for a featured article to have so tiny section when plenty of reviews are available. Thanks in advance and happy holidays.--Retrohead (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Musical note nicu bucule 01.svg

FAC input[edit]

Hi, are you still in need of people to reviewing your FAC for the article xx (album)? @JosephSpiral: (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Others responded and reviewed, but it couldn't hurt. If you notice something you believe needs fixing, it'd be appreciated, or if you don't and feel like supporting the nomination. Dan56 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Hey Dan, how's it going? Thanks for the message. I've actually never worked on an article going through nomination for GA ... what exactly do I need to do? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Like this. Now we wait for someone to pick up the nomination, review, and ask us to make corrections if needed. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks much. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sputnik review[edit]

Hey Dan, since you're more savvy with reviews and stuff, can you check whether Sputnikmusic has staff review for Kill 'Em All? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't :( Dan56 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah...[edit] email enabled. Too bad. @Drmies: (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

wha? Dan56 (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you don't have email enabled so I can't email you. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What is it you want to email me? Is it something you cant message to me here? Dan56 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously yes--but no matter, I don't like pulling teeth. Thanks, @Drmies: (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I enabled it. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing On Apatite for Destruction By Guns N' Roses[edit]

I added the glam metal thing because welcome to the jungle is a glam metal song and guns n roses is a glam metal band they are not heavy metal heavy metal is judas priest, black Sabbath, or metalica bands like Guns N' Roses , Poison, Bon Jovi And Motley Crue Are Glam Metal, Hard rock bands on occasion with those bands a couple of the songs are heavy metal crossovers like in guns and roses case its so easy, poison would be I want action, Bon jovi would be runaway as a hard rock glam metal heavy metal song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talkcontribs) 15:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, I just now saw your request for input. I see that the article is now featured! Congrats! Sorry I didn't help out in time. @Reece Leonard: (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I do have another FAC still open though, for xx (album), if you'd be interested in looking over that? Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Broke with Expensive Taste[edit]

Hey, I was thinking of submitting Broke with Expensive Taste for GA status, I've never really done it before though so I'm just making sure everything's perfect before doing so! I've been through the article and made some tweaks/improvements and I think it's pretty bang on for GA status. I see you've edited the article quite a bit, so could you possible have a check through it for me just for second opinion? I'd really appreciate it. If you see nothing wrong, right off the bat, I'll submit it for review, thanks Face-smile.svg Azealia911 talk 14:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would get rid of the tour schedule since listing all the dates is discouraged by MOS:ALBUM#Touring; a date range (like "from September to August of..." so and so), and I would also get rid of the review, since the site isn't very notable, at least relative to other reviewers available. Apart from that, a good-article reviewer will likely ask you to make some minor changes and fixes, so I think it looks good enough to be nominated. Dan56 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Will make the changes you've suggested, thanks for taking a look at it for me! Azealia911 talk 16:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Angel Haze discography/archive1[edit]

Mind leaving some comments? Thanks Face-smile.svg Azealia911 talk 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Online access[edit]

Hi Dan -- I was thinking it would be nice for the reader to have access to the online source.[1] And you're right that, for purposes of what we're citing, the book and website duplicate each other. Both are of course just as valid, but the website is more accessible. Better just to cite it instead, then? Cheers! --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't consider both equally valid. Technically, Christgau's website is self-published, albeit an archive from a reputed critic. The issue of accessibility is discussed in WP:OFFLINE, which suggests that shouldn't be the basis for distinction between online or offline sources. Accessibility shouldn't be a concern for readers, only editors. I've been told in the past the original source of material or quoted text (Christgau is quoted in London Calling from the book) is preferred over archives or reprints, like the review snippets you see at CD product pages (CD Universe for instance). And IMO, I see the original source being cited as more encyclopedic and academic, so I would still prefer to see the book being cited over a page with no date/context to prove it was a "retrospective" rather than "contemporary" review. A reason for much of the Christgau hate among wikinerds is that they are not aware his website is an archive of works previously published in magazines, newspapers, and books, giving the impression it's not legitimate or professional, like Piero Scaruffi. Lastly, WP:RS#Quotations says, "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Dan56 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Christgau is completely reliable as a source for his own views (and an established author in his field), so SPS is barely relevant here, if at all. And accessibility is good (for both readers and editors; common sense applies here). And if we really want to cite the original, we'd have to go back to the Village Voice (or whichever magazine first published these short reviews). You know what? The book is good. The website is too. Two citations, each of value to the reader in different and complementary ways, is not citation overkill -- and at any rate WP:OVERCITE is not PAG. Let's keep the reader in mind (not to mention other editors who may want to check Christgau). Am restoring the website as a second source. No harm in doing so. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 04:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
"Accessibility is good" is not a valid argument; I don't see what you mean by common sense applying here. Apart from resorting to our personal preferences and opinions, what guideline suggests we should add a citation additional to the original for the sake of readers being able to see the review and grade themselves? As an encyclopedia, we're including the portions of the source material we believe is most relevant to readers when they are reading a particular article, so they wont have to look it up themselves. The original source for both the grade and the quote is footnote 51 --> Christgau, Robert (1990). Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s. Pantheon Books. p. 92. ISBN 067973015X Either this source verifies the grade and the quote or not. If you believe it doesn't, then that's a reason for adding what you have added. Otherwise, common sense would say what you added is extraneous because there isn't a distinction between online and offline sources, but you are trying to make one by saying one is preferable because it is more accessible, which WP:OFFLINE says is irrelevant. WP:RS#QUOTATIONS says citing the original source of quoted material is preferable, so just leave it at that. Dan56 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, the guideline I originally referred to you WP:CITEOVERKILL#Reprints, "Another common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications ... as if they constituted distinct citations. Such duplicated citations may be piled up as multiple references for the same fact". That is what you did, adding a second citation with the same content, published elsewhere, to verify the same thing. "When possible, the retained citation should be the originator of the content rather than a reprinter or aggregator", i.e. page 92 in Christgau's book over his website reprinting it. As for harm, not much, but two footnotes for one grade could be jarring and unattractive to readers and not uniform with the rest of the ratings (not to mention the rest of what is cited in the article, to just one source, many of which are also original print sources not accessible online), which draws unnecessary attention to this particular grade. WP:CITEOVERKILL explains the downside to multiple consecutive citations, which can "look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode ... they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability." It especially stands out in a ratings template limit to 10 entries, where the one with multiple footnotes will obviously standout. Apart from WP:RS#QUOTATIONS and WP:CITEOVERKILL#Reprints supporting my position on this, there is no harm in leaving it as it is either. Dan56 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. Was about to make basically the same edit and was nearly e/c'd; GMTA. :-) It's a great album, isn't it? For me a desert island selection. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 07:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)