Talk:Juke Joint Jezebel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Industrial (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Songs (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon


Looking good! I moved the YOTP 12" to the end, I think it makes more sense to follow the CD, instead of breaking up the "flow" of the JJJ releases. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My thinking with the 12" version was that it's really a variation on JJJ, whereas the The Year of the Pig Compilation is a different item entirely. I thought having them together could be more confusing, since the seven track CD versino was included only with the Canadian CD, whereas the 12" was something you could purchase separately. (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Year of the Pig Collection Canadian Bonus CD[edit]

I know we kinda got into this a while back, but what if we split just the compilation CD into a separate page? It's really nothing like the other releases, and it's listed as a separate item in the KMFDM template. Seems like it would be better to list it on its own page and then mention all the details, and then tie it into the compilations chronology. (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we moved YOTP to it's own page, and show both the CD and the LP, I think that'd work. Both should be moved, though, and the CD can link back to JJJ. The title for the article can simply be "Year of the Pig" (or if that's taken by the Chinese year, then "Year of the Pig (KMFDM EP)" or some such disambig), and the CD can be mentioned to be called "Year of the Pig Collection". Good idea to tie it into the comp's chronology. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the actual YOTP vinyl is really just a version of JJJ with extra tracks. It's almost like the 12" version of the original two track CD. I have another possible idea. What if we somehow re-ordered all the versions' track listings, and made the bonus CD a subsection of the Giorgio Moroder Mixes? We could add another little infobox there with some separate details and the comp chronology included. I found this on [1]

We could do:

  • Original CD Release (1995)
  • 7" Release (2009)
  • 12" Release (1995) titled "Year of the Pig"
  • The Giorgio Moroder Mixes CD (1995)
    The Year of the Pig Collection Canadian Bonus CD (1995)
  • The Giorgio Moroder Mixes 12" (1995)

And maybe play around with the order. (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


  • JJJ Track Listing
  • CD
  • 7"
  • 12" YOTP
  • JJJ: GM Mixes
  • CD
  • TYOTPC Bonus CD
  • 12"

It's just kinda messy no matter how you slice it. (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called "Year of the Pig", it's "Year of the Pig". Regardless of the tracks being similar to JJJ's, it's a separate release, and shouldn't be considered "just a version of JJJ with extra tracks". The "Year of the Pig" 12" should be split off. That's how it is in the KMFDM template, and it's listed separately from JJJ on KMFDM's official page link. The CD tracklist should probably be listed on the YOTP page as well, and linked back to JJJ (and vice versa). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've had it all backwards. I think "Year of the Pig" 12" should get its own page, as it was a separate release (TVT 8730). Meanwhile, The Year of the Pig Collection should remain as a sub-section of this page, since it's a bonus CD that was only available with the Canadian Moroder mixes (TVT 8732-2), and never as a separate release. We could add notes explaining that they are entirely different, but with similar names. This would be more consistent with the way that the Trust/JJJ distinction is made as well. (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but the important difference is that I don't think the bonus disc should be listed on the new 12" page, as it is entirely different, despite the similarity in names. (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Haha, this gets confusing easily! So I think we both agree the 12" should have its own page. Do you want to handle that or shall I? I still think there should at least be a mention of the CD, along the lines of "There is also a CD titled 'The Year of the Pig Collection', released with Juke Joint Jezebel". This way people coming to the page looking for info on the CD can easily be redirected back to the JJJ/TYOTPC page, but without cluttering up the page with another tracklist, etc. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Now that we're in agreement, or, I'm not mixed up anymore, you can do the move. But yes, I think that sounds exactly right. No bonus CD tracklist on the new 12" page, but just a note pointing back to this page. And a new note on this page pointing towards the new 12" page. I added the 12" to the KMFDM template, but you'll have to fix what it's pointing to when you decide on the name for the new page. (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, I created the page on my userspace here: User:MrMoustacheMM/Year of the Pig (EP). Problem is, it's pretty hard to find some sources that aren't KMFDM-related (ie not Seeing as how quickly people tried to delete Day of Light, we should probably find some independent sources before posting the page. Feel free to edit my userspace page if you can find some good sources (not discogs or or anything). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late to the party on this one, but I have a suggestion. Having just gone through the discussion about MDFMK/Megalomaniac, and seeing how the convention is to name articles after the song, I don't think splitting the YOTP release is a good idea. Since this article should really be about the song JJJ, it should be structured around that, instead of trying to break off all the releases into separate pieces. As you said, the YOTP release is probably non-notable on its own anyway. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Section titles[edit]

I broke the article into sections, but I'm not super happy with the layout yet. I couldn't think of a good name for the section about all the different places the song has been used outside of the about, so I put licensing, but there may be something better. I also want to flesh out the videos section, which is pitiful right now. I may be able to dig up some info about how the song was made, because I remember reading an interview with Sascha a long time ago in which he said he'd already written the song and then Raymond just came up with the goofy chorus about sister salvation. Anyone that wants to help is welcome. Torchiest talk/contribs 02:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "Appearances"? Or "Also appears on"? "Releases"? "Other releases"? "Availability"? None of these are perfect, but maybe one is better than "Licensing"? Anyway, those are all I could come up with. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
What about something like Media crossovers or Multimedia? Something like that might work, since it's about movies, TV, and video games. Torchiest talk/contribs 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
"Multimedia appearances"? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Good one. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of multiple cover images[edit]

It was requested that this was discussed on the talk page, so here I am. We lead the article with the cover of the main release in question, yet there are also two other non-free cover images. I am not seeing what these covers are adding to the article- the article is not about those releases and, while they may well be worth talking about, readers do not need to see the covers. As an aside, while this is discussed, the covers should not be used- the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content. If you're not going to respect that, so be it, I really don't want to debate it. Let's stick to the issue. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't see the burden of proof part (I have reverted my last edit). The reason I think the covers belong is due to the different releases the song appears on, all of which were combined into this article (so that we don't have a bunch of small articles that kinda belong together). The covers help to distinguish which release is which, all of which are discussed in the article. But, I'll take a stab at working through the WP:NFCC criteria, and we can go from there (some of these are pretty straight-forward, and I'm assuming only a couple warrant debate, but I'll answer all 10 to start). There's another editor who heavily edits KMFDM articles, I'll let him know about this so we can get his input too (so it's not just two of us reverting back and forth).
My reasoning:
  1. There are no free versions of any of those images.
  2. Images are too small to pirate.
  3. a: Three different releases can't be summarized by one image. b: The covers are low-resolution, and showing only part of any of them would defeat the purpose of the image (to show releases).
  4. These have been published outside Wikipedia.
  5. As far as I can tell these meet the content standards, and are encyclopedic (many song articles show release covers as a way to help identify the song in question).
  6. The images both seem to meet the Image Use Policy, they have been properly licensed as non-free images qualifying under fair use.
  7. They are being used in at least one article (this one, assuming they are kept).
  8. Without the three images showing which release is which, users could easily confuse one for another. Showing each makes it clear that each set of tracks belongs to a different, specific release.
  9. This is an article, not, say, a user's sub-page.
  10. The image description pages all give the required information.
I think I've satisfied all the criteria, but if there is disagreement, we can work it out here (whatever the outcome may be). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The question is with regards to NFCC#8. Now, you say that this article covers multiple releases, "all of which were combined into this article (so that we don't have a bunch of small articles that kinda belong together)". I would have no objection to the covers appearing in articles specifically about the releases in question, but, as you say, it makes more sense for the articles to be merged together. That does not mean that the covers should be imported too- if we're making this into a list of releases, rather than an article on a specific release (which also documents related releases) then no covers should be used- take a look at these guidelines and note that discographies (see, for instance, our featured discographies) do not feature album covers. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
When I look at WP:NFCC, I see 3a as being the potential sticking point for including all three images. I would say that the second image, the Giorgio Moroder mixes cover, could probably be removed, since it is more or less identical to the original release image. However, I think the Year of the Pig cover is distinct enough to merit inclusion, since it has both a wholly different title and a different layout. Torchiest talkedits 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

compilation categories[edit]

I'm guessing the thought on removing those categories is that this article is about the song JJJ, which isn't a compilation album. I checked the YOTP Collection article, which redirects here, and that page does have comp categories, so that kinda covers the bases on that. I don't have a strong preference either way, but I figured I'd take a guess at the reasoning. Torchiest talkedits 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the editor who removed those comes back to remove them again (and hopefully provides an explanation this time), we can leave them off. For now, since the YOTP stuff is here anyway, I personally think they're worth keeping. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)