Talk:Fuck the Millennium

Expanding this article

I don't think we had a lot about in 2K/K2 Plant in our other articles - I've pasted in what usable stuff we had. I think it needs a tweak vis a vis sections, flow and the intro. Beyond that, though, if I recall correctly there is a sh*tload of stuff in the Library about the 2K comeback. Here would probably be as good a place as any to put it, even if it's about the Barbican appearance or the Pyramid rather than the single?

On that note, maybe 2K (band) should redirect here? (not a rhetorical question, still thinking abt it...) --kingboyk 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right, there's a load of stuff in the Library. The Barbican appearance is relevant to the single. I too was wondering whether 2K should redirect here, and I think it should, because "Millennium" was the only 2K project. And K2 Plant Hire was at the same time, with "Millennium" ads placed by K2 Plant, so that incarnation could also redirect here. I personally don't think K2 belongs with K Foundation: the only obvious connection is that "K Sera Sera" was incorporated into the Barbican debacle. --Vinoir 00:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I put K2 into KF because it was "art", and 2K into KLF as music... I think if we actually move 2K and K2 Plant Hire, we should be looking at creating a new article... but for now let's see how we do with this one. --kingboyk 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. The art/music divide seems reasonable to me. --Vinoir 07:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking the "Composition" section very much! Makes for a fine read. --kingboyk 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to redirect 2K (band) here or not? --kingboyk 15:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(Decisively) "Yes!" :) --Vinoir 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking this man! I enjoyed reading it. For sure a worthy GA candidate when it's finished and stable. --kingboyk 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks muchly. Bit more to do on themes, promotion, 2K, the name (I'll either factor your footnote in or include in the main text), and a sample (I've got the CD single but it steadfastly refuses to become an OGG, either directly or via MP3 format - it'll get sorted though). Well done with the new categories by the way. --00:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Title

Surely "***K The Millennium" is the title? --Bonalaw 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say really. The star star star K might mean something, or it might just be censorship to get the record into the high street stores. The lyrics say "Fuck" and that's how Amazon list it. I think it's 50/50, and since Wikipedia isn't censored let's not be coy - the song is all about fucking the millennium, after all :) --kingboyk 12:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wavering on this... Blast First use both, but ***K makes some sense. What do you think, Vinoir? --kingboyk 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bill refers to it as "Fuck" in "Now That's What I Call Disillusionment II", in 45, and merchandise of both "***K" and "Fuck" was available. On the other hand, the track listings are generally "***K", even though the uncensored tracks use the "Fuck" sample. Argh! This is a perfect example of how tricky it can be to categorise The KLF's stuff. My opinion is that although it's really a song with two titles, the track listing should win: "***K the Millennium" is probably the better place for the article.

I think that this particular "K" is well loaded, symbolically. For a start it's Kallisti and 1,000. But also, the conclusion of Illuminatus! equates Hagbard Celine with the Fifth Primus of "The Five". Interpreting this as K=5 gives you 2K=10 (as in 10th anniversary). They'd've realised this, I'm sure. They liked to load their numbers. When they dished out the Tenants Super for Xmas 1995, there were intended to be 6,250 cans (5^5 x 2). --Vinoir 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[Resorting to the tried and tested ignoramus approaching of mocking that which they do not understand.] Erm, whatever you say Teach' :P

I've put a reference placeholder into the intro. If you like it, can you uncomment and fill in the blanks? --kingboyk 13:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Themes

A couple of minor criticisms/debating points:

• I'm not sure how "subversive" the graffiti was this time. It may just have been taking the piss, to be frank - "which trademarks do we want to reference in our naff comeback?". Either way, don't stray into original theory :) - but there's no reason why we can't do it on the talk page so ponder this. I wonder what would have happened if FTM had got to number one and the press had gone mad for it? Do we think Bill wanted that? (I don't, I mostly believe him this time)...

Yes, it was definitely taking the piss and referring to past traits, so I see your point. --Vinoir 10:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Boats and seamanship. It actually runs deeper than that. There's a seafaring song on WKTJ? (I was listening to it last night). "Far below... a small boat sails... catching fish from the sea" (original White Room). Bill was a trawlerman in an earlier life wasn't he? The sea seems to run deep in his veins. I wouldn't be surprised if he's written about it somewhere. --kingboyk 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right - I will be mentioning his trawlerman years. --Vinoir 10:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC) However, I think I'm right to say (do correct me otherwise) that the peril element was not brought in until "America". --Vinoir 15:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you've seen this theorised in print somewhere, you're in danger of straying over the no original research theme. Wasn't the seafaring in "America?" kind of incidental? It's more of an Illuminatus/bigging-themselves-up kind of song I'd have thought.

Also, the use of the hymn is another Drummond favourite, see Juruselem on the Moors... --kingboyk 15:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally think that seafaring was incidental to "America", but I certainly don't want to imply that the hymn in FTM is a direct reference to it, so I've changed the prose around a bit. How does it look now? --Vinoir 11:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Perhaps need a little bit of editing for flow, which I'll look at later. My objections have been countered, though, thanks. We stick to facts or cited opinions. --kingboyk 11:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Discog

Because it proved unpopular in our last FAC, I removed the seperate References section. You might therefore want to add a citation - and quite possibly my note about the status of Lazlo's FAQ - as a footnote. I would have done it myself but I don't know for sure where you got the info from/I'm lazy. --kingboyk 10:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Loving this article now, should definitely aim for FA on this one.

Jobs to do from Peer Review

• "acid house oriented" -> a better way of expressing that the song was acid-house based but a bit of a mixture of styles

--kingboyk 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has passed

Congratulations! The Good article nomination for Fuck the Millennium has passed. Many thanks to all who were involved in the creation of this article.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent news! Thanks ever so much for taking the time to review it. --kingboyk 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm late but here is another peer review

As I promised, here is the review. Once again, really excellent job. You guys really set a standard that is impossible to beat!

As before, I have some small edits regarding spelling and grammar:

• (Comma after "continued"): It continued "Jimmy Cauty and Bill Drummond invite you to a 23 minute performance during which the next 840 days of our lives will be discussed"
  • comma now inserted --Vinoir 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• "K Cera Cera" -- Is it supposed to be “K” or “Que? (Maybe I'm stupid and its not the old Dinah Shore song)
  • no action necessary --Vinoir 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• In the Drummond Quote – is it Crapness or Crapiness? I would want to actually hear the comment to see if the original writer left the "i" out or if that is the way Drummond said it (It very well could be the way it was said)!
  • "crapness" was the word Drummond used. --Vinoir 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Misspelling I think: The adverts were placed under the pseudonym K2 Plant Hire Ltd., who duly reported that 18,436 (89%) of respondants ... Probably should be Respondents. Is this a british vs US thing? I tried to check and could not find that brits spell it with an "a" either.
  • spelling now corrected --Vinoir 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Another misspelling. The Comeback, drawing on the sad, pathetic nature of the whole thing, the desparation of all concerned to exploit whatever they can from the myth ... should be "desperation".
  • spelling now corrected. --Vinoir 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a nit: Near the end : "... one of Acid Brass' performance of "What Time Is Love?". The formats and track listings are tabulated below" Seems to me that it should say "an Acid Brass performance" OR "one of Acid Brass' performances".
  • ungrammatical prose reworded. All useful comments, cheers. --Vinoir 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to those minor comments, I also note that the work you guys have done, in toto, is like a small book! You have really given wikipedia a gift of all that time and effort, when you could have perhaps published it! However, there are repetitions between the articles. In particular the section called "themes" should probably be deleted from EACH of the entries and turned into its own page. (Perhaps a one sentence summary and a link would be appropriate). This would lighten each of the entries a bit plus it would make those themes more interesting, being on a page of their own. (I kinda wanna go read the illuminati trilogy now!) I also think that the interesting bits about K2 Plant Hire after describing the 89% response is probably unnecessary. It seems to water down the article. --Blue Tie 13:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Blue Tie. It's very hot here and I'm sweating like a pig :) so I'll just pick a few points for reply now. Myself and/or Vinoir will reply to/act upon the others later.

• K Cera Cera is correct. They love "K"s.
• Quotations are generally pasted in from the source (if online) without alteration, or typed in verbatim if from a book. This one is from a book I believe, and I imagine "crapness" is correct... but we'll check it.
• Writing a book: Yes, we've been a bit stupid haven't we? :) There's no published KLF biography, perhaps we should have written that instead. Well, never say never! :)
• The repetitions are generally deliberate. If we are to get the articles Featured, they need context, they need to stand alone. (When we started, we didn't go into such depth, as I assumed that people would follow the links. However, that doesn't seem to be what's required. We'll find out for sure when we get to Featured Article Candidacy and more experienced editors review our work, but I'm sure we have this right).
• Illuminatus is a fine read, but it's rather heavy going! It's also a bit dated in places. I found it worthy of my time, certainly.

More later and thanks again! --kingboyk 13:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) P.S., Vinoir, note that we have a "todo" list now, so anything we want to act on can go there. I'm just too hot right now to look at the substantive issues!

Ah, Blue Tie, your interest, appraisal and insights are very much appreciated. Those grammatical points will be dealt with now. Regarding the "Themes" sections, these do indeed make a number of repeats, and this can be irksome to the reader who is working their way through the articles. I too think that this needs reassessment, but I'm not yet sure that there's a better way: we've found from past experience that each page should be fairly self-contained, which seems to imply that the provision of sometimes-repetitive "Origins" and "Themes" sections is necessary. And similarly, the "Themes" section in The KLF article may be trimmable, but I do believe that its rightful place is where it currently is, since the main article would be incomplete otherwise. But yes, it definitely requires thought. Regarding the activities of K2 Plant Hire, their exploits listed here relate to the millennium in one way or another.

Yes, my ambition has long been to make an objective documentary of these guys, but I don't suppose it'll ever happen, and besides, their copyright-free approach applies satisfyingly to Wikipedia. kingboyk, I'm liking these to-do lists.

Thanks so much for another detailed review. --Vinoir 13:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

The peer review has been concluded. When you're back Vinoir let's move this on to FAC. Let's also get some of the other articles promoted/dealt with, so we can move on to new things. (see Bill Drummond for some of my recent work). --kingboyk 08:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Illuminatus spoiler warning

I don't think that "the novel's final chapters reveal that the JAMs' leader is also one of The Five.[24]" is necessary in this article it is just fluff that adds weight, and if we get rid of that we can get rid of the spoiler warning too. - Drstuey 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind trimming out the bit you think is unneccessary? I'll then have a look at the edit and see if I agree or not :) I think you're right that we don't need to talk about "The Five" but I'm not sure how much you want trimmed and I quite like having the quote from the sleeve. --kingboyk 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hazard that for as long as FTM appears to be the closing chapter in The KLF's story, the closing twist of Illuminatus! is relevant. The sleeve remark is The JAMs' twist. --213.122.86.31 11:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC

I have to say, I've just read this article from top to bottom and I think it's absolutely fantastic. If this doesn't get Featured it's a travesty. Vinoir, please come back! :( --kingboyk 22:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll get the accolade, mate. Keep the faith and well done for your continued sterling efforts. :-) The "Mute" connection queried in the "To-Do" box probably stems from Youth. --213.122.86.31

Thanks, I think it will now too. Supports have begun to pileon and I don't see any reasonable actionable objections :) I'm quietly confident, shall we say. The question now of course is which one to nominate next - 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song), or Whitney Joins The JAMs. I think one of the first two, what do you think? --kingboyk 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Who are you? You're not Vinoir are ya? :)

Good good, that's the spirit. If I were you I'd be putting AYNIL up next, and then 1987. The Pyramid Blaster userbox idea is nice, by the way - spreads the word. All the best for now.  :-) --213.122.32.188 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sequence of events

So I've been moved by the front page feature to do a bit of research. Most of what I could find is redundant to the Library of Mu, but I did discover one review of this, from The Times. Turns out to be the one you've indirectly cited through the Observer article.

The question: do you actually have a summary of the performance from beginning to end? What's here looks to be a bit vague, so if none of your sources mention the dead swan that Bill was supposedly carrying around (okay, mentioned in the aforementioned Observer article) and the guy wielding an axe, or Tony Wilson apparently delivering an introduction, or the freebies handed out to the audience at the end, then I could make use of this to fill in specifics.

Also, apparently the concert was postponed from 2 September due to Princess Diana's death. Is this a relevant piece of cultural context? (If nothing else, readers who compared the mentions of "next Tuesday" in your references to the actual date of the concert might be a bit perplexed.) –Unint 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some nice detective work, Unint. I did know about the postponement, freebies and the swan (which corresponds to something similar in the filming of The White Room). But I don't recall knowing anything about an axe man or Tony Wilson!

My opinion is that the vagueness only begins with the sentence "They were supported variously...", after which follows a list of other principal turns. I had kept this brief deliberately, because it seemed more appropriately bewildering this way, in keeping with reports of the experience. However, I don't see why it cannot be changed.

The postponement might belong in a footnote, I feel. Regarding the swan, when did Drummond have the swan, given that he was wheelchair-bound?

Of course, edits that improve the article are always very welcome, so go for it! --Vinoir 11:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember now if we chose to omit those details or if we overlooked them (none of them are news to me certainly. The freebies were also available to purchase by mail order). I'd be quite happy if you made any improvements you see fit, and Vinoir or myself or both can review/edit/revert as necessary. Go for it, that's wiki! :) --kingboyk 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Now you come to mention it, the axeman doesn't ring any bells... Poor Vinoir, something tells me you don't have the video or audio of the show? I've got the audio on now, and Tony Wilson introduces it. Not mentioning him is definitely an oversight - whoops! --kingboyk 11:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope - I didn't even know that video or audio was in circulation. My KLF stuff consists of a big pile of sumptuous vinyl, a smattering of CDs, some mp3s that I got over the last year, and two books. --Vinoir 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've made a few additions. Some notes:

• Typically facetious comment attributed to a spokesman regarding postponement of the show. Figured it'd have to at least go in a footnote.
• The quote I added from The Times seems to succinctly sum up Manning and Gimpo's characters, if even bringing out additional cultural context that the layman such as me won't understand from the visuals alone. (I did have to use another site to figure out who was who, though; does that need citing?)
• Looking at the music video on Youtube, it mainly highlights Jimmy as the one wielding the axe, though Manning had it slung over his shoulder in one shot.
• Added a redlink to Sally Bradshaw, as named by the Guardian article. Recognized the name from her work with the Pet Shop Boys; figured others might as well. (Looking elsewhere on-wiki, she's also worked with the Art of Noise, and... Mike Oldfield?). –Unint 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's lovely, thanks. Don't see any need to edit what you've done at all. Is there a URL for the Times article? --kingboyk 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's from a research database, so no general access URL. –Unint 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Proquest? --kingboyk 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That'd be it. –Unint 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuck the Millennium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111071100/http://www.klf.de/discography/ to http://www.klf.de/discography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fuck the Millennium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327005822/http://www.mutelibtech.com/mute/2k/2k1.htm to http://www.mutelibtech.com/mute/2k/2k1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327005818/http://www.mutelibtech.com/mute/2k/2k2.htm to http://www.mutelibtech.com/mute/2k/2k2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327002924/http://www.mutelibtech.com/mute/2k/2kpress.htm to http://www.mutelibtech.com/mute/2k/2kpress.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This Featured article is a 2006 promotion that does not meet current standards; it has large amounts of uncited text, and the lead is short. There are unformatted citations ( k2planthire.ltd.uk at archive.org ), inconsistent citations, and a MOS review is needed. Unless someone is willing/able to engage to bring this article to standard, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've added a minor update, and started improving the formatting of the already extant references and citations. Once I've completed my sweep through the existing references I will have to get back to real world work, but I can return when that is done in no more than a few weeks time.

I am willing to do the required work, if I am able, provided there is a reasonable chance the article can remain Featured.

Firstly, the "large amounts of uncited text". I presume you're referring mainly to the "Composition" and "Themes" sections? I've had a very quick scan through the article and am quietly confident that everything which is presented as "fact" can be adequately referenced. What about the parts of the "Composition" section that explain to the reader what the song would sound like if they were to listen to it? How do FAs about songs and singles approach this today?

Secondly, MoS review. How does one get such a review done/is there a team or WikiProject which cleans up FAs for style? (If there is, let's not call them in yet as there will be other work to do first).

Thirdly, the lead. The link you provided says there should be "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". I feel that is exactly what we have. Could you briefly explain what you feel is missing?

Finally, if the article as it stands now were to be fully referenced and any niggles sorted out, am I to interpret your message to mean that you would no longer feel the need to send it to FAR? --kingboyk (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk if you are willing to work on it, there should be no problem retaining FA status. Once you've done all you can do, I can do MOS repairs, and then indicate anything that still might need citations, so just do what you can for now and don't worry about that. On the lead, there's been a trend lately towards longer leads, I guess acknowledging that many people read only the lead; is it possible to add a bit to the lead, while including the most important points from each section? Ping me when you've done what you can for now, and then I'll do MOS-y stuff and then make a list of what else might be needed. Always glad to hear someone is available and willing to help keep the bronze start! Just keep me posted, and I'll help as able ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: OK. Thank you for the reply and more importantly for the offer of help - that was really great to hear. I've done what I can with citations today, and - as already stated - I'll have to attend to real world work. After that I'll have a look at the lead and further citations if required and ping you.

You caught me an at opportune moment as I was working on KLF-related articles due to recent developments (they low-key reunited in 2017). I wasn't around to save the star of the flagship article - The KLF - and that pains me as we worked so hard on it and I feel that if it had some cleanup and cruft removal it's still FA material. Saving this one wouldn't quite make up for that but it would be better than losing another star.

However, I remain concerned about the Composition section in this article. I have no idea how we'd reference prose which describes the recording, and it was so nicely written (by my collaborator if I recall correctly, who has left Wikipedia) that I'd have to wonder if ripping it out would be a worthwhile price to pay to keep a star... I assume we can't reference the recording? Does every single sentence need a citation? Any thoughts on this particular problem and how other music articles address it?

e.g.

The track contains three main segued parts: a house section led by the brass band Acid Brass, a choral rendition of the English hymn "Eternal Father, Strong to Save", and a rhythmically hardened remix of "What Time Is Love? (Pure Trance Original)". The lead vocals before and after the hymn consist mainly of angry chants, with hundreds of instances of the word "fuck". Apart from a small number of chord changes during the segues, "Fuck the Millennium" contains no new music. However, the lyrics and brass arrangement are not found elsewhere in Drummond and Cauty's output.

The track is opened by Gimpo screaming "It's 1997: what the fuck is going on?". There follows a brass band version of "What Time Is Love? (Pure Trance Original)", with a house rhythm added, along with samples

--kingboyk (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

kingboyk sorry for the vague and unhelpful responses, but it's a bad time for me as well ... I posted the FAR needed notice a month ago, and this week, I'm swamped. So, to put your mind at ease: back in January, there were long discussions at WT:FAC about the many older FAs whose main editors had moved on and were no longer maintaining them, and how to re-invigorate the moribund WP:FAR and find out which FAs were never going to be maintained. You're busy, and I'm busy, but the most important thing to know for now is that someone is willing and able to work on this article.

No not every sentence needs a citation ... just make sure opinions are cited and attributed to opinion holders. For example, in the section you quoted above, the first sentence is a statement of fact, verified by the thing itself. The use of the word angry sounds like an opinion that could need a source and you might be able to locate a source that used that word or something similar. "Apart from a small number of chord changes ... " does seem to be asking for a citation; otherwise, we're taking the word of the person who wrote that text. But one can listen to the music to determine that so I wouldn't worry too much about that. "Not found elsewhere in ... their output" would need a citation. Opened by screaming-- no citation needed, one can hear that on the track. And so on. So, in that section, I would want to see a citation for the word used to describe the chants ("angry") along with "Not found elsewhere ... "

At any rate, don't sweat this too much; as long as you keep this talk page notified that you are working, are busy until X date but will be back on Y date, I seriously doubt someone would send this to FAR as long as you keep the page notified that you are on it, even if slowly. We're really looking to determine which articles are abandoned with no chance that anyone will ever clean them up. Ping me when you need my feedback, but I have had to do a major update to Tourette syndrome (a 14-year-old FA) for it to run mainpage this week, so I will have a very busy week as well. Why don't you work up and bring The KLF back to FAC ?? It is always nice to former Featured articles restored ... Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: These replies are not all unhelpful, quite the contrary, thank you. I shall return to them and digest the info in due course (as already discussed).

It's good to hear that you're helping to save old FAs. Jimbo's target from many years ago of 100,000 featured articles is nowhere near being met, and yet the site has a pool of over 6 million articles. Quantity has beaten quality, and that's a shame, so thank you for any work you do writing and rescuing Featured content.

My response to your question about The KLF article is written but is lengthy and might be classed as a rant (not against you, but against the world) :) I've yet to decide whether to answer you on your talk page, email it, or close the tab and leave it at "we'll see". The latter would probably be best.

Cheers for now. --kingboyk (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What do you make of {{Cite AV media}}? Prima facie it could be used to "cite" the contents of musical recordings, but a very quick scan through its "What links here" suggests it's not widely used in music-related articles. --kingboyk (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps (??) it's not widely used as it is akin to using a primary source, while, in theory, if something is significant, it will have been cited to secondary sources. It seems apparent to me that there will be plenty of cases where it is OK to use this to source something basic. I would still worry, though, about something like describing chants as "angry"-- for something like that, we need a secondary source for the opinion. I think you should be able to use Cite AV media judiciously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's kill the word "angry" right now so you don't have to worry about it anymore :) (Will deal with the other issues when I come back after finishing current real-world job). --kingboyk (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it ... ping me when you want me to continue review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Hi Sandy, Ping received (well timed as I was planning to update you anyway). The update is this: I'm mostly done with the prose save for the lead and with the references. My work project is ongoing but I've been giving this article and others some love in spare time.

I've found some new sources (recently published) about who directed the show at the Barbican - the person is notable and blue-linked and had a history with Bill Drummond going back to the 1970s which has left a mark on his entire career, so I'll be adding a sentence or 2 about that here (big reveal - it was Ken Campbell). I can imagine this work alone taking a couple of days as the source articles are lengthy and have info which is relevant to a number of other Wikipedia articles, and I need to piece together the story and then give it a very brief mention here without harming the flow of the article. The overall flow is something I will be looking at after the forthcoming small addition.

Other than that, the lead. I've nor forgotten, and I have some ideas about how the lead can better summarise the article and Drummond and Cauty's 1997 campaign to "fuck the millennium". I may do those in my sandbox. You will be pinged.

I'd like to thank you again for your help and for raising the issues in the first place. I'll see you again in the next few weeks when I have a new lead ready (or perhaps a selection of possible new leads; we'll see). --kingboyk (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

sounds good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: No need to look at it or copyedit it yet, as it's incomplete and I'll ping you when I'm done drafting, but just so you know that work is in progress, I have an edit ongoing at User:Kingboyk/sandbox/FTM lead. --kingboyk (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I've added a little more contextual information to the article, about the Millennium Dome and the political climate in the UK in 1997. This is also mentioned in my new draft of the lead which is now ready for review at the above location (my notes are on the sandbox talk page).

If you're happy with my proposed lead, let me know and I will paste it into the article and delete the sandbox. If you're moderately happy but need to copyedit it, you can do so in the sandbox but the edits will be lost when I delete it (you'd get attribution in the edit summary when I paste in to here of course); this could be avoided by asking me to paste in what I have and you editing here. If you think the new lead sucks... well, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. --kingboyk (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that ^ was all a bit complicated. I did the work in the sandbox because 1) it allowed me to tinker to my heart's content, 2) I thought I might come up with more than one proposal. Since the latter didn't materialise, you may as well review it here, in situ. We can always revert if need be. Notes about what I did remain on the sandbox's talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: you've been on my to-do list so long, I forgot exactly what/where you are asking me to review. Is the lead that you want me to review now here or in sandbox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Here. --kingboyk (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Continued review

Kingboyk, thanks for your patience! I have been quite wrapped up in an arb case, and I'm sorry for keeping you waiting so long.

I did some WP:EMDASH fixing.

• these include the KLF's "What Time Is Love?", and topically by the then-forthcoming end of the second millennium and the plans to celebrate it. I cannot tell what this is saying at all ?
• The second paragraph of the lead seems to be repeating part of the first (with the What Time is Love) ... not sure why the two different sentences about it.
• A whole lot of the citations need dates and accessdates, samples:

"Official Scottish Singles Sales Chart Top 100". Official Charts Company.

"Swedishcharts.com – 2K – ***k the Millennium". Singles Top 100.

"Official Singles Chart Top 100". Official Charts Company.

"Official Dance Singles Chart Top 40". Official Charts Company.

"Official Independent Singles Chart Top 50". Official Charts Company.

• a breakthrough track for Drummond and Cauty on two occasions ... needs a citation

Generally, this is in much better shape now, and should be able to avoid a FAR, but the lead isn't there yet. The person who could most help bring this over the line is @Ceoil: so I hope he will jump in and help fix any remaining issues. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There's still a couple CN tags, as well, but I don't see a FAR being helpful for this article. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingboyk, Ceoil, Hog Farm, and SandyGeorgia: this is scheduled for TFA on 26 November. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Another little comment: The pyramid was never built but the JAMs rebooted the idea in 2017 at their next comeback event, Welcome to the Dark Ages isn't mentioned in the body or at Welcome to the Dark Ages. Elaboration in the body is needed if possible, removal in the lead if not. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Title is inappropriate

Is it just me or does the name seem a bit to sweary 2A02:C7E:17C6:1F00:15CC:E091:C58A:194D (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)