User talk:JG66

For all previous messages, please see talk archives for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, JG66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Other useful pages:

• Album style guide
• Album sources

Revert

See here I don't see what the problem is here... Adding images to an FA? How is this a bad thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

But you do see what the problem is with making "changes to an FA without a single explanation, altering important dates, adding unsourced content, removing details that had been agreed by consensus" ... Or not?

With regard to the images you added, it seemed over the top, imo, particularly in sections covering post-breakup decades – and, of course, any revert should be seen in the context of the other, unexplained edits you made at that time. And you added an image under "In the studio" that already appears in the article. In short, it appeared you'd just gone pic-crazy there.

Something under "1957–1962: Formation, Hamburg, and UK popularity" might be welcome, but rather than the Art College picture you added, I'd think one capturing the Hamburg years, e.g. Kaiserkeller, would be better. Perhaps. JG66 (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The Beatles in 1966

Hi. I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#1966_World.3F_Tour. kingboyk (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, kingboyk. I've replied there also. JG66 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A Day in the Life

Hey JG, just wanted to say I don't mind if you removed the label if that's what you see fit. I haven't really been too active on Wiki in a while I will say (I'm surprised I even noticed your message!) but maybe once I gain some free time I can return. Thanks for dropping me a message, though: I'm glad we were able to collaborate on a few projects. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Beatleswhobeachboys – wow, I really didn't expect to hear from you for some time, having checked your contribs! Yeah, I hope you do get a chance to come back, perhaps work on another McCartney-written Beatles A-side together. And thanks, I will remove the "Day in the Life" label image. I mentioned the scope of FUR: I'm mindful that, if there's a chance of having a second non-free image in the article, it would be more effective and useful to include a shot from the "Day in the Life" film clip that has since been included on a couple of DVD releases. Of course, that's as long as there's some critical commentary to accompany any such image … JG66 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

JG66 - Hopefully I can get back to editing at some point. The most recent thing I was able to do was make an article for an Elvis Costello song ("Clubland") but even that was a long time ago. I'm just gonna hope my schedule clears up a little bit in the coming months. Not really too sure whether it will (fingers crossed!) but if it does I'd be happy to collaborate on other songs. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Something"

Good morning. I noticed you had redacted my edit to the article "Something," namely, the infobox and subsection for a country cover version that was a top 10 hit in 1974 in that genre by Johnny Rodriguez. You indicated that, according to your comments in the edit summary, "in no way does that Rodriguez version merit its own subsection and infobox." You will need to explain further, as aside from being easily sourceable (as far as its chart peak goes), why it doesn't belong in the article; although I'm sure you didn't mean it, it comes off as sounding like an opinion rather than based on Wikipedia's standards of notability. The fact was, it was a country hit and a notable part of his (Rodriguez's) career, and per what I understand the standards, meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)]]

Briguy52748, thanks for the message. I'll reply at the article talk page. (PS. If the chart peaks were so easily sourceable, how come you didn't provide any sources?!) JG66 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I must apologize; I just hadn't gotten to it. It is, FWIW, Joel Whitburn's "Billboard Top 40 Country Singles" (I'll double check on the title -- been used in many articles -- and then when I get ahold of my copy, I'll provide a page number. Simple enough.) Thanks. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)]]

Hey, no worries – perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it … I tracked down sources for all the chart peaks already. JG66 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

SPLHCB song infobox

I was in a rush when I reverted your addition last week and have been busy since, but I feel I owe you an explanation. Template:Infobox single#Parameters § Released (which Infobox song incorporates by reference) includes "This field should refer to the earliest known commercial release date, using a single occurrence". In my view, the Chronology and the Released fields should refer to the same occurrence. Mixing info about a later single with the original album track in an infobox seems to work against the "earliest, single" idea (I wouldn't include a track listing for a single which was later released on an album either). If I'm missing some point, please let me know. Or revert (I don't think it's worth belaboring). What's that line from Jefferson Airplane's "Eskimo Blue Day"? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo: Ah, I confess I had to google "Eskimo Blue Day" to get that last point (thought for a minute I'd end up at our old friend MetroLyrics …) Thanks for reaching out – I was slightly miffed by your revert, I must admit. I take your point about "the earliest known commercial release date ... a single occurrence", although I can't say I see the inclusion of a single chronology as such a no-no. It is a departure from dealing with the one/first/main-occurrence approach, okay, but I'm keen to avoid instances where one artist's recording gets two infoboxes – which would appear to be on the cards if, at "Pepper (song)", text were added to discuss the 1978 single release, particularly why it occurred. I suppose, like others who have weighed in at the Songs discussion, I'm still trying to get my head around the purpose of and approach to a song article's infobox(es). For instance, with the Cream "Crossroads" example you gave, the Jan '69 single is not the first known commercial release; that would be the release of Wheels of Fire in mid '68.

But hey, I'm not too bothered by this issue – I'm never one for getting "my way" at these sorts of discussions anyway. It's more important to me that everyone's views are heard so any decision or outcome at an RfC speaks for all of us. Do you think it might be an idea to run this Pepper example – the version as I had it vs the current one – by everyone at the discussion? Perhaps I'm overestimating the confusion that others might have (when the confusion's all mine) … JG66 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm coming around – some acknowledgement of a later notable single in the lead infobox song is preferable to two infoboxes for the same recording. However, is adding a singles chronology the best solution? Other possibilities may include listing the single with date in the Released or Format fields. If we start adding singles chronologies to song infoboxes, there is the potential for misuse – some may add multiple chronologies for different formats, charts, releases in other territories, etc. – which could significantly bloat the infobox. The addition to SP nearly doubles its size, which for a short article may extend too far into the rest of the article.

For "Crossroads", infobox single was already there when I started to work on it. I thought about changing it to song, but since it was one of only a few Cream singles and came out not long after the album, I left it. Same with "Sunshine of Your Love". I think a single release 11 years later (or 37 years for the digital hit single "Stairway to Heaven") is a different situation. You've given this more thought – how do you think it would work in a merged infobox single/song? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: You know, I'm really not sure of the best way to proceed, but the double (or more?) infobox approach for the same recording is the one I favour least. Again – and this was what brought me to the RfC – I find myself thinking: Right what would we do in this instance, in that one … For example, "Got to Get You into My Life" was a notable single in 1976, since EMI/Capitol were finally free at that time to reissue the Beatles' catalogue as they saw fit. But I'd argue that the '76 release still doesn't top the song's appearance on Revolver in terms of notability, not at all. So I'd think the sleeve image should appear in the same infobox as the Revolver release info, with a caption describing it as the 1976 single pic sleeve, obviously. I then wouldn't see the inclusion of a singles chronology as too much of a problem; to me, the second (single) release would be dealt with adequately without needing to give a second date or, say, a new track length. Another situation comes with "I'm Only Sleeping": its inclusion on the June '66 release of Yesterday and Today is highly notable, no question – so should we lose the Revolver song infobox, even though the latter release is the one that endures in almost everyone's mind bar discographers'? In short, all you get from me, I'm afraid, is constant admission of my confusion!

I hear you on the potential for misuse with chronologies. It might be worth considering ditching chronologies altogether, from singles and albums … I'm not proposing that, necessarily, but if we are recognising a possible nuisance factor there, it raises the question (in my mind): Well, why are we attempting to include a partial discography at all, when it's more of an add-on feature than a detail that is vital to or defines a particular recording of a song? With this point, I'm probably influenced by the issue of having a partial track listing in infoboxes. (I've raised this at Template talk:Infobox song#… and a bugbear: partial track listing but should post notification at Songs and elsewhere. I'd appreciate your input in that discussion if you had time.)

Don't know if any of this helps … JG66 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The songs you mention raise specific problems. I'm trying to think about a more general guideline. Maybe be bold and add a couple of different solutions and see what kind of response you get. Here are a couple suggestions, along with your SP addition: —Ojorojo (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"JG66"
Song

"JG66"
Song

Songs' notes

What is your personal problem with comments on reissue bonus tracks?

It is COMMON practice to write about the origins of the tracks, which did not appear on the album in it's original form. A lot of articles have this information. Nobody writes about every bonus track in the text section since there's much convinient way to place information. It has nothing to do with "encyclopaedic" article or MOS:ALBUM#Track listing, it nor allows, nor disallows to place such kind of information.

Personnally as a music fan, i also would also like to fully understand the relaton of bonus tracks to the album in the most handy way, which is look through the tracklisting, not reading the entire article. For my opinion wikipedia's point is to make information easyly available to people, not to complicate this process. Twistandshout28 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Who said anything about a "personal problem" – it's editorial judgment. Quite honestly, I find your comments here pretty lame. "It is COMMON practice to write about the origins of the tracks …" Yes, to write about them, not just insert comments in a track list. "A lot of articles have this information" – well, you've added it elsewhere, but no decently written article (say one that's been reviewed for Good or Feature Article status, or received a Peer Review) would include details in this way. "Nobody writes about every bonus track in the text section …" Yes, they do, it's just that you seemingly can't be bothered to expand articles such as Venus and Mars and Tug of War so you're seeing this add-a-line-of-background-per-track as sufficient. "… i also would also like to fully understand the relaton of bonus tracks to the album in the most handy way, which is look through the tracklisting, not reading the entire article." Well then, don't stop there: seems like you also want a line covering each of the album's original songs – you know, just to save you from having to read the entire article to find out about the content!

At Tug of War, for instance, your changes are completely unnecessary. All that B-side information could easily be added in the main text, and should be. Mention of the eight previously unreleased tracks should follow inclusion of the 2015 reissue in the Release section. Venus and Mars is similarly undeveloped. If that article were only halfway to where it should be in terms of coverage, "Junior's Farm", "Sally G", the two Country Hams single tracks, "Let's Love", "My Carnival" and "Lunch Box/Odd Sox" would all be discussed in the main text since they're all relevant to either the album sessions or to other projects in which Wings were involved during 1974–75. In fact, "Lunch Box/Odd Sox" and "My Carnival" are both mentioned in the main text as future B-sides (twice) – which makes the additions in the track list even more redundant. What these and other McCartney album articles need is some decent writing and expansion. So many decent sources out there (e.g. Chip Madinger & Mark Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You) detail the sessions, side projects, outtakes, relevant bootlegs etc – it's just lazy, and I believe encyclopaedic, to shove a line of explanation under each song in a track listing. JG66 (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Music Barnstar
		For your many quality contributions to music-related articles. Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Spike Wilbury, wow, thank you – that was so unexpected! I haven't had the requisite energy/enthusiasm of late to complete articles for GA nomination, so your encouragement is much appreciated. I'm over the moon about this, to be honest! (Especially as I see you still carry an image of a rather cool dude on your use page …) Thanks again, Spike. Best, JG66 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd dates...

This article has attracted a fair amount of date-changing recently...I don't know why. Last week I did go through and separately reference the divorce/marriage dates in the infobox so hopefully that will keep the apparent vandalism down to a dull roar. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, thanks – yeah, I only realised afterwards what had been going on, from looking at the article history and the talk page. I've got some ideas/concerns about the Marriage to George Harrison section – I'll raise them first at the article talk page, so I might see you there too. JG66 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Notices

I started a new discussion, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Removal and considered notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Britney Spears and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rihanna but decided not to as many other music wikiprojects would be involved. I know you notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan and Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 18#Template:Dark Horse tracks so I thought you might be interested.Gonejackal (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi JG66. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to improve a song's article. How do I go about analysing the sheet music of the song (chord progression, key changes, time signature etc). I was hoping you could help me because I would like to rewrite The Way by Ariana Grande because the article looks terrible. The sheet music I found is http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0116259 Thank you for you time. Kind regards Andrea353 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrea353, hello and welcome! OK … I'd say "The Way" could definitely benefit from the sort of musical analysis you're referring to. From the sheet music at musicnotes.com, you can grab a few important details:

• The song is in the key of A♭ major
• The time signature is 4/4
• The song's rhythm is in the pop/hip-hop style, with a tempo of between 80 and 84 beats per minute.

All the above points are explicitly stated on the page. I'm assuming that musicnotes is an acceptable source, of course (certainly looks fine to me).

If you come across any specifics about the backing, you might also be able to work in more details based on the mention of "finger snaps" and "effects" in the sheet music. For instance, I'd take anything that's purely descriptive from out of the article's Critical response section – e.g. Digital Spy's comments about the "bouncy piano riff" and "throwback R&B beats" – and work that into the new commentary/musical analysis. I imagine that other reviews of the song could provide more in the way of description and analysis. I work mostly on Beatles songs and/or solo Beatles songs, and admittedly we're spoiled for choice with anything Beatles-related (because there's an unbelievable amount of sources dedicated to each song); but I come across a lot of things that are purely factual in a review and can therefore be used in the sort of description you're wanting, even if the details appear side by side with items that are obviously a reviewer's personal opinion of the song (which belongs under Critical response, obviously). Perhaps the same applies to the lyrics in "The Way": a reviewer's comments might allow you to include mention of a constant refrain or something similar, supported by what appears in the sheet music.

Hope that helps – good luck! JG66 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow thank you for the advice. Is there a way I can find out if any authors or scholars have mentioned details about the song in books or journals? I couldn't find anything on Google. Really appreciated it. Regards Andrea353 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrea353, all I can suggest is check out the lists at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#Online and print and #Online only. (Perhaps you have?) The "Primary focus" column is a good guide for a specific genre, but there could equally be something relevant in a more mainstream publication. I've found trawling through sites (many I'd never even heard of before) does unearth a whole load of details. I'd say it's a bit early to expect to find "The Way" covered in, say, music reference books, although the copyright infringement issue might make it an exception. Could also be an idea to take a look at a few well-expanded Wikipedia articles (Good or Featured status) on similar songs/artists/albums – that could also produce some new sources for the Ariana track, you never know. Best, JG66 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a million JG66, you have been so helpful. Have a great day! Regards Andrea353 (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox song documentation

Well, the merger is finally happening. I see you've caught some bugs and I'm sure there will be more. Jc86035 has done a helluva job and I think he can straighten it out. Anyway, If you have some time, would you look over a draft for the template documentation? It includes the Track listing examples section that came out of the discussion. Since the collapsed and "we don't want 1,000 such templates" issues don't seem to be a concern of those who actually work with templates all the time, it seems that it's just personal preference. So I included all the options. Please fix anything that doesn't look right or make clarifications/additions, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps you saw one of my comments. A little frustrated, but just huffing and puffing, no more ... And I agree, Jc86035's doing a magic job.

I'll take a look at the draft as soon as I can, 'Rojo, most likely tomorrow. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't, but I see from your link (and other articles) that you sometimes set the extra header colors to other than the top header. {{Infobox album}} notes in the instructions for those subtemplates: "The type field should contain the same type as the rest of the infobox", "The album type (as specified above in the section "Type")", etc. This came up recently and I wonder if infobox song should be consistent with album. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo Well, it's nothing I changed or set as such, as far as I remember. But I've just tried changing the type to read "single" in one article, and I see what you mean. Will do the same elsewhere – I'd never thought about this until now. JG66 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the documentation looks better. I take it you didn't see anything else that looks out-of-step with current practice (except the tech functions). I've tried to make it it reflect the current situation as much as practicable. On the color issue, when using |prev_title= or |prev_track=, etc., the header uses the same color as the top header. So, it would seem that the extra templates should do the same (I've never used these, so I haven't given it any thought either). This may be something for the individual extra template documentation pages and not for infobox song. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the documentation with some examples of multiple parameter entries, etc. Please add/clarify as needed. BTW, "Think for Yourself" is another absolute winner. The problem is that it has no problems – quite a challenge for a reviewer! Maybe a FA? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ojorojo. Sure, will take a look soon. And thanks for the compliments about "Think". I found myself running round in circles with it towards the end, and finally pressed the button in frustration – so your encouragement is mighty welcome! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Best of George Harrison tracks

Template:The Best of George Harrison tracks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourced information, yet not sourced right next to the genre

Not sure whether or not I'm very clear on article pages for songs not necessarily needing to have the source right next to the genre. Although I do sort of agree on the genre being hard rock, as it is semi-hard rock as far as I'm concerned. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Please see WP:INFOBOXREF. The same principle applies in an article's lead section (unless, say, a direct quote is included, or a statement that's especially contentious): there's no need to include a source because the same details appear in the main body of the article. JG66 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Needle Drop

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. Will drop by there soon (I've been pondering the issue this whole time, unable to decide either way ...) JG66 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Revolver (Beatles album) 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album)

The article Revolver (Beatles album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Revolver (Beatles album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For finally getting Revolver to Good Article status including some excellent writing and diligent research; something which several of us having been meaning to get around to for years and years. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)