Jump to content

User talk:JG66

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingboyk (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 20 March 2020 (→‎The Beatles Barnstar: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For all previous messages, please see talk archives for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

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:

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)[reply]

Thank you! Other useful pages:

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, thank you for the kind message – very thoughtful of you. I hope you and yours go well also. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath for GA

In case you didn't see here, would you like to co-nominate the article for GA with me? isento (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isento. Ah, I did wonder whether that was addressed to me ...! It's a very kind offer, and I enjoyed working on the article with you on and off last year. Not sure I'm up for full nom commitment (same reason I've not nominated anything for a couple of years now), but I know you'll do a great job on the article anyway. Perhaps your activity there will pique my interest.
One thing I remember leaving unfinished – in that it's an issue that appears to have informed the writing and recording of the album – is the arrival of Anita Pallenberg in Brian Jones' life and the slow exit of Chrissie Shrimpton from Jagger's. I'd always intended to cover that under Background; think I might have made mention of it in a comment accompanying one of my edits. The point that a couple of biographers make is that Pallenberg gave Jones the confidence to experiment musically and a sense of sophisticated cool, while her presence made Jagger view his relationship with Shrimpton as staid and spent – all of which comes out in the album's music and lyrics, of course. Perhaps that's oversimplifying the situation and/or a case of biographers looking for something significant in retrospect and milking it for all its worth, but I'm sure you get the drift. JG66 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year, and thank you for the feedback :) I've expanded a bit about this from the Davis book and nominated the article. I look forward to the review, and potentially featured article nomination in the future. isento (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Isento, no probs, and happy new year from me.
Blimey, that was quick work with the GA nom ... I was thinking of stopping by and perhaps adding something on the Anita–Chrissie situation, perhaps from the Bockris, Norman or Charone bios. I mean, maybe you've nailed it (I haven't looked yet) – in which case, fine. But would it be a problem to you if I did? If so, I completely understand; I know how the nom thing can get a touch stressful ... JG66 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it wouldn't be a problem. Please do. Anything to improve the article. isento (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel a rush or pressure to contribute or make improvements either. There is time. The GAN list for album articles looks very backlogged, and the GA criteria on stability only raises edit warring or content disputes as issues. isento (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Just skimmed through the article – it looks really good. Sections are long and the quotes and commentary come thick and fast, but that's fine; far as I can see, all the commentators' opinions and interpretation add something – it's all good info and combines to give a great picture of the album. Oh yes, I'd almost forgotten about the long, long wait that often ensues between nomination and review. JG66 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great additions! isento (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isento, I like what you've done at Musical style, pulling those various comments together. From working on Beatles articles for so long (where there is no end of commentary on each song), I guess I'm used to seeing each track given a dedicated paragraph separate from an overview of the LP's styles and lyrical themes. I'm finding, as I'm sure you are too, plenty of commentary on all the Aftermath tracks – in Davis, Guesdon & Margotin, Malvinni, Perone, Norman – but at the same time, there are some obvious filler tracks so we can probably live without the song-by-song rundown for GA. Just thought I'd mention it; not sure if that applies for FA also – you'd know far better than me. (Starting with Beggars Banquet, though, I'd say each and every Stones track is significant and treated as such by commentators, which would make the detailed coverage at, say, Sgt. Pepper appropriate. Anyway, with the Stones' releases up to late '67, there's the issue that there is no "correct" version of an album; the US configurations were not swept away by international standardisation for CD, and American writers still appear to view Aftermath in the configuration first released by London Records.)

My recent change to tense for introducing Jagger's lyric to Out of Time got me thinking: I've probably been introducing inconsistency regarding commentators' views, in that I see them as living on in the present (just as Jagger "sings", because the work lives on; whereas if we're talking about the vocal session for Out of Time, Jagger sang it). To me, the past tense in instances such as "Jagger ... was said by Margotin and Guesdon" and "Ian MacDonald said that like Between the Buttons" jars somewhat because these actions are presented in the same contemporal context as that of the album's creation in the mid 1960s. In some cases – not necessarily at Aftermath right now, but generally speaking – it is possible to read mention of a journalist having said or written something as an event that took place side by side with the description of the album's creation. If a year is inserted ("Writing in 2002, Ian MacDonald said ..."), then no problem, obviously. But I'd be tempted to go with present tense as much as possible ("According to music critic Ian MacDonald ...", "Tom Moon likens it ... but adds ...").

Put another way, when discussing particulars of a song or album, we'd still say the vocalist sings (even though they sang it decades ago, and may be dead now), so in the same way, I think each critic, musicologist and other commentator says/states/writes/considers. I'll leave the decision with you, of course, but FWIW, this is an approach I've followed for years and seen others adhere to also. JG66 (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, to have the commentary or description of songs in the analytical sections as present tense; those writers are being cited as existing literature, whereas a section on reviews is documenting reviews as events of the past. isento (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like your recent revisions, too. I would suggest, however, that the note about "Under My Thumb" (nb3) be incorporated into the text, somewhere in the third paragraph about Jones' role in shaping the album's tone. It seems like a significant item to the writing and recording. isento (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work overall! The sections have more shape and sense to them in light of your additions and rearrangements of certain text. isento (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're okay with the present-tense thing. As far as the note about "Thumb" goes, as with anything else I'm adding, feel free to rework, move or ditch entirely – that's understood, you've probably got a better feel for the article as a whole.
One thing I still hope to address is the dynamics between Jones, Jagger, Richards and Oldham, outside of the issue regarding female companions. Part of this appears under Writing & recording already, but I'm thinking it's a point for the Background section. It relates to the idea that Jones was the most adventurous Stone, the one first embraced by the London arts scene and the one who epitomised Swinging London fashion and image, just as he was the one with the New York arty connections and the closest to Dylan and the Beatles. Pallenberg furthers this, because they become Europe's Golden Couple (Salewicz's phrase, I think). Added to this point, the Stones have ended 1965 with enormous commercial success for their singles, attracting Allen Klein's representation, and they've suddenly got money to burn in early '66. So that attitude informs Aftermath. And, to link with the Stones-women point, it also brings out in Jagger a sense of entitlement: he wants a companion commensurate with his elevated social standing, the sister of a famous model was no longer sufficient (he wanted Julie Christie, apparently). Meantime, it bugs him and Oldham no end that Jones so effortlessly commands attention from the press and the Chelsea arts scene.
So, something like that ... Not that I'm volunteering for the task elsewhere, but I can see (because biographers go on about it so much) that this sort of power play is behind every Stones album at least until the late '90s. JG66 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My life is taking a turn for uncertainty now. I may be homeless for some time, on the road, and unlikely to access a computer to continue working on this in the foreseeable future. I am leaving it up to you to continue the nomination or remove the nomination template and leave it for someone else or for the future, if I come back. Hopefully I do, but either way, take care. isento (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll do my best with the nomination, but if the review comes too soon or is too taxing, I may just have to throw it back. I'm much more concerned on the human front: I sincerely hope things work out for you, and soon. If that means you're back here on Wikipedia, then even better. Best of luck, stay strong. JG66 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm back for now. Brilliant work in the mean time. isento (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isento, I'm so pleaded to hear it – sounded a bit scary, your previous message.
Also relieved from the point of view of progress on the article. Still trying to get that Background section to serve its purpose, eg it's tempting to introduce Swinging London there, since several commentators highlight Aftermath as a document of that scene ... JG66 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison

Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be :P Again thanx for the heads up. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime: Very good of you, big thanks. Have a nice day. JG66 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: CS1 discussion

Since you mentioned you found "cite organization" a possibly good template, User:Debresser and I have started a User talk:Debresser#Template a technical discussion on creating it, if this is something with which you might be able to help, or know a coding editor who can. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All You Need Is Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Band Aid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:"I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" UK sheet music cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:"I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" UK sheet music cover.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final Reply - Agreed Lennon & McCartney - No further talk / Redact

Apologies for posting on your page, I don’t see any other way to respond to messages. I responded on that “Ob-La-Di ...” Talk page but have no clue if that was read. Your message about no further talk is fine. Now that I know the appropriate forum I‘ll post it there. This weekend I’ll read that “Redacting” info and redact all angry, sardonic, “shouty” or negative posts. I already changed some. I simply request that you do the same and redact that comment about “blathering” or any similarly negative posts. Please simply reply that you’ll also redact any negative posts. I won’t contact you after that. Thanks. WB (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the article talk page. JG66 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for replying on your personal Talk page as opposed to the original Talk page, but once again, that doesn’t seem to work for me. This is my final post to you, so just delete it.

All I wanted to say is that I will “Close” that Lennon & McCartney credit discussion on the “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” Talk page, and introduce the topic on the appropriate page which you kindly pointed me to.

I read your comments as well as one by SundayClose, but I never get a “Reply” text-box whereby I can respond.

I responded via editing the raw HTML and made each of your usernames hyperlinks, but even that didn’t seem to work.

I read that “Redacting” info and my understanding is that once a discussion has been replied to, it can’t be “Redacted”, so the next best thing is simply to “Close” it. It doesn’t belong on that page anyway, as you’ve pointed out.

And FYI, my “shouty” and angry comments every time my edit was reverted were the result of me not seeing the reason it was repeatedly reverted - I didn’t see those posts until later, and the first thing I saw was “blathering”.

I’m aware of Wiki’s “3rd party source” policy but I became very frustrated because if the copyright isn’t a legitimate 3rd party source, then I don’t know what is. But I won’t get into that here. I’m just letting you know that no offense was intended.

I did respond on that Talk page, saying essentially what I said here, with a bit more detail, which you can read or not, up to you.

Peace WB (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:George Harrison US single face label, Circles, 1983.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:George Harrison US single face label, Circles, 1983.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help Request

Dear JG66 I have just reached out to User:Martinevans123 because I received help from both of you in the past. This time I came to the support of two other Editors and have now become embroiled!! If you have time and can be bothered I really would like your help on an ongoing Dispute resolution Noticeboard. I realise this album may not be on your playlist but I am hoping for common sense. I noticed that user: 197.87.101.28 had added nonsense and had also had it removed by an Editor, User: isaacsorry a '30 million copies' claim. It was removed once again, this time by User: 88marcus. It was put back in again!! And then I stepped in and supported User:88Marcus by removing it myself and giving reason on the talk page for this nonsense. We really need some senior level intrusion here, and if you can read the dialogue you will see what I mean. The citations are simply statements of "30 million sales" there is nothing to back it up and certainly nothing on any 'best selling album of all-time lists'. Your experience and help would be much appreciated as the previous Arbitrator has now stepped out. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69 kind regards to youMuso805 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've just posted something at DRN. JG66 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Martin got your message. Pinging here. JG66 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got a ping thanks, but had not read the detail. Will try and take a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. have had a quick look. I am far from a expert on record sales. I'd be interested to see what a real popular music expert like User:Ojorojo would have to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note. The DRN thread discussed here was archived to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187#In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida_(album). --kingboyk (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks to your brilliant work, Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) is now a featured article. It's been great working with you recently. Hope all's well. isento (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
isento, big thanks, and ditto from me. Great job in pulling the article together (perhaps your example will inspire me to pull my finger out and get back on the nomination trail sometime soon ...).
I did get the feeling, from occasionally seeing your edits to the lead, particularly, that we might be "bigging up" the album unduly. Aftermath was a major leap for the Stones, and it was one of the incremental steps towards rock/pop's cultural validation, but it wasn't up at the level of, say, Pet Sounds, Revolver and Blonde on Blonde in most critics' and music historians' view, partly because the Stones went on to make Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, etc. Again, it's only a feeling on my part, and I've yet to re-read the article in any depth anyway. I guess it's about the contradictory picture one gets from music journalists writing a review or a feature on an album decades later vs how music historians, who (one hopes) aren't out to laud any work in particular, locate that album in a more sobre analysis. Just thought I'd flag it with you now – could be I'm worrying about nothing. Certainly don't want to take anything away from the result nor your gesture here! JG66 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Impartial observer here who dropped by on Beatles business. I personally think the first great Stones album was Satanic Majesties, but that's an insane-minority view :) It's probably not a minority view that Beggars Banquet was when they fully came of age and started making truly great albums (and then there's Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls, etc) Anyway, my rating is besides the point, but let's talk about the article - and congrats on the FA:
I haven't read the article in full, but the lead statement "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums" makes me slightly uneasy. It all depends how you define "most acclaimed". The article says the album placed 109 in the Rolling Stone list and 98 at Pitchfork, and is ranked 150 according to the review aggregater Acclaimed Music. To me, "among the most acclaimed records in history" would mean it was consistently ranked in the top 10 or at my most generous, the top 50. 150 really doesn't cut it. I'd expect an album which is "among the most acclaimed" to be discussed in the same breath as Revolver or Blood on the Tracks, and frankly it isn't; the article itself claims the album is merely "the most important of the Stones' early, formative music". Personally, I would tone down the claims in the lead a little. --kingboyk (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Isento: Ping, in case you're not watching this page. --kingboyk (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
kingboyk: There's nothing I like more than original thinking in life, as opposed to simply following the crowd, and especially here on my talk page. But wow, Satanic Majesties ...?! (Mind you – whisper it – I'd put Beatles for Sale way above Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road, so what do I know?)
I agree one would expect to see a consistent ranking within critics' top 10s (I'd stretch to top 20 or 30) to justify Aftermath being "among the most acclaimed records in history". And that number 98 at Pitchfork is only a ranking of the best albums from the 1960s, btw. When helping to expand the section that became Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Accolades, I noticed that Aftermath did not appear at all in the original (1978) edition of Critic's Choice: Top 200 Albums. I appreciate that every "best" list carries a major surprise or two, often on the whim of the publication's editor and to make a statement. But to me, that was a notable (and puzzling) omission, because the book's contributors were top-flight critics from the UK, US and Germany. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I appreciate your opinions, but the sources cited and summarized in the article do support those summaries. The claim that it is the Stones' most important/formative album is also directly supported in Legacy and reappraisal. It actually is discussed in the same breath as such albums in that section -- even one of the few dissenting views cited (Rob Young from Uncut) acknowledges the existence of such a reputation. As far as Acclaimed Music's tabulation, through 2013, it had been listed as the 125th most acclaimed album. And now, it has moved down 25 spots to 150th, after seven years and, very likely, many hundreds of thousands albums, not to mention the trillions that had existed before -- which may explain why those greatest albums lists usually have hundreds listed, sometimes a thousand. Give this context -- the infinite amount of albums in record music's history, and the select hundreds that have consistently appeared on professionally curated lists, and the supporting text from expert sources -- I believe the claim stands. isento (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in their essay, Pitchfork demerits the album for content it disregards as "misogynistic". Which is not surprising, given their target audience and today's political climate. It is actually impressive the album even made their list's top 100. isento (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the article is missing music-historian commentary on Aftermath's standing with those contemporaneous works, that as you say deems it not on-par, I would be glad to see it incorporated in the article. Then of course, it would diminish the summarizing claim. isento (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it does very much depend on how one defines "most acclaimed" and essentially that means at what 'number' being most acclaimed stops at. For me, it's in the range 10-50. I take your point that there have hundreds of thousands of albums, and can see how you would conclude that an album which (for the sake of argument) is the 150th best according to reviewers is amongst the most acclaimed. Also, I do now see that you have some quotations and citations in "Legacy and reappraisal" which attribute importance, so that's cool.
I'll leave it there for now as I'm getting a bit too tired to form a coherent argument :) and I was merely agreeing with JG66's concern that the importance might be slightly overstated; you've been through FA review and that's good enough for me.
BTW, Q Magazine writers ranked the 100 Best British albums in 2000 (reposted by the Guardian), and Aftermath wasn't listed. It wasn't in NME's 1993 All-Time top 100 either. Of course, taken individually these lists mean very little. --kingboyk (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think its standing is being inflated. Isento, I take your point that further music historian commentary would be welcome, which would then affect the picture given in summary in the lead, but the point I'm making refers to the album's omission from such analysis (which, by definition, is impossible to bring to the article). When working on the section(s) we're talking about, I felt sure a book like Carys Wyn Jones' The Rock Canon would be useful; it summarises critical opinion for many of the genre's major works rather than simply reflecting the author's opinion (as books by, say, James Perone do). In fact, I found nothing there, and from searching the preview, it seems Aftermath doesn't even merit a single mention. To my way of thinking, when it comes to the lead we should be considering these omissions, from books about "classic" rock albums and important critics' lists, as much as the statements that do locate Aftermath among rarefied company.
The lead's final sentence currently states that it's "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums". I suggest that rather than allowing a subjective viewpoint (any of ours) to dictate what counts as being "among the most acclaimed", we substitute with the number 150 all-time ranking at Acclaimed Music, and also change "consistently" to "frequently", because no source supports the claim that it consistently appears on these lists. In fact – and this was what got me looking in books like Wyn Jones' Rock Canon – the only source we have to support that Aftermath appears on so many lists is the album's page at Acclaimed. I think there'd be no shortage of sources (outside album reviews and features on the artists) that say Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, Beggars Banquet, Exile, Astral Weeks, etc. regularly appear towards the top of critics' lists of the best albums of all time – indeed, I know this for a fact, from reading books such as The Rock Canon that are built around this point. But I've not read any such statement about Aftermath from the same type of source, which is why it strikes me as out of place in the lead. JG66 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
isento: Big thanks for your recent change to the article lead. I think the wording's far more accurate, without taking anything away from the album's impact and significance. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, is All Time Top 1000 Albums (which is cited in the Aftermath article) considered a reliable source for ratings? (it appears to be an opinion poll, but one put together by a well-known and respected music journalist). If it is considered reliable and if either of you have a copy of it, would you mind having a look and telling me if The KLF's White Room and/or Chill Out are placed and if so at what positions and in which edition? --kingboyk (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
kingboyk, I don't have a copy of it, I'm afraid. I think I'm right in saying that Acclaimed Music ignores the rankings completely, for what it's worth (by that I mean, we've never been able to establish Acclaimed as a reliable source here, despite its continued appearance in GAs and FAs). I have read that the respondents included critics – it's in one of the sources cited at the All Time Top 1000 Albums article, from memory.
Last year someone went all out in adding mention of the various Larkin All Time rankings in album articles across the encyclopedia, caused a bit of a stir. I supported the inclusion, partly to ensure a UK voice in the face of the almost ubiquitous presence of an album's ranking on Rolling Stone's best albums list (and no one else's), also because the book features quite heavily in the Carys Wyn Jones book mentioned above. Wyn Jones cites and lists each of the three All Time editions' top rankings in the same company as the top albums in lists by Rolling Stone, the NME, The Observer, Q, Mojo, Gambaccini's Critics' Choice, Time Out and VH1. (That is, refers to the lists throughout her book when discussing the most "canonical" rock albums, and then lists the top albums in each poll in one of the book's appendixes – if you're able to get much of a preview in the google books link.) So I support it, although that's on the understanding that music critics have taken part. But yes, it does appear to have been compiled from listeners' opinions for the main part. JG66 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles' Story

At The Beatles' Story, just because you don't care about TYPE in the infobox, that doesn't mean nobody else does. See Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Gosh, you've been busy. Congrats on all the GAs! [Why have you stopped at GA, or have you not noted your FAs?]

Do you have any idea or opinion about why the Beatles template includes articles like Apple scruffs (nice article) and The Scotch of St. James (?!), and yet does not have room for Neil Aspinall, Brian Epstein, Mal Evans, George Martin or Alistair Taylor? I mean, without Mr Epstein we'd probably not be having this discussion.

I attempted to re-add the inner circle but was reverted by user ILIL. I have left my thoughts on the reversion Template_talk:The_Beatles#Inner_circle_missing,_notably_Brian_Epstein_and_George_Martin.

I do not consider this canvassing, as for all I know you may agree with the reversion; it's just that you're one of the few folks still around that I know from the early days of WP:BEATLES.

If you choose to reply and do so here, please ping me. I have the template and template talk watchlisted. --kingboyk (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems my memory is playing tricks on me as you've only been around since 2012? That's odd. I must have seen your name in Beatle related places so frequently in recent times that I misremembered it as you being around when Lar and I set up the project in 2006 :/ --kingboyk (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi kingboyk and thanks for your words of encouragement. I must get back on the GA trail – there should be at least 20 articles I've got up to standard over the last couple of years but just haven't summoned the final 2 per cent of effort to polish up for nomination. I've never gone down the FAC route, actually. I don't really see the point: the Beatles are so well known, and I imagine their articles get plenty of traffic without the need for signposting on Wikipedia's main page. (Also, over my first couple of years here, 2012–14, I saw Beatles articles making FA and I wasn't too impressed with the nominating editor – the process became all about them, with subject and content taking second place. So I wasn't too impressed with FAC either, as a result.)
Talking about editors I don't like – and there really are only a very few over my entire time editing here(!) – I wouldn't pay any attention to what ILIL thinks. I've never found he possesses the competency to support his position on anything, nor the ability to work with other editors. There was a separate navbox for people associated with the Beatles until a few years ago. That was deleted. But I agree with you – of course the likes of Epstein (especially Epstein), Aspinall, Evans, Martin, etc. should be included in the band's main navbox. Derek Taylor and Peter Brown also, I should think. I'll add my support at the template talk page.
Cheers, ... oh, and thanks for your role in starting the project. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I wasn't aware of any personal dispute; now this really looks live canvassing! I must therefore tread carefully. The best bet I think will be if I post at WT:BEATLES which might get more eyes on the issue than a post on the template talk page. The template only has 50 watchers (seems extraordinarily low to me!), whereas the WikiProject has 128.
I could ramble on about the GA and FA processes for hours - and will, so you might want to skip the history lesson and go direct to my question in the last paragraph! :) Besides the Beatles WikiProject, I set up a micro-project WP:KLF to cover the works of the British band/artists The KLF. It was really just a 2-man project, plus a 3rd editor who'd laid the foundations on many articles and set up a transcription library website which proved invaluable for research. We achieved approximately 19 GAs and 4 FAs (5 if one includes the closely related band The Orb).
My main writing partner left disillusioned. I forget why. but it might have been because album cover scans were being removed zealously, or because of some of the other irritating things which happen here. I semi-retired in early 2008 for similar reasons and because I got a new time-consuming job, but came back last year (whether I am back permanently or not remains to be seen).
So, our flagship article, The KLF. "The KLF was named best article in the Humanities & Culture class at Wikimania 2006" - but nobody told us (I found out accidentally). The nominator, who had nothing to do with the article, even won a prize! I didn't want any prize and turned down the later offer of a T-shirt or something; I just found the process incredible. The article became an FA in 2006, was on the front page in 2007... and in 2009, it was decided it's not good enough to be an FA any more. Hero to zero in 3 years. Quite infuriating, and it does make one wonder whether it's worth the time and effort to go through FAC. Meanwhile, the artists concerned have written about the article (positively), and it's been ripped off by hundreds or thousands of journalists, authors and websites. I often think we should have written a book instead.
I don't remember FAC being unfriendly or excessively fussy in those days. Perhaps it was too lax then and that's why we got delisted (our other FAs do still hold the status, however).
Being an FA doesn't guarantee a front page appearance (one of our FAs was proposed for a front page appearance after my semi-retirement, and was turned down because it contains a very rude word in the title); FA denotes the article as peer-reviewed, professional quality and one of Wikipedia's best articles. As an editor all you get, really, is bragging rights/a userbox and the possibility of a front page appearance. I found some personal satisfaction from achieving FAs, and it is a great boon to a WikiProject to get an article promoted, but if you think it's not worth the bother and/or disagree with elements of the process I respect that and have sympathy for the view. Looking at some of the FACs and FARs, I too am somewhat reluctant/hesitant to get involved as it seems rather combative and I fear having my work ripped to shreds. My heart keeps telling me "take The KLF back to FA status!" and then the head says "no!!!!!" :)
The big change I have observed since my return is with regards to GAs. I remember the GA process as being a step up from B class, and it was fun to participate in and very casual. Now it seems to be FA-minus, and there's a massive queue for reviews. If I had a very high quality article ready for review, I'd seriously consider skipping GA now and go straight to FA (or not bother with either:)).
One Beatles-related article I'd always hoped would get some love and maybe rise to GA or FA is Apple Corps. Is that article on your radar for future work? --kingboyk (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
kingboyk: Quick reply, just on your opening point here (I'm still responding on the Aftermath issue above). No, it's not canvassing – there's no RfC underway after all. It was probably not helpful of me to add my opinion of the editor; it wasn't a case of getting personal for the sake of getting personal, it was to say that almost all editors add something constructive to the project, but one or two do not and have a reputation for being disruptive and/or inconsiderate. However you choose to go about it, I'm confident you'll find the majority of editors agreeing that Brian Epstein and George Martin, and possibly those others, should be included in the template. JG66 (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missed something: I think the inclusion of Apple scruffs is fine, and more is needed in that article to support the scruffs' notability. Can't for the life of me work out what The Scotch of St. James is doing in the template. More deserving (although I'm not suggesting we add it) would be Sibylla's, because that was a '60s club that at least had some direct involvement from a Beatle. JG66 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't mean to imply that Apple scruffs should not be on the template (despite calling it "fluff" :)). I find that story rather cute, and George was sufficiently moved by their dedication to write a song about them. They're part of the Beatles and Apple story. I was merely juxtaposing their importance relative to the inner circle who are absent. As for "The Scotch of St. James" - I had to look it up. Beats me. (I then had to double check it wasn't me who put it there in the first place ;) but nah, I'm good). Thanks for the responses and for reading this far, if you got this far. --kingboyk (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The talk about the Apple scruffs led me to reading Apple Scruffs (song). I love that song but had no idea it is critically acclaimed and received lots of airplay. You should imho have this article on your GA candidates list.
From there I've found myself reading a number of articles, many of which I'm sure are your work. I learnt a lot in Wah-Wah (song) (and I thought I knew most things there are know about the Beatles). Some of the material I read made me quite emotional (I miss George; I share many of his passions besides loving his music - Bob Dylan, Asia, Formula 1... In fact, I was in the Far East when he died; I was in Kuala Lumpur, and the little "Reggae Bar" I hung out in played his live album as a tribute. It was nice to be amongst music lovers on that sad day). If these articles are fair indicators, and I believe they are, your work is exceptional (a further message will follow with regards to this observation). --kingboyk (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cquote

Thanks for your edits to The KLF, which I am still reviewing.

I now understand why {{cquote}} disappeared from that and other articles during my semi-retirement!

Personally, I like the quote markers, but there's no point trying to argue against the guardians of the MOS, particularly with an argument as weak as "but I like it!" :) It also looks like the merits of the template and the style guidelines have been discussed to death at Template talk:Cquote already.

Again, thanks for the enlightenment. --kingboyk (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Barnstar

Looking through your talk page archives, you do not appear to have received this award - probably because most editors including myself were not aware of its existence :). If in fact you have been awarded it before, consider it a double honour well-earned.

The WikiProject The Beatles barnstar
The quantity and - more importantly - quality of the articles you have written about the Beatles and related topics and taken to GA status is outstanding. Reading some of them almost moved me to tears. Thank you for your hard work and long may it continue. --kingboyk (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) (co-founder of WP:BEATLES)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JG66&oldid=946420384"