Talk:Justified & Ancient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Justified & Ancient was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 1, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
November 14, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 4, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject The KLF (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject The KLF, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The KLF and related topics 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.
Taskforce icon
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Electronic Music, an attempt to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Justified & Ancient:
  • Lead needs cleaning and expansion
  • Some extra citations are probably needed
  • Should context and evolution be merged? Renamed? Context expanded? Outside views welcome.
  • Is there enough information on the composition? If not, is there anyone we can call on to help with this? (Vinoir was our expert writer and he's done a bunk!)
  • Drummond's comments from 45 need incorporating.

New article[edit]

For some reason I thought America:WTIL was the last (must be the 992/1992 reference) but nope, you're right. Another tremendous new article, I think a new standard has been set here! I don't think we've gone too far into fancruft either. --kingboyk 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The KLF in front page shocker! My goodness, we've made it to the front page :-) --kingboyk 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a result. In due course we'll get further than that snippet too, I hope... :-) --Vinoir 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Featured status for The KLF is what I'm aiming for (and I think there's such a thing as featured list too? KLF discography). --kingboyk 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Top of the Pops[edit]

I've just watched the TOTP performance (with Bill & Jim dressed as ice cream cones (!) and Tammy on the big screen) and to my surprise the in-studio vocals and rap are live! Unfortunately my copy is a bit too low-res to get a decent shot, so we'll have to stick withy the capture I made from the video. --kingboyk 21:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Song samples[edit]

I think that clips of the "Chill Out" version and "Stand by The JAMs" would work well here? --Vinoir 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NME or New Musical Express?[edit]

I prefer the latter as it sounds more formal, and also self-explains to non-Brits/music fanatics exactly what the publication is about. I take is there is an opposing view and if so what's the rationale? :) --kingboyk 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more formal, but the magazine is more popularly recognised as NME, much as the acronym BBC is the more recognisable. I too prefer New Musical Express, but I think that since its Wikipedia article is at NME, the refs at least should use this form - what say you? I do agree with you regarding the need for its expanded form in the article text, for non-Brits, and I'll change that back. --Vinoir 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It says "The New Musical Express (better known as the NME)". We're citing references - which should be official and formal. That said, it's been a long time since I've bought it - ah the inevitability of getting old - so I don't know if they ditched the longer name. As far as I know they haven't, so I think we should use the formal title in citations. --kingboyk 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good Article Nominee[edit]

I don't feel that this article is quite up to Good Article status. I feel that it's an excellent start, but I don't think it's ready for it yet. I copied the requirements of a Good Article which I don't feel it meets and have listed them below:

  • It is well written. It has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader... I read the article twice and I'm still not sure if I've learned anything from this article. I imagine that people familiar with the group or with this genre of music would have an easier time understanding it. But since encyclopedia articles are for the layman, I can't say that this succeeds here
  • It is broad in its coverage: If I'm not mistaken, it was stated that there was more than one version of this song, but the article seems geared towards a single version (whichever one has the CD picture, I'm guessing). When the article does discuss other versions, it's confusing to keep track of.
  • All significant points of view are fairly presented Another guess here, but it seems like the article is in favor of the song and it almost reads like an advertisement. Aren't there other points of view? Criticisms? Anything? I'd find it hard to believe if any song in the world didn't have some sort of criticism.
  • It does not change significantly from day to day Looking at the history, this doesn't seem to be the case. On some days, there are many edits

I'm also concerned about the relative newness of the article. It was created less than a month ago. I think it needs more time to develop and settle down. Also, only two people have made any contributions to this article. I feel there ought to be more, especially to make it more of a NPOV.

All this said, I'm EXTREMELY impressed by how developed this article has come in such a short amount of time. Images and lots of references are especially rare in new articles like this one. I really applaud your effort and think that this article is off to a great start.

What it all boils down to is that I think this is a good article, but it's too new and needs more editors to polish it up and make it more NPOV. Keep up the awesome work! Thunderforge 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reviews and constructive feedback for The KLF song and album articles. Your comments are appreciated. I fully understand and accept your concerns about coverage and stability.
Regarding the comprehensibility, it was nice to be reviewed by someone with no preconceptions of the band or their work. The KLF were, to understate things, a very bizarre duo, with loads of odd recurring themes and a taste for controversy. The KLF main article explains this in depth, but currently its "satellite" articles do not go into the same level of detail. This is, I guess, fair enough, much as a maths article such as Hurwitz's automorphisms theorem does not explain what an automorphism or a group is. In other words, there's a hierarchy. But the specialist maths articles can be found through only a handful of very relevant articles, whereas Justified and Ancient can be reached through Tammy Wynette (for example), which is potentially confusing. So that's is a good point well raised. On top of more detail, those articles need signposts to the deeper explanations in The KLF article. I'm not sure these comments apply to The "What Time Is Love?" Story, however: this is a more specialist article, currently only linked in the prose of "What Time Is Love" (and other than prose, only in The KLF discography and in album chronology infoboxes).
The non-neutrality I also accept, though less willingly, because in creating the articles we've been making use of an excellent on-line archive of media articles. The quotes that we've used are representative of the articles from which they're drawn, and the spread of quotes represents more or less everything of relevance from the archive. But because of The KLF's anarchic and provocative ways (frequently trying to subvert the music industry), they enjoyed a mainly favourable reaction from the music press to most of their work. And the music press are not the public at large. The articles will benefit from this being pointed out.
I've added these musings to the User talk:Thunderforge page. Do you mind if we return for your opinions prior to resubmission?
Thanks again for valuable and thought-provoking feedback. :-) --Vinoir 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with several of these objections. In particular, I strongly disagree with the statement that it reads like an advert. Of course we are enthusiasts - not many people write about music they think is shit - but as Vinoir said, we use all reviews we can find, good or bad. I will, however, go through them with a fine tooth comb to ensure that any hyperbole is justified and anything contentious gets an opposing view (neutral point of view not neutered, that's my goal). The "problem" is that The KLF are media darlings - even the broadsheets love them for their antics. NPOV means report the verifiable facts without fear or favour, and report the opinion and consensus of the published sources. We can't say "well, maybe this song is actually crap" unless NME or Rolling Stone says it is. They don't. In fact, I can tell you I've actually tried to dig out something negative just to get some balance into The KLF article and it was hard! (I have Piers Morgan saying they are "wallies"). Actually, you should take a look at Brilliant (band). Same overall topic, same authors - does that read like a fan eulogy?! I think not :)
Are encyclopedia articles for the layman? I'm not really sure, I guess they are. I can say one thing though, you can't expect to get a full context or understanding from an article about a recording if you don't read the biography of the artist first! Blue links are there for a reason and I think as authors we can at least expect our readers to be forearmed with the knowledge we provide in the artists' main article, even if they knew nothing about the band beforehand. We can't put a potted biography into every KLF article, it would be boring and repetitive for those of our readers who will read every article. Furthermore, The KLF is some 70k long - all the background needed is right there. Again, however, we will check that we aren't using any slang or geeky terminology without explaining it.
Stability: I believe all 3 you rejected (and I don't think it fair you did all 3) have not had any major edits for days. That's because we've finished them, and right now we pretty much are the KLF WikiProject. We'll tweak them, we'll watchlist them, but these were intended to be "version 1.0".
Coverage: Fair enough, we'll have another look at that.
Honestly though, we didn't apply for featured article status. I certainly believe we have good prose - user:Vinoir is an excellent writer and I seem to be pretty good at editing :); I believe we cover the topics thoroughly; we have citations, references, images and audio samples. But, no bother, your criticisms are constructive and food for thought, now let's see if we can make our articles even better. Cheers! --kingboyk 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've renominated this as a good article. User:Thunderforge's concerns have been addressed or countered. Specifically:

  • broadness: additional information in the ==Evolution== section, on the three versions of the song prior to the single release;
  • non-neutrality: the potentially negative effect of collaborations has been added, but no new criticism has been found in Library of Mu; that is, the ===Reviews and reaction=== subsection is unbiased;
  • stability: there is nothing substantial left to add to the article; recent history changes reflect the improvements following the article's prior failed nomination for "good article";
  • newness of article: irrelevant to the quality of the content of the article.

I am inviting Thunderforge back to survey the article. --Vinoir 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's great to see so much work being done to all this article. There's only a few things I wanted to point out and I'm fine with it.
  • The "Inspiration" section seems a bit confusing. You state that they were controversial (and kind of restate it a few more times), but don't specifically say how (you do that in the evolution section). So the flow is a bit strange there.
  • I'm not sure if the "Themes" section is rightly named. It talks about the song's relations to ice cream and archaeological remains. I might put that in inspiration for the song if it really influenced its creation (I don't really know if it did) or just rename the title.
  • I'm okay with the personnel being listed (they are rather important to the song), but as someone who has never heard the song, I don't really have any interest in what formats it has been in, especially since it takes up a large portion of the page. I think that either a better way to present the info (i.e. taking up less space) or removing it altogether is a better use for it. But this is your article and if it is essential to the song, go ahead and leave it
These are my only real concerns about this and I would go ahead and pass it if these were addressed in some way. However, I think it's best to let someone new make the final say since I have contributed to this article to an extent. Good luck! Thunderforge 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"Themes" is correctly named I believe. If any section is dubiously named it's actually the other one you mention, "Inspiration" - which is kind of background info from what I can see. I'm not sure if we need the tracklistings either, but perhaps we should make it clear that the article is not just about the song it is about the single too. That is the justfication for including and it might be useful to somebody (so I'm not taking a position either way on that - what do other articles do?). I'm sorry to say I think you continue to be excessively harsh. I'd invite you to read The KLF main article for essential background information on their career, including many instances of controversy (being sued for copyright infringement, dumping a dead sheep at an industry awards ceremony, burning one million pounds...) --kingboyk 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking back, I think that I did come across as a bit too harsh in my review. I didn't mean to be coming across as a definitive authority and I'm sorry if I did. I've glanced at The KLF and it does seem to fill in some of the blanks that I was missing (I probably should have read that article in the first place). Regardless, I think that this article is alright, but I'd still like someone new to make the final decision. Thunderforge 00:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yikes, I feel bad now for calling you harsh! hehe. Well, anyway, thanks for taking so much time over this. I agree that someone else should take a look now to assess it. --kingboyk 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I completely agree about the new for a new reviewer, and indeed I asked for Thunderforge's opinions to be informally given. Cheers Thunderforge, your contributions are again appreciated. I think it gives a kind of closure that is handy during the renomination process. I'm glad that you have now contextualised "Justified and Ancient" for yourself by reading The KLF article, and concede that you should have probably done this before-hand.
Regarding your new comments, I believe that the ==Themes== section is correctly named, as its content relates to the similarly-named section of The KLF article. However, I agree that ==Origins== is a misleading title, and have renamed this as ==Context==. I agree that the ==Formats and track listings== section is dull, but I think that it is a valid Wikipedia service to provide. The good articles This Charming Man and I Believe in You (Kylie Minogue song) both provide info on formats and track listings (but note that in contrast the good article Bringin' on the Heartbreak does not). I shall try to shorten the section in some way because it seems to occupy a disproportionate amount of "article space". --Vinoir 12:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
PS the guidelines recommend including track listings. --Vinoir 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Top of the Pops (2)[edit]

Can we work in a mention of the TOTP performance (if it's not there already)? I've also located a citeable source saying the ice cream cone costumes were made by the Spitting Image designers[1]. --kingboyk 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief mention, but it can definitely be expanded. Good spot on the source. --Vinoir 01:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

45[edit]

Apparently Bill said this in 45: "I felt truly ashamed hearing [Tammy Wynette's] voice, the voice of poor white American womanhood, struggling to find some emotional content in our banal,self-referential lyrics." (acc:

People: Johnson, Holly
Author(s): Laurence Phelan
Section: Features
Publication title: The Independent. London (UK): Feb 27, 2000.  pg. 53

). Can you find the quote Vinoir (if not, we can just cite the newspaper) and think about how to slot it in? I think that ideally it should be the "last word". After, to an extent, bigging up the song it would be quite cool to end with these words of shame don't you think? --kingboyk 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely: I was aware of these quotes and was going to wait until we reached the article in our chronology. Not only the above, but also that she couldn't keep in time during the recording sessions and they had to extensively "stretch" and "re-sync" her voice back at Trancentral with a bit of kit that Jimmy had just bought. According to the book. Hey, you've struck gold with your latest searches though. --Vinoir 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found an article (in the RAR file I sent you) written by Bill which includes all the above. I can only assume it's a reprint of the 45 chapter or the chapter is a reprint of this. However, to be sure we don't lose anything valuable I'll leave this one to you, please make sure you check it! The file is called "Portrait_ The day Tammy said `Is that you, honey_' Tammy Wynette was the first lady of country music. Bill Drummond recalls his trip to Nashville to persuade her to sing on his record.html". (The Guardian. Manchester (UK): Apr 9, 1998. pg. T.008). --kingboyk 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

90 from the 90s[edit]

(In your RAR file, Vinoir). I've added this reference but I'll leave it to you to decide whether to keep it or not. 50/50 for me. --kingboyk 14:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I was at a 90s night yesterday and the DJ had no KLF. I was unimpressed but unsurprised. -Vinoir 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?[edit]

in case you're wondering what the Did you know? entry was and you don't want to trawl back through hundreds of pages of the Did you know? archive (like I did) ...

cheers Drstuey 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Source for the lyrics[edit]

The reference for the lyrics was removed[2]; when I tried to put it back I wasn't able because the site in question is blocked by the spam filter. That's evidence enough that we shouldn't be referencing it I suppose :) Still, I'd prefer the lyrics to have a citation - any suggestions as to how to proceed? --kingboyk 10:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Upsetting the apple-cart[edit]

The cited lyrics ("we don't want to upset the apple-cart") appear to be not from this song but from another KLF track, "Hey Hey We Are Not The Monkees". 86.131.89.199 08:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The next section makes it clear where the song's origins lie, but I think you might be right that it's not really clear when we quote the lyrics. Thanks for the pointer. --kingboyk 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Justified and Ancient/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is undergoing a Good Article Reassessment as part of the Good Article sweeps. Looking through the article, I had a few concerns:

  1. Verifiability - Much of the article lacks references, including the entire "Context" section, the entire "Evolution" section (can a link or reference to a print source be provided for the "Hey Hey We Are Not The Monkees" lyrics?), the first three paragraphs of the "The single" section, and the last two paragraphs of the "Themes" section. There is also a "citation needed" tag in the lead. Links or page numbers should also be provided for references 5 ("Tammy lays blame on KLF" in The Sun) and 11 ("'Justified and Ancient' review" in Melody Maker).
  2. Images/Sound clips - Wikipedia's standards have gotten higher since these were originally added. They should have detailed fair use templates (see [3]).
  3. Neutrality - There are a few places in which opinions are given. They should either state the facts directly or provide quotations. Examples include: "the provocative and abrasive lyrics" and "the song has a soft and innocuous tune, and quaint lyrics". Weasel words are also present, including "Commentators were suspicious", "Other commentators", and "Some research suggests".

I will place this reassessment on hold for one week to allow for these concerns to be addressed. If this can be completed within seven days, I will continue with an examination of the prose. If not, the article will be delisted. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No progress has been made, so I am delisting the article. I encourage interested editors to fix the problems listed above, do a copyedit, and resubmit it to WP:GAN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was} do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Justified and AncientJustified & Ancient — The title of this record is clearly Justified _ampersand_ Ancient (Justified & Ancient) as the image shows. The page title is currently the only piece of the page that does not reflect this. Wikkitywack (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose The Manual of Style deprecates use of the ampersand in page titles. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments: Wikkitywack (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Justified and AncientJustified & Ancient — The title is clearly "Justified ampersand Ancient" ("Justified & Ancient") as the image shows (check Google Images to see it on the back cover as well). This is actually a repost, this time with ammunition from WP:MOS (apparently, it wasn't self-evident to the arbiter who agreed that "The Manual of Style deprecates (?) use of the ampersand in page titles"). So here it is, from the Wikipedia Manual of Style itself (under "Article Titles"): "use and instead of an ampersand (&), unless the ampersand is an accepted part of a name (Emerson, Lake & Palmer)" (emphasis mine). I think this page title is clearly an exception along these lines. Wikkitywack (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Beyond the fact that a move request for this article was considered less than a month ago, there appears to be no shortage of usage without the ampersand. Spin Magazine[4][5], The Guiness Book[6][7], The Rolling stone encyclopedia of rock & roll‎[8] and no less than 85 other reliable sources (derived from google books)[9] chose not to use the ampersand. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Further Comment on Support: First of all, I disagree that the move request was "considered" a month ago since no consensus was reached and no explanation given for denial of move. Secondly, this has nothing to do with my arguments and is an apparent attempt to distract from them. As to the supposed "consensus" on the Internet – since when is Wikipedia about catering to the whims of secondary review/news articles? We must consider the source first and foremost. All else is secondary. Sometimes this is tricky (see: How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul???) However, in this case, we have irrevocable visual proof that the record title is "Justified & Ancient" (the back cover confirms this – type in "Justified & Ancient" in Google Images and see for yourself). Wikkitywack (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the image. The name, as it appears on the album single is largely irrelevant. Wikipedia regularly reformats the style of article titles, no matter the wishes of artists, trademark owner or otherwise. I have a long list of reliable sources that use "and" instead of ampersand. In fact, 6 times as many reliable sources (as found in google books) use "and" instead of an ampersand.[10][11] My view is simply that the ampersand is not the most popular usage amongst reliable sources and a single image isn't going to convince me to think otherwise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikkitywack's arguments. -- Europe22 (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I'm for strict application of WP:MOSTM but an ampersand isn't a decorative device—it's a widely used English written and typographical abbreviation that can be left alone in titles. The ampersand title appears on various formats of the single. However, note that on the White Room CD, the title appears thrice without and ampersand, i.e. with "and". (jewel case label[12], booklet, and the CD itself) — AjaxSmack 01:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point about the White Room version. This is actually a very different song, featuring a different vocalist and more subdued production. The single - which is the subject of this page - is the "Stand by the JAMS" version featuring Tammy Wynette and a lot of other dance-y adornments and, as far as I know, has always been written with an "&" as the graphic shows... Wikkitywack (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That's why I support a move. — AjaxSmack 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Justified & Ancient. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justified & Ancient. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)