Jump to content

Talk:Pete Townshend

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.30.180.228 (talk) at 19:43, 8 February 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Page protection

Why does it still need to be protected? Sumbuddi (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Superbowl thing is still ongoing, correct? and that's not countered by any need to rush to unprotect the page, as far as i know. anyway it would be good to see the results of this good hard work last more than a couple of hours Sssoul (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware there ever was a 'Superbowl thing', given that this article was protected during the media coverage of that (seems to be the period December 29th-January 4th), which seems pretty much dead now, and given that it was protected then, we don't know if it was an issue then anyway. It's protected for a content dispute that's now resolved, at least according to the template Sumbuddi (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the template text is designed to suit various situations; my understanding is that in this case it's the "until February 10th" part that's specifically relevant. the protection was extended following a request related to the Superbowl "campaign", and the February 10th end date was specifically chosen because it's after the Superbowl – here's a diff to refresh your memory: [1]. is there some reason to rush to unprotect the article? i hope it'll remain at least semi-protected, and that the page can stay stable for a while. Sssoul (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I originally unprotected the page as the dispute appears to have been resolved for the moment. Per the protection policy, particularly WP:NO-PREEMPT, full protection is against the spirit of Wikipedia and pages should not be left on full protection for long periods due to pre-emptive concern of future vandalism or edit warring. The reason I originally fully protected the page, edit warring over the Operation Ore investigation section, now no longer applies as the dispute has been resolved above. I will be watching the page; if edit warring resumes full protection can easily be re-instated and the version pre-dating the edit war (probably the consensus version above) reverted to per WP:PREFER. Given reasonable concerns over the Superbowl issue, and the WP:BLP status of this page, I will in the spirit of compromise leave it on semi-protection until the February 10th expiry. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the clarity, Camaron, and for the semi-protection, and for keeping an eye on the page. Sssoul (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References, archives, etc

This was a little hasty, wasn't it? I didn't sign off on the references. I said above that I would have to review them.Pkeets (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i gather you mean the change was implemented and the discussion was closed overhastily, not that the protection level was changed too hastily. apologies for having missed that your approval was conditional on review of the refs – i reacted to Davidpatrick's suggestion that someone should make the edit request. we can of course continue to discuss it. the previous discussion is now the entire Archive 4, and there's a link at the top of this page, so it's easy to access it if necessary, but the refs are more easily accessible from the article itself.
for everyone's information: the admin who added the revised paragraph for us set the talk page to auto-archive threads older than 31 days. that might be a bit too frequent for the normal traffic on the page, but i guess we can try it. by that criterion the recent consensus discussion should technically stay on the current page a few more weeks - or should we should just leave it preserved as Archive 4? Sssoul (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as Archive 4. You've pointed out where it is to anyone interested in the discussion.Pkeets (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Are more than enough on this article and need to be cleaned up. --Scieberking (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all but his official websites and the standard allmusic/imdb stuff. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i think some of the ones eliminated are potentially more appropriate/worthwhile than "the standard allmusic/imdb stuff". could you undo your own edit, please, so that we can discuss on the talk page first which ones should be kept? thanks Sssoul (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to re-add those "worthwhile" links, but in a limited number. --Scieberking (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbose Introduction?

"Townshend is the primary songwriter for the Who, having written well over one hundred songs for the band's eleven studio albums, including concept albums, and the rock operas Tommy and Quadrophenia and popular rock radio staples including Who's Next, plus dozens more that appeared as non-album singles, bonus tracks on reissues, and tracks on rarities compilations such as Odds and Sods. He has also written over one hundred songs that have appeared on his solo albums and various compilations of rarities."

Why not just say: "he wrote over a hundred songs as a member of The Who and over a hundred songs as a solo artist as well."

Doesn't it go without saying that the songs would be released in various formats and on different albums?

65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Townshend&oldid=342760179"